Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
The day we get that across to lawmakers, we stand a real chance of Constitutional carry. With my luck, I'll be long dead if it happens.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter stainless1911
- Start date
scot623
Regular Member
I understand that, and it is a valid point to make. I just felt Yance implied regular people will ignore this law if it isn't changed.
stainless1911
Banned
The day we get that across to lawmakers, we stand a real chance of Constitutional carry. With my luck, I'll be long dead if it happens.
I have to admit, when I first read her letter, i had to take a minute to get my palm unstuck from my forehead. I keep thinking, "This is who is running the state?!? No wonder".
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
So did I. One of the things that get me into trouble around here is that I feel that breaking an oath is much worse than breaking a law that is unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law, and given the choice , I'll default to the greater law every time.
scot623
Regular Member
But the sooner you realize there will always..ALWAYS!!! be restrictions placed on firearms(whether or not it is Constitutional), the lower your blood pressure will be. It is absolutely inconceivable that in modern day America, all of the sudden the masses, the Politicians and the Supreme Court will have a moment of clarity and rescind all the firearm laws. We must do our best to limit the restrictions. Constantly beating your chest saying "shall not be infringed meanS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DAMN IT!!!" will get you no where. Use you energy in better ways.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
Two things to add.
+1 Rob.
The "hoodlums" are generally under 21 to begin with.
There is a guy on MGO being charged with a felony CCW because his CPL was suspended, they didn't notify him. This would eliminate that sort of stressful and expensive BS.
+1 Rob.
The "hoodlums" are generally under 21 to begin with.
There is a guy on MGO being charged with a felony CCW because his CPL was suspended, they didn't notify him. This would eliminate that sort of stressful and expensive BS.
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
My guess is he moved since he got his CPL and didn't notify the gun board of his new address. They probably sent the suspension notice to his old address. I've seen this happen in a few cases.
stainless1911
Banned
I cant recall the cite, but I seem to remember reading that until you have been given notice, your CPL is still valid. If I can remember the MCL I'll be sure to post it.
stainless1911
Banned
I found it
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(v4...l-28-428&query=on&highlight=CPL AND suspended
28.428 Revocation of licenses; grounds; hearing; suspension; order; notice.
(7) A suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section is immediately effective. However, an individual is not criminally liable for violating the order or amended order unless he or she has received notice of the order or amended order.
(8) If an individual is carrying a pistol in violation of a suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section but has not previously received notice of the order or amended order, the individual shall be informed of the order or amended order and be given an opportunity to properly store the pistol or otherwise comply with the order or amended order before an arrest is made for carrying the pistol in violation of this act.
(9) If a law enforcement agency or officer notifies an individual of a suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section who has not previously received notice of the order or amended order, the law enforcement agency or officer shall enter a statement into the law enforcement information network that the individual has received notice of the order or amended order under this section.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(v4...l-28-428&query=on&highlight=CPL AND suspended
28.428 Revocation of licenses; grounds; hearing; suspension; order; notice.
(7) A suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section is immediately effective. However, an individual is not criminally liable for violating the order or amended order unless he or she has received notice of the order or amended order.
(8) If an individual is carrying a pistol in violation of a suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section but has not previously received notice of the order or amended order, the individual shall be informed of the order or amended order and be given an opportunity to properly store the pistol or otherwise comply with the order or amended order before an arrest is made for carrying the pistol in violation of this act.
(9) If a law enforcement agency or officer notifies an individual of a suspension or revocation order or amended order issued under this section who has not previously received notice of the order or amended order, the law enforcement agency or officer shall enter a statement into the law enforcement information network that the individual has received notice of the order or amended order under this section.
Last edited:
Get2DahChopper
Regular Member
Good point. However under current MI law there is no requirement for a gun board to send a notice in any trackable form: certified, delivery conf., etc. This puts all the burden on the citizen to prove they did not receive notice. Does that seem fair? Some clerk has a bad day and drops a notice behind a file cabinet and someones freedom hangs in the balance? Gun boards are staffed by humans who can and do make mistakes. The current system is full of gaps which can and do cost not only those guilty of some offense their right to conceal, but innocents also. If you are not notified, you will most likely continue to carry. This then opens up one to felony charges? Come on > I can track a package of socks half way around the world and see who signed for them, but a gun board cannot send a certfied notice, really?:banghead:
stainless1911
Banned
My letter sent tonight. 9/23
Hello Eileen,
I have been busy the last few days, otherwise I would have gotten back with you on this sooner. Getting a law passed that would re establish our ability to defend ourselves in our vehicles is a top priority for me.
