The new 750.227

[Get2DahChopper]

We need to come up with something better than, "Criminals are gonna do it anyway".

Maybe ask them how costitutional carry states are handling these "perceived" issues? To my knowledge they are non issues. AZ = any law abiding citizen 21 or older may carry a weapon on their person open/concealed in a vehicle. Disclosure is only required if a officer asks. Yet no up tick in "hoodlums" shooting up the hood. Gun crime has gone down if I read the latest AZ stats correctly, yet MI is increasing? Her and their "logic" is flawed.

 

[stainless1911]

If they were against it, based on these things, then their logic would be indeed flawed. However, they have expressed concern, and are open to input, this is an opportunity, let's handle it right. Your suggestion is a good one.

 

[stainless1911]

"If you're law abiding enough to even be aware of this law, or changes to it, then you are not a threat to law enforcement".

The concern law enforcement is having about this is why the disclosure clause was added. I don't like disclosure as I have said before, but I think that including it is the wisest course of action at this time.

 

[HOLD 'EM]

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

I agree. Any law abiding citizen in Michigan can get a CPL. It is only those with criminal records that a law change like this would accommodate.

I think this politician has gone out of her way to attempt to promote this kind of legislation. But it isn't going to go anywhere because it isn't something that the mainstream gunowners see as necessary.

Thankls though for trying to help that select few that can't get a CPL.

 

[stainless1911]

On the contrary, there are 9 million plus citizens in the state of Michigan. Of those, less criminals, those under 18, and a few others, there are 7 million or so law abiding citizens remaining. There are on the other hand, only 320,000 or so CPL holders in this state. There is a staggeringly more significant number of citizens that this right affects opposed to the reletavely small number of CPL holders and criminals combined.

You are also forgetting that this opens up the rest of the non gun owning population who would prefer to carry a knife for either self preservation, or as a practicality.

It also covers the tens of thousands of hunters that have rifles in their vehicles during the hunting seasons, who are unwittingly breaking 750.234d gun free zones as they travel about the state.

 

[Bronson]

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.

"their demographics are different than ours" = black people in politi-speak.

It would appear that the ugly racist head of gun control has once again reared up to spray us with it's vile venom.

Bronson

 

[stainless1911]

Yup

 

[HKcarrier]

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.

Makes sense... let's deny the 99.9999% of people the right to self defense over "concerns" of a hypothetical situation that is going to be the extreme minority anyways. Sounds patriotic.

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.

I know it's reality, but frankly it's horse squeeze that we have to get our laws "okayed" by cops. Statistically, over and over, cops don't have nearly as dangerous of a job as they'd like you to believe. Officer safety, yes.... but what about the "rest of us safety"?

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

In RED

I also agree with points made below regarding other states and their lack of increase of the gang banger stuff she's referring to. It's nice that she seems receptive.

 

[HOLD 'EM]

I don't see any need for disclosure. In Florida a person can have a loaded gun without a permit in the car and not disclose.

 

[Yance]

I agree. Any law abiding citizen in Michigan can get a CPL. It is only those with criminal records that a law change like this would accommodate.

I think this politician has gone out of her way to attempt to promote this kind of legislation. But it isn't going to go anywhere because it isn't something that the mainstream gunowners see as necessary.

Thankls though for trying to help that select few that can't get a CPL.

Trust me, its not THAT easy for the law abiding in michigan to get a CPL, we have the longest list of disqualification in the nation compared to those states that offer some form of carry license, and most of our disqualifications have nothing to do with firearms or real criminal acts.

This is something that we NEED gun owners to get behind, the thought of "just get a cpl" is what got us in this situation. This isnt about getting a CPL, its about allowing people who cant afford a CPL or dont qualify for it because of some ridiculous misdemeanor to be able to protect themselves.

Stainless whats eileens email, I would like to respond to her email.

 

[Venator]

They are using the same ilogical argument they used with shall issue. Yes almost all other states allow it but by gum, we here in Michigan are different. Yep we is special so that won't work here. Bulllllshiiiittttt

 

[MKEgal]

by gum, we here in Michigan are different. Yep we is special so that won't work here.

That's pretty standard for anti's anywhere, when opposing a common-sense change to gun-related laws.

 

[HOLD 'EM]

Stainless whats eileens email, I would like to respond to her email.

So do I!

 

[TheQ]

EileenKowall@house.mi.gov

 

[OC4me]

Just sent this to Eileen:

Hi Eileen,

It has come to my attention that you are working on a revision to MCL 750.227. I think that the entire statute ought to be repealed outright. Let me explain how this unconstitutional legislation personally affects my family with respect to vehicle carry!

As a law-abiding expatriate American Citizen I am faced with a permanent, complete and total ban on self-defense carry of a sidearm while visiting relatives in my former home State of Michigan. As you know, the right to carry arms for self-defense is explicitly protected under the Michigan Constitution as well as held to be a fundamental Right under the Bill of Rights. The Heller and McDonald decisions firmly held that a total prohibition on the Right could not pass any level of judicial scrutiny. Fourteenth Amendment case law fully supports the fact that Fundamental Rights are to be enjoyed by all United States Citizens regardless of geography.

