• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The new 750.227

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Try this version, it's simpler (changes in red, you'll have to find the deleted stuff yourself.):

Sec. 227.
(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non folding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person, or in, or on a vehicle owned, or operated by that person. This section shall not apply to any person who has a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by this state, or any other state.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol, or any other weapon concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, or in, or on a vehicle owned, or operated by that person without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00.
You would need a CPL for this, if Im reading it right. Im trying to get car carry without a CPL. I doubt they would drop a felony for a civil infraction, they would lose too much money and power. Those are the two sustaining reasons for their existence.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I agree. Any new law in Michigan that will allow possession of a loaded weapon in the car without CPL must cover any vehicle that person drives regardless of ownership status of the vehicle as relates to the person who drives such vehicle.
If this starts moving, then we are all free to voice those concerns to your rep, a committee, etc, and I would encourage people do do that.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,440
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
If this starts moving, then we are all free to voice those concerns to your rep, a committee, etc, and I would encourage people do do that.
See, this all goes back to the idea of presenting a strong bill first. You've already weakened it before we have a chance to make our calls. If most states allow OC in ANY vehicle, let's start there. Let some anti make the suggestion it be limited to the owners vehicle only.

Same with disclosure. Most states don't have disclosure. We do, and you want to make it worse. Let the anti's try to make it worse. Don't do their dirty work for them.
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,047
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
@1911 & Scot623

A good template or example might be Arizona. They allow open or discreet (concealed without stigma) carry in a vehicle without a cpl. AZ is not perfect - but they have much more free gun laws on the books and their gun crime stats are much lower. It might be useful to point out to MI law makers that over two years ago when AZ become a Constitutional carry state the anti's claimed it would rain blood in the streets. Guess what, crime is down in AZ :D

PS - In AZ disclosure is only required if the officer asks you if you are carrying. Have a relative that works for DPS (AZ state troopers equivalent).

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,047
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Hey, do you still have that census stuff around? If so, I'd like to have it.
I have it somewhere on a pc HD. I'm using a tablet at the moment. I will send it via PM if I can find it. Or you could search the thread on sb59 where it was posted if my (broken memory bank) is not fooling me. :p

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
Before 2004 it was a CCW concealed weapon, they changed it to limit your rights. I carried other than pistols and nothing was said back then. Now I can't.... A lost right, well privilege in reality since we need to beg to carry anything.


Psychological reasons?



Stipulating that a license that doesn't exist allows folks to carry weapons doesn't help since, without the license (that doesn't exist) folks won't be able to carry weapons anyway.

I applaud your and Yance's efforts......... I'm merely pointing out that the wording "licensed to carry a concealed weapon" won't work because there isn't such a license available in Michigan.

Edited to add:
Neil... please.. for the sake of clarity... use the "quote" feature????
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
Disclosure is a disastrous and insane law. It takes my rights and does NOTHING to protect an officer as legal carry people are never the problem, it is the criminal that is the one who shoots officers. Criminals don't obey laws. The disclosure stupidity can actually cause officers to be complacent and eventually a real criminal will take advantage of that complacency created by disclosure.


See, this all goes back to the idea of presenting a strong bill first. You've already weakened it before we have a chance to make our calls. If most states allow OC in ANY vehicle, let's start there. Let some anti make the suggestion it be limited to the owners vehicle only.

Same with disclosure. Most states don't have disclosure. We do, and you want to make it worse. Let the anti's try to make it worse. Don't do their dirty work for them.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,844
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
Before 2004 it was a CCW concealed weapon, they changed it to limit your rights. I carried other than pistols and nothing was said back then. Now I can't.... A lost right, well privilege in reality since we need to beg to carry anything.
Funny all my dads previous licences way before 2004 say cpl as does the previous law. Please cite evidence that it ever was a true ccw licence in MI as I find no evidence that you are correct.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Disclosure is a disastrous and insane law. It takes my rights and does NOTHING to protect an officer as legal carry people are never the problem, it is the criminal that is the one who shoots officers. Criminals don't obey laws. The disclosure stupidity can actually cause officers to be complacent and eventually a real criminal will take advantage of that complacency created by disclosure.

I know. Its the cost of doing business within the system.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I understand what people are saying regarding the "licensed to carry a concealed weapon" provision but, as a person who took a quick read of the proposed bill before it was given, I feel it is important to explain why I did not find issue with the bill as written. Although I would not have written it as Stainless1911 and Yance did, I do see their "logic". The use of "licensed to carry a concealed weapon" is a set, of which a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) is a member. By stating "licensed to carry a concealed weapon", the subset of a CPL is included.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,157
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
You would need a CPL for this, if Im reading it right.
You're not, read it again. It is stating that you cannot do "X" EXCEPT in/on "Y" without a CPL. Atlhough I believe there should be another comma after the added, red emphasized "or operated by that person." It's just adding a vehicle that is owned or operated by a person to the list of places you can carry a concealed pistol without a CPL.

(2) A person shall not carry a pistol, or any other weapon concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, or in, or on a vehicle owned, or operated by that person without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of not more than $500.00.
Bronson
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,948
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Input needed.

I received an email from Eileen today.

Hi Neil,

First, thank you for sharing your proposed language with me. I really appreciate the considered feedback I always get from you, and the substantive proposal you put forth enabled me to get good opinions and discussion from law enforcement and the Attorney General’s office on the issue.

Before I get into the details, I just want to let you know that with the current legislative session almost over, the deadline for introducing new bills has passed. Because of this, I’m unfortunately not going to be able to introduce any bill on this matter until next year.

And while I’m receptive to this issue, there are a few issues that would need to be addressed also before moving forward with legislation. First, there’s concern from a public safety standpoint in that by treating a vehicle as an extension of one’s home, you would allow a group of hoodlums looking for trouble the ability to carry guns in the car legally, so long as they were registered to a non-felon in the vehicle. The AG shared this concern with me.

This ties into a second issue that was brought up in discussions with law enforcement—it would create an officer safety issue. As you know as someone who has taken the class, one does get some essential knowledge about gun safety when going through the pistol safety class that’s required for CPL applicants. Allowing people to drive without a permit does then create more uncertainty in run-ins with the police, and I have been told that law enforcement needs some reassurance this would not be an issue.

Also, there are a number of exceptions to the licensing requirement when using a gun in a vehicle that you’re well aware of, such as going to a gun range, moving, etc. Because of this, I have also been told that the AG is worried about supporting such a change, especially when securing a CPL in Michigan is still fairly easy.

I also understand that many other states have laws on the books similar to what you propose, but I also wonder if that is because their demographics are different than ours. In states like ours (ones with many urban areas--Illinois, Ohio, New York, to name a few) they have similar laws on the books. This is definitely something that we need to look into more.

Sincerely,

Eileen
 
Top