You had expressed some concerns about the law change, so I thought it only fair to address those as best I can. The first issue that you brought up was looking at this from a public safety standpoint that the AG brought up, that a group of hoodlums would be able to carry guns in a car. The first thing I thought of, was that the stereotypical hood rat is under the legal age to own a gun to begin with. These types of people are not going to know about or care about the law, and are currently carrying in cars anyhow. This law change is going to have no negative effect on that whatsoever. You can see the proof of that in courtrooms around the state. It is these types of individuals that make me want to carry legally in my car. The new law change would however, give law enforcement another tool to help sort out the criminals from the law abiding, because this change would add a disclosure requirement to each occupant of a vehicle. Something that the current law does not provide. It also requires disclosure of anything that might be considered a deadly weapon, not just pistols.
The second concern that you had mentioned, was that of officer safety. This is specifically why I added a disclosure clause to the statute. To be honest, I caught quite a bit of flack from many people on the gun forums over that, but if CPL holders have to disclose, then why not apply the same standard to everyone else, and for any other type of weapon?
What I am hearing here, are many of the same concerns that were aired prior to passing shall issue. Before people had CPLs there were officer safety concerns brought up, there were concerns about street thugs voiced, and arguments claiming that there would be blood in the streets, yet we have not seen these concerns come to be. The same things are brought up state by state as CPL laws are passed, and every time, there is the same result, a decrease in crime. I feel that the disclosure requirement addresses this question very strongly, giving law enforcement a tool that it currently does not have.
We do not see any of the concerns that were mentioned coming true in any of the states that respect the private property rights of vehicle owners. The majority of states in the nation do recognize that right without issue, even in, if not especially in cities where various demographics come into play. Denying a right to the majority of people because of a minority of miscreants who will do what they do regardless of the laws is only perpetuating the problem.
Many people cannot get a CPL for one reason or another, or simply do not want one. Lack of money is an issue for an increasing number of people, asking the governments permission to exercise a right is a problem for a few. Michigan also has the longest list of prohibitive misdemeanors in the nation, most of which have nothing at all to do with guns. I personally was wrongly charged with a reckless driving, and it cost me my CPL for 8 years! Ridiculous. Getting and keeping a CPL in the state isn't the answer, as many people present it to be. A CPL turns a right into a privelidge. 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. I certainly cannot, it would take me several months to generate that kind of cash. Add to that time taken off work. Even if you can do that, and are eligible, you're stuck waiting on the county for what is usually several months.
You brought up in this letter, and in conversations past, that the CPL training makes people feel better. That's all it really does, it makes people feel better. The CPL training regimen is not something to be taken seriously at all. A couple hours in a range, a couple dozen rounds and you have your certificate. Consider the student for a bit. He/she many times has never shot a gun before, and is likely a little nervous. They are at a range which is a noisy foreign environment for them, along with half a dozen others in the same position. They have their hearing protection on, and there is only enough time for them to pick up on a couple rudimentary points about the weapon and shooting it. The instructors do the very best they can, and so do the students, but they really don't learn anything. We have the evidence in the forum posts and at the range on a regular basis. The students come online saying that the instructor told them this or that, usually some misinformation about the law, and we have to straighten them out. The fundamentals of shooting are taught with a similar level of understanding. It has been said that the three worst places to learn about gun laws are from cops, CPL instructors, and the guy behind the counter at a gun store. lol. I personally try to shoot a couple times a week if I can, and a t the very least, a couple times a month.
It should be noted that the law causes a lot of unnecessary and potentially dangerous gun handling out in the open where people are more likely to freak out and call the police, or opens up a golden opportunity for a thief to try to get your gun.We know of an OCer who died by his own gun because he chased the kid who took it. This gun was loaded and on the guy. Now, you have a situation where someone has an unloaded gun, their back is turned, and the gun is not even on the body.
There is another problem that few people are even aware of that the CPL/transportation laws create. MCL 750.234d Puts most hunters in violation of the law, and violation of this misdemeanor unfairly bars them from even getting a CPL for 8 years. 750.234d is a list of gun free zones, for example, you cannot be on the premises, even in the parking lots of any place that has a liquor license of any kind, regardless of whether they have any alcohol there for sale. This would include many gas stations, Krogers, Meijers etc. Now a hunter who is traveling with his deer rifle pulls off the highway to get gas, or stops by the Kmart for supplies and has no CPL has committed a crime. This is foolishness plain and simple. It, like most gun laws, have nothing to do with preventing or deterring crime.
