Potential legalization of tasers in MI - Amendment of CPL law

[Evil Creamsicle]

Just found these... a couple bills floating through state legislature that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.

 

[DrTodd]

Just found these... a couple bills floating through congress that would legalize tasers for non-police use, for CPL holders only [for some odd reason]

SB0029, amending MCL 750.224a which is the act regulating taser sale and possession, and SB0030, which would amend 1927 PA 372 (by amending specifically MCL 28.425f,
28.425k, and 28.425o), including a CPL disclosure requirement for your taser.

I think you mean "state legislature" rather than "congress"...

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

I think you mean "state legislature" rather than "congress"...

I posted that at a time of day that I should not have been awake. Apologies, yes, I did mean state legislature.

 

[DrTodd]

I posted that at a time of day that I should not have been awake. Apologies, yes, I did mean state legislature.

Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.

I wonder if passing this with the wording you point out could have some impact on handgun OC legislation in the future... we should keep an eye on this bill to make sure they don't try and add that language.

 

[stainless1911]

Why would it? Whats on your mind here?

 

[xmanhockey7]

We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[ElectricianLU58]

i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

 

[budlight]

Oh, I was just teasing you... I knew what you meant. I notice in the law a CPL holder needs to notify if in possession, which means open or concealed... and the victim zones are also applicable just like carrying concealed, even if it is carried openly. No thanks, the negatives outweigh the positives.

Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

Why would it? Whats on your mind here?

Nothing may come of it. I am merely saying it merits paying attention to.

Maybe I misread something. The way I took it the only changes applied to Tazers, not firearms.

True... just speaking based on the 'slippery slope' philosophy. If the wrong language gets used and passed with tasers, it may embolden certain types to try and do something similar with the wording for firearms, under the guise of making the law 'uniform' or some such nonsense. As I said to stainless, nothing may come of it, just making observations.

i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

I agree. I have no reason to want a taser at this time for the same reason. I am only discussing the potential effects of the law.

 

[DrTodd]

We already had a guy in Michigan get off on taser charges because it was in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.

 

[HKcarrier]

i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

I don't think they are going to legalize the "shooting" type tasers... only the contact type... therefore, range could be a real issue... but yeah, I think it's a valid concern.

 

[xmanhockey7]

Only because there was no provision in the law for a person to possess one; they were totally prohibited. This issue was an exact duplicate of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) except DC's prohibition concerned handguns and Michigan's concerned tasers. If this passes, there will be a legal way to possess one in Michigan. Therefore, based upon recent lower court cases, relying on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) won't get anyone very far.

Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?

 

[DrTodd]

Have we had more than one lower court decision where people have gotten off on taser charges?

Not that I am aware of. My point is that if they are allowed in any manner, as would be the case under this legislation, then the argument that the Michigan taser law violates the right to keep and bear arms won't go very far... as there is no longer a blanket prohibition. In the case that was mentioned, Michigan's taser prohibition was found to be unconstitutional vis a vis DC v Heller.

 

[Super Trucker]

i would never carry a tazer. i would never want to be asked in court "why did you shoot when you could have tazed?...", or something to that effect.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since the piss poor company that makes the electrical unit, thinks I am smart only enough to have a 15' safe zone and the person threating my life was 16' I had to use other means of stopping the threat.

Dead battery, thick clothing, etc.

 

[DrTodd]

ladies and gentlemen of the jury, since the piss poor company that makes the electrical unit, thinks i am smart only enough to have a 15' safe zone and the person threating my life was 16' i had to use other means of stopping the threat.

Dead battery, thick clothing, etc.

lol