Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2005 House Bill 5270: Clarify police firearms violation exemption
Public Act 303 of 2005
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on October 6, 2005, to clarify that provisions prohibiting intentionally aiming a firearm or discharging the firearm at another person, but without malice, does not apply to peace officers when done in the performance of their duties as peace officers. The bill would also define "peace officer," and would make discharging a firearm (whether or not the other person sustained injuries) punishable by both a fine and imprisonment, instead of one or the other.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on October 6, 2005.
- Reported in the House on December 7, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on December 7, 2005. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 7, 2005.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on October 6, 2005.
- Passed 91 to 11 in the House on December 7, 2005, to clarify that provisions prohibiting intentionally aiming a firearm or discharging the firearm at another person, but without malice, does not apply to peace officers when done in the performance of their duties as peace officers. The bill would also define "peace officer," and increase the maximum sentence for injuring someone by accidentally firing a gun from 90 to 93 days (which places the conviction in the permanent criminal records database).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Referred in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Reported in the Senate on December 13, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 13, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 13, 2005.
- Referred in the Senate on December 8, 2005.
- Passed 32 to 6 in the Senate on December 13, 2005, to clarify that provisions prohibiting intentionally aiming a firearm or discharging the firearm at another person, but without malice, does not apply to peace officers when done in the performance of their duties as peace officers. The bill would also define "peace officer," and increase the maximum sentence for injuring someone by accidentally firing a gun from 90 to 93 days (which places the conviction in the permanent criminal records database).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 13, 2005, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. Passed 107 to 0 in the House on December 13, 2005.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 20, 2005.
Most Recent Comments
1) we ain't in kansas anymore by crazycajun on May 8, 2006it appears to me (dumb cajun that i am) that this law makes it impossible to stay out of trouble if you are a "permitted person" and your life is threatened by a fleet footed felon who departs the area after you draw your weapon, but before you can finish your trigger squeeze.
in this case, you are guilty of this crime, even though you would (should, i think is a better word in this state) be perfectly justified in the use of deadly force.
it would certainly give me pause.
and i have seven years of law enforcement experience to help me decide when, where, and how to defend my life with a firearm.
Reply
Rep. Kathleen Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on House Bill 5270. While I understand the need for House Bill 5270 to protect peace officers while they are in the performance of their duties, I am not convinced that the legislation will not be abused by improperly trained, immature, or rogue officers who point, aim, and use their weapons in non-warranted situations. Neither am I convinced that the legislation is necessary. There is already a process in the criminal justice system that allows for prosecutorial discretion when police shootings occur. Each case is evaluated on an individual basis to determine if any criminal actions are warranted. The bill effectively chips away at this discretion and may undermine command structure. In addition, this may have the effect of giving peace officers a 'carte blanche' license to use their weapons whenever they please. It is my desire to have well trained and intelligent police officers who are properly protected and have the maturity and good judgment to fulfill the promise 'Protect and Serve'."
Reply
so its ok for a cop to point or disharge a fire arm without MALICE (intent to do harm) OOOOPPS. Why make cops above the law!!!!!!What if a law abiding citizen protects there self by pointing a gun at an attacker. They then committed a crime? So I guess ya get to do time with your attacker............
Reply
View Full Conversation