One thing that comes up on the threads is that the Governor is holding up anything pro gun that comes through Lansing, and from what I have seen the last couple years, it seems to be true. The only thing that seems like it has a chance of passing, is registration repeal. Registration repeal in and of itself is a good thing, but changing the definition of the length of a pistol in the state was simply a back door gun ban. We as gun owners would love to see something substantially in favor of the gun rights of the law abiding citizen.
I had mentioned a Plan B., just in case it becomes impossible to get this passed. I would prefer that this be introduced at the same time, and see which one gains the most traction. In MCL 750.231a, the law dictates how a non CPL holder is required to transport a pistol. The gun must be in a case designed for a firearm, unloaded, and in the trunk of a vehicle. If the vehicle has no trunk, then it must be in a place not easily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. The magazines can remain loaded, and in the gun case, but cannot be placed in the gun.
If we could amend the law, MCL 750.231a, to remove the requirement that the gun be in the trunk of the vehicle, then a person could have access, however somewhat delayed, by having the unloaded and cased firearm in the passenger compartment. In a potentially dangerous situation, the person could at least have a chance of getting to the gun to save his or her own life and possibly the lives of their families. Being able to case and unload and vice versa in the privacy of your own car also lessens the possibility of attack or negligent discharge that I had mentioned previously. As it is now, I have to do this silly balancing act to remain in compliance with the law. Since the law says that the gun cannot be in or on a vehicle, technically, if I reach into my trunk to set the gun in the gun case and shut that case, I have committed a 5 year felony. So to compensate, the only way to stay in compliance with the law, is to case and uncase outside, in the hand.
Now picture this. It's raining and windy, I have to get the trunk open, take the case out, hold my keys, and now the gun case, then unholster my gun, take the magazine out, remove the chambered round, put the gun and the magazine and the round back in the case, shut it, and then I can put the gun back in its case. All this in full view of everyone. I have now 5 items to juggle just to stay in compliance with a law that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Needless to say, I have had the police called on me several times by concerned citizens who just witnessed me get out of my car, load a gun, and go into a place of business.
I know that this letter has been rather long winded, but I wanted to address your concerns in detail, and take the time to address some issue that the existing laws are causing. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, as well as in all of the other things that you do as our representative.
Hello Eileen,
I have been busy the last few days, otherwise I would have gotten back with you on this sooner. Getting a law passed that would re establish our ability to defend ourselves in our vehicles is a top priority for me.
You had expressed some concerns about the law change, so I thought it only fair to address those as best I can. The first issue that you brought up was looking at this from a public safety standpoint that the AG brought up, that a group of hoodlums would be able to carry guns in a car. The first thing I thought of, was that the stereotypical hood rat is under the legal age to own a gun to begin with. These types of people are not going to know about or care about the law, and are currently carrying in cars anyhow. This law change is going to have no negative effect on that whatsoever. You can see the proof of that in courtrooms around the state. It is these types of individuals that make me want to carry legally in my car. The new law change would however, give law enforcement another tool to help sort out the criminals from the law abiding, because this change would add a disclosure requirement to each occupant of a vehicle. Something that the current law does not provide. It also requires disclosure of anything that might be considered a deadly weapon, not just pistols.
The second concern that you had mentioned, was that of officer safety. This is specifically why I added a disclosure clause to the statute. To be honest, I caught quite a bit of flack from many people on the gun forums over that, but if CPL holders have to disclose, then why not apply the same standard to everyone else, and for any other type of weapon?
What I am hearing here, are many of the same concerns that were aired prior to passing shall issue. Before people had CPLs there were officer safety concerns brought up, there were concerns about street thugs voiced, and arguments claiming that there would be blood in the streets, yet we have not seen these concerns come to be. The same things are brought up state by state as CPL laws are passed, and every time, there is the same result, a decrease in crime. I feel that the disclosure requirement addresses this question very strongly, giving law enforcement a tool that it currently does not have.
We do not see any of the concerns that were mentioned coming true in any of the states that respect the private property rights of vehicle owners. The majority of states in the nation do recognize that right without issue, even in, if not especially in cities where various demographics come into play. Denying a right to the majority of people because of a minority of miscreants who will do what they do regardless of the laws is only perpetuating the problem.