In Michigan, there is just such a total ban on self-defense carry in a vehicle. No U.S. Citizen living abroad nor any legal resident of Vermont, Illinois as well as millions of other law-abiding American's living in highly discretionary may-issue states are able to obtain the requisite concealed carry license demanded by current Michigan law. Hence they are totally barred from protecting themselves and their loved ones from car-jackings and other violent crimes that may occur as they travel throughout Michigan.

Given the fact that there are probably a great many American residents living in Canada who frequent Michigan it seems quite remarkable that Michigan law impermissibly mandates that all such Citizens first obtain an impossible to get concealed carry permit from their 'home' state of residence. Americans who live outside the United States for more than 6 months legally cannot claim 'residency' in any state, even if they declare a State of domicle, own property and are registered to vote there. In my research, I could not find a single state that defined residency in such a liberal way so as to include individuals who are not physically present within the state borders for at least 6 months of the year in which they wish to claim residency. Residency law is extremely complicated and it should not ever form the basis upon which the free exercise or denial of an enumerated Right hinges.

Even if Citizens were allowed to carry with a permit issued by a different State, as a United States Citizen living abroad, I am particularly affected as it is impractical, if not impossible to 'qualify' for a state-side carry permit (think how hard it would be to take a training class let alone satisfy finger-printing requirements overseas).

I was born and raised in Michigan and I am hopeful that my birth State sees fit to correct the obvious injustices that have been inadvertently built-into the current firearms statutes.

I welcome any questions and comments you may have going forward with your good work on overhauling Michigan law to bring it into compliance with both the State and Federal Constitutions. The obvious fix would be to repeal entirely the permit requirement as it is unworkable for the reasons cited above. There is also no justifiable reason why Michigan residents themselves should have to comply with such time-consuming, expensive and onerous 'licensing' requirements that serve no purpose other than to interfere with the free exercise of a plainly guarranteed right.

Feel free to correspond with me by email should you have any questions. You are also encouraged to share my personal account here as an example of how current Michigan law adversely impacts the fundamental rights of a large group of law-abiding Citizens.

Thank you,

The Bennett Family
David, Nan, Le'Bua & Benjamin
Udonthani City, Thailand

 

[griffin]

"their demographics are different than ours" = black people

It would appear that the ugly racist head of gun control has once again reared up to spray us with it's vile venom.

That's exactly what I thought when I read that.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

"their demographics are different than ours" = black people in politi-speak.

It would appear that the ugly racist head of gun control has once again reared up to spray us with it's vile venom.

Bronson

i sadly concur. what else would that mean?

 

[TheQ]

i sadly concur. what else would that mean?

Population density, income, crime stats

 

[stainless1911]

Trust me, its not THAT easy for the law abiding in michigan to get a CPL, we have the longest list of disqualification in the nation compared to those states that offer some form of carry license, and most of our disqualifications have nothing to do with firearms or real criminal acts.

This is something that we NEED gun owners to get behind, the thought of "just get a cpl" is what got us in this situation. This isnt about getting a CPL, its about allowing people who cant afford a CPL or dont qualify for it because of some ridiculous misdemeanor to be able to protect themselves.

Stainless whats eileens email, I would like to respond to her email.

TheQ got it.

Thanks OCforMe.

I will be putting together a letter for her as well. I hope others follow suit. I did explain how my CPL was revoked, so she has been made aware of my personal reasons for wanting this passed.

Eileen meets with people on the first Monday of the month if you would like to speak with her in person on this issue, her information is available online.

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

I agree. Any law abiding citizen in Michigan can get a CPL. It is only those with criminal records that a law change like this would accommodate.

I think this politician has gone out of her way to attempt to promote this kind of legislation. But it isn't going to go anywhere because it isn't something that the mainstream gunowners see as necessary.

Thankls though for trying to help that select few that can't get a CPL.

The license costs $105
The class costs $125-$150 on average
The passport photo is $5-$15
Some sheriffs offices charge for fingerprints between $15-$45
In total you may have to spend $315 or so for a license.

Not everyone can afford $315.

There is also the issue of having to take the class, go get fingerprinted, have your photo taken, go to the clerks office to apply, and in some counties having to go to the clerks office to pick up your license, and if you have to go in front of the gun board having to do that to, some people can not fit that stuff all in to their schedules, and may have to take off time from work to do it.

Then their are those people who are applying for the license, but don't want to be defenseless while waiting for the county, which in some cases can take more that half a year.

You also have the people who are between 18, and 20 years old who are not old enough to get the license, which you need to be 21 for.

Then there are those who simply refuse to get a government permission slip for a right.

A criminal by the way is going to carry anyway despite what the law says.