Introduced by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on March 20, 2007, to repeal the law that requires a person who acquires a pistol to present it to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection,” and require agencies to destroy any records of past inspections, with certain exceptions. A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol.
Referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on March 20, 2007.
Reported in the House on April 15, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on April 16, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not require agencies to destroy any records of past pistol inspections, and requires indivivuals who buy a pistol to return the completed pistol permit form to the local law enforcement agency within 10 days. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on April 16, 2008.
Substitute offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on April 16, 2008, to replace the committee substitute with a new substitute that revises details but does not change the substance. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on April 16, 2008.
Passed 98 to 10 in the House on April 16, 2008, to repeal the law that requires a person who acquires a pistol to present it to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection;” and also to require agencies to destroy any records of past inspections, with certain exceptions. A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on April 16, 2008, to reconsider the vote by which the House passed the bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on April 16, 2008.
Received in the House on April 16, 2008, to repeal the law that requires a person who acquires a pistol to present it to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection;” and also to require agencies to destroy any records of past inspections, with certain exceptions. A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol. Passed 93 to 15 in the House on April 16, 2008. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on April 22, 2008.
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 22, 2008.
Substitute offered in the Senate on June 26, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not require the destruction of pistol permit records held by police agencies, but instead requires the entry of these into a State Police database. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 26, 2008.
Passed 34 to 3 in the Senate on June 27, 2008, to repeal the law that requires a person who acquires a pistol to present it to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection." A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol, and would have to send completed copies of the pistol sales record to the local police or sheriff, with violations subject to a $250 civil fine. These agencies would have enter the data into a State Police database, or send them to the State Police to be entered. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on June 27, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. Passed 95 to 11 in the House on June 27, 2008. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 10, 2008.
2) Huh? by Anonymous Citizen on April 28, 2008 The Democrats never vote for gun rights? Maybe i'm bad at math, but i count about 40 of 'em voting in favor of both bills...? Reply
3) the person who stood by Anonymous Citizen on April 24, 2008 behind the person in that shop COULDN'T have been a 'thug' as the background check when she got the 'permit to purchase' would have told the police all about him, wouldn't it?
now, she spent the time, all by herself, to sit in the 'cop shop' and fill out the permit to purchase. she had every opportunity to tell the nice officer there and then that 'some thug wants me to buy a gun for him, and i'm scared.'.
i'm sure that if the 'thug' really WAS a 'thug', then he is allergic to 'cop shops'.
then, at the gun shop, she could have told the nice guy behind the counter that the 'thug' was bothering her, and i'm sure the nice guy could have found some way to 'convince' him to stop.
now, if all this effort to stop what obviously ISN'T a big deal is being expended, why not put that effort into STOPPING CRIMINALS FROM STEALING GUNS. let's say... keeping them locked up, without benefit of pardon or parole, another ten or twenty years if they use a gun in a crime?