Many people cannot get a CPL for one reason or another, or simply do not want one. Lack of money is an issue for an increasing number of people, asking the governments permission to exercise a right is a problem for a few. Michigan also has the longest list of prohibitive misdemeanors in the nation, most of which have nothing at all to do with guns. I personally was wrongly charged with a reckless driving, and it cost me my CPL for 8 years! Ridiculous. Getting and keeping a CPL in the state isn't the answer, as many people present it to be. A CPL turns a right into a privelidge. 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. I certainly cannot, it would take me several months to generate that kind of cash. Add to that time taken off work. Even if you can do that, and are eligible, you're stuck waiting on the county for what is usually several months.
You brought up in this letter, and in conversations past, that the CPL training makes people feel better. That's all it really does, it makes people feel better. The CPL training regimen is not something to be taken seriously at all. A couple hours in a range, a couple dozen rounds and you have your certificate. Consider the student for a bit. He/she many times has never shot a gun before, and is likely a little nervous. They are at a range which is a noisy foreign environment for them, along with half a dozen others in the same position. They have their hearing protection on, and there is only enough time for them to pick up on a couple rudimentary points about the weapon and shooting it. The instructors do the very best they can, and so do the students, but they really don't learn anything. We have the evidence in the forum posts and at the range on a regular basis. The students come online saying that the instructor told them this or that, usually some misinformation about the law, and we have to straighten them out. The fundamentals of shooting are taught with a similar level of understanding. It has been said that the three worst places to learn about gun laws are from cops, CPL instructors, and the guy behind the counter at a gun store. lol. I personally try to shoot a couple times a week if I can, and a t the very least, a couple times a month.
It should be noted that the law causes a lot of unnecessary and potentially dangerous gun handling out in the open where people are more likely to freak out and call the police, or opens up a golden opportunity for a thief to try to get your gun.We know of an OCer who died by his own gun because he chased the kid who took it. This gun was loaded and on the guy. Now, you have a situation where someone has an unloaded gun, their back is turned, and the gun is not even on the body.
There is another problem that few people are even aware of that the CPL/transportation laws create. MCL 750.234d Puts most hunters in violation of the law, and violation of this misdemeanor unfairly bars them from even getting a CPL for 8 years. 750.234d is a list of gun free zones, for example, you cannot be on the premises, even in the parking lots of any place that has a liquor license of any kind, regardless of whether they have any alcohol there for sale. This would include many gas stations, Krogers, Meijers etc. Now a hunter who is traveling with his deer rifle pulls off the highway to get gas, or stops by the Kmart for supplies and has no CPL has committed a crime. This is foolishness plain and simple. It, like most gun laws, have nothing to do with preventing or deterring crime.
One thing that comes up on the threads is that the Governor is holding up anything pro gun that comes through Lansing, and from what I have seen the last couple years, it seems to be true. The only thing that seems like it has a chance of passing, is registration repeal. Registration repeal in and of itself is a good thing, but changing the definition of the length of a pistol in the state was simply a back door gun ban. We as gun owners would love to see something substantially in favor of the gun rights of the law abiding citizen.
I had mentioned a Plan B., just in case it becomes impossible to get this passed. I would prefer that this be introduced at the same time, and see which one gains the most traction. In MCL 750.231a, the law dictates how a non CPL holder is required to transport a pistol. The gun must be in a case designed for a firearm, unloaded, and in the trunk of a vehicle. If the vehicle has no trunk, then it must be in a place not easily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle. The magazines can remain loaded, and in the gun case, but cannot be placed in the gun.
If we could amend the law, MCL 750.231a, to remove the requirement that the gun be in the trunk of the vehicle, then a person could have access, however somewhat delayed, by having the unloaded and cased firearm in the passenger compartment. In a potentially dangerous situation, the person could at least have a chance of getting to the gun to save his or her own life and possibly the lives of their families. Being able to case and unload and vice versa in the privacy of your own car also lessens the possibility of attack or negligent discharge that I had mentioned previously. As it is now, I have to do this silly balancing act to remain in compliance with the law. Since the law says that the gun cannot be in or on a vehicle, technically, if I reach into my trunk to set the gun in the gun case and shut that case, I have committed a 5 year felony. So to compensate, the only way to stay in compliance with the law, is to case and uncase outside, in the hand.
Now picture this. It's raining and windy, I have to get the trunk open, take the case out, hold my keys, and now the gun case, then unholster my gun, take the magazine out, remove the chambered round, put the gun and the magazine and the round back in the case, shut it, and then I can put the gun back in its case. All this in full view of everyone. I have now 5 items to juggle just to stay in compliance with a law that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Needless to say, I have had the police called on me several times by concerned citizens who just witnessed me get out of my car, load a gun, and go into a place of business.
