Eileen Kowall,
Neil Carpenter recently shared an email that he received from you regarding MCL 750.227 and potentially rewriting the current law to allow any law abiding person to possess a firearm in the passenger compartment of their vehicle, I've included that email below. I was the one that was with Neil the day he presented this issue to you in the Coney Island restaurant, I do certainly appreciate you working with Neil on this and seeing what options are available. That being said I would like to address a few things from your email to Neil that I felt were a little disturbing, things that seem to come up anytime there is talk about repealing a firearm law.
First, the assumption that if we allow any law abiding citizen who lawfully possess their firearm in accordance with the law to possess a firearm in their vehicle without a CPL that there will be groups of "hoodlums" all of a sudden carrying firearms in their vehicle and looking for trouble. The issue I have with that is these "hoodlums" of which there is concern about are already carrying a firearm in their vehicles and looking for trouble. Watching the news will back up this point, almost every day there is a story about a "Drive-by" shooting that happened in some urban neighborhood, we already have laws in place, case and point MCL 750.227, yet these individuals still carry their firearms in the car, without a CPL, violating the laws that are already on record in the State. However the concern that was voiced is that if we allow people to possess guns they will start doing this? I hope you can see what I'm getting to, even though the law states that possession of a firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle by persons without a CPL is a felony this law is broken every day by criminals and "hoodlums." Instead of taking the stance of "you would allow a group of hoodlums who are looking for trouble the ability to carry in their car" I would challenge you to find a law that currently prevents them from doing it any ways. See the problem with a statement like the one you made in your email to Neil is that you are first assuming that these "hoodlums" are not only obeying the law, but know what the law says to begin with. Unfortunately the individuals who do carry a firearm in their vehicles without a CPL that are looking for trouble typically do not know the law until they are being told what crimes they are being charged with.
Second, I would also challenge the claim that there would suddenly be an officer safety issue, there are a fair number of states in this country that allow non licensed carry in a vehicle while at the same time not requiring disclosure or making disclosure mandatory only if an officer asks if you are possessing any firearms. However statistics will show that officers in these states are at no more of a risk than officers in states where disclosure is mandatory upon being stopped by a police officer, such as our state. In fact, in our state where disclosure is mandatory there is no evidence that requiring immediate disclosure has actually save the lives of any officer. You would also have to assume that persons carrying a gun will disclose to the police officers that they have in their possession a firearm. When discussing this you also have to keep in mind that if a criminal is in possession of a gun that gun is more than likely illegal and the criminal is probably barred from possessing a firearm anyways, in this situation a criminal in possession of a gun they arent suppose to have is not going to alert police that they have a gun. Also if a person has any bad intentions with a firearm upon being stopped by police that person is not going to alert the police officer that they have a gun, if they plan to shoot the officer they will simply start shooting without saying anything. I would ask that you take a moment to consider this, the only people that will alert an officer that they are in possession of a firearm are the law abiding citizens that have nothing to hide, the same people that would not commit and act of violence against that officer. The revision of MCL 750.227 that we proposed did require immediate disclosure to a police officer upon being stopped while in the vehicle, with or without a CPL, therefore the issue of "officer safety" and disclosure has been addressed.
I would also like to address what you mentioned about a CPL being fairly simple to obtain, that is in fact the complete opposite of the truth, Michigan has the longest list of CPL disqualifications in the country when compared to other states that issue similar licenses. I would ask that you take a moment to read what criminal history disqualifies a Michigan resident from obtaining a CPL, the majority of which are not violent, nor firearm related. From the Michigan State Police web site:
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html. This also doesnt address persons under 21 years of age, persons under 21 years of age in Michigan can purchase a firearm, MCL 28.422, and as long as that possession is lawful that person can carry that firearm openly. However these law abiding citizens as well are left defenseless while in their vehicle simply because they are not yet 21 years of age. Is it right to prevent them from being able to carry in a vehicle also, simply because of their age? Are they not afforded the same means to self defense?
I would also like you to not look at this issue from a politicians stand point or a CPL holders stand point, but look at this from the stand point of someone who simply wishes to protect themselves while in their vehicle. Recently in Detroit a women was shot at by "hoodlums" that were armed with rifles and wanted to take this womans vehicle, she, luckily enough, was a CPL holder and was armed and even after being shot in her hand she was able to draw her firearm and make the "hoodlums" retreat under the threat of being shot in return. To bring home my point and why I'm so vested in this issue, if that was Neil or myself, or one of the other millions of people in Michigan who cannot afford a CPL or do not qualify for a CPL because of the extensive list of disqualifications, we may have perhaps lost our life because our politicians left us with no means to protect ourselves unless we received permission from the government to carry in our private vehicle by receiving a CPL. If you would like to read the news story you can find it here:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ers/-/1719418/16286410/-/106i4mj/-/index.html. The Michigan constitution says that "Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of himself and the state." With the only apparent exception being if someone like myself, or Neil, or one of the other millions of residents in Michigan who cannot obtain a CPL for one reason or another wants to carry in their vehicle, simply for their protection from possible crimes like I stated above. Are we not afforded the same basic right to self defense which every person is entitled to simply because we cannot receive a CPL? As otherwise law abiding individuals it is not right to keep our basic right to self defense away from us at the threat of a felony charge.
At what point do we as people start putting our personal safety above an unjust and unconstitutional law? To protect ourselves, the innocent, law abiding people of Michigan who do not and cannot obtain a CPL have two choices, either be unarmed and defenseless and at the mercy of a potential attacker or risk receiving a felony charge and receive a 5 year prison sentence with hefty fines to go along with it. And why? Because we chose that, in todays society, having a way to defend yourself is absolutely necessary. So I would have to ask, which is a better solution for the people you represent, fighting for a way for them to protect themselves so they have a means to protect their life if they are ever in a position like the woman I mentioned above or continue to support laws that would leave them helpless against an attack?
I sincerely appreciate your time, especially given the length of this email and look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you,
Yance