I know that this letter has been rather long winded, but I wanted to address your concerns in detail, and take the time to address some issue that the existing laws are causing. I sincerely thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, as well as in all of the other things that you do as our representative.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
The question though is why was it suspended?
griffin
Regular Member
I disagree.
Only the buildings are off limits as defined by the Liquor Control Commission Admin Rules R436.1001(i) which define what "premises" in regard to places licensed means.
Here are the Michigan Liquor Control Codes. Look on page 163. Premises are defined as:
If I didn't have a CPL I would feel comfortable with this.
I take issue with a number of your other points as well.
stainless1911
Banned
That might work once you get to court.
Well, speak on, this has been a very productive thread. I have appreciated and used many of the thoughts posted here so far.
Last edited:
griffin
Regular Member
Well, we are talking what the law states. MCL doesn't define MLCC premises, but the MLCC itself does. Plus, you don't want it to sound like you don't know the laws you are arguing for. If you wanted a better clarification, say, explaining the definition in MCL, that is a different matter. Then you would need to show where LEOs routinely mis-charge people because they don't know the current law.
I already have previously. I don't like the "any other weapons" disclosure. For that matter, I don't like disclosure, period. Indiana doesn't have it. It's not needed.
I think the way you addressed "hood rats" was poor. Also, bringing age into it unnecessarily muddies the issue. Keep it as simple as possible. Someone is either a law-abiding citizen or they are not.
From a personal issue, although discussing the overly-long list of disqualifying misdemeanors was good, you should not have mentioned your reckless driving conviction.
I would not have mentioned poor CPL training. That will just make lawmakers want to make it stricter. I think we should be moving toward constitutional carry, not away from it.
The letter should have been one-third the length. Keep it simple while addressing the issues succinctly and clearly. It needs to be "executive summary" in style.
scot623
Regular Member
I know you're trying...but this letter is full of FAIL. Especially the quoted portion. CPL holders have to disclose, so everyone else should too? Did you pull that quote off the Brady Campaign website??? It's awful that you want everyone held to the same crappy standard of disclosure rather than working to remove it for CPL holders. But that's not something you will care about for the next 8 years, is it? If you want the 350,000+ MI CPL holders to help you pass this bill, you may want to reconsider this tactic. Plus with this bill I need to remember my softball gear is in the trunk so I can disclose my softball bat?! FAIL.
Last edited:
Yance
Regular Member
The only problem I have with this understanding is that we are bound strictly by what the law says. MCL 750.234d says that possession of a firearm on the premises is prohibited, premises extending all the way through the parking lot, the grass, to the edge of the property they lease. Like stainless said, the defense of how premises is defined in the Liquor Control Commission Admin Rules may only be relevant in court since the law itself makes no specific exception or definition to the premises being strictly the building.
Yance
Regular Member
The problem with pro gun people trying to accept a new law with the same ol requirements is you people are generally short sighted on issues. Look at it this way, we have 300,000+ people with CPLs who have to disclose, thats a nice number but its probably not a large enough number to argue disclosure is useless. However, in the long run, let an approximately 7 million law abiding people carry in their vehicle you have much larger numbers to go by. So, if in the coming years we want to abolish disclosure it will make it a lot easier to argue disclosure doesnt protect officers if 7 million people are required to disclose and statistics do not change for officers wounded on duty by gunshots as compared to what the stats showed when it was only for 300,000 people.
Support this and in the long run you can use the much higher number of people carrying in their cars to fight to abolish disclosure.
griffin
Regular Member
Not strictly true. If we were solely bound by MCL 750.234d, then possession in the parking lot of a church, theater, hospital, or even courts would also be illegal, but it's not, because MCL 28.425o(4) states that parking lots are not considered part of the premises. Now some think there is a loophole that non-bar establishments with liquor licenses fall through, like Meijer, because that section is worded poorly, that MCL 750.234d and 28.425o should better align themselves with each other. But premises are clearly defined under the MLCC code itself, even if 28.425o seems to omit places like Meijer. According to MCL 28.425o, it is clear that parking lots do not apply as premises anywhere, and the MLCC specifically states that parking lots are not considered premises for places licensed under the MLCC. I just don't see how people can state otherwise.
And so says the AG letter, as well.
I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to rewrite MCL 750.234d or MCL 28.425o to make them clearer and align with each other better, but I personally wouldn't worry about a Meijer parking lot.