2007 House Bill 4491 (Repeal pistol “safety inspection” law )

Public Act 196 of 2008

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Joel Sheltrown on March 20, 2007, to repeal the crime of having a pistol that has not been presented to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection.” The bill is tie-barred to House Bill 4490, which repeals the inspection requirement. A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol, and not doing so would be a civil infraction with a $250 fine.
- Referred to the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, And Natural Resources Committee on March 20, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on April 15, 2008, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the House (92 to 16) on April 16, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
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 revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 26, 2008.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 3) on June 27, 2008, to repeal the crime of having a pistol that has not been presented to the local law enforcement agency for a “safety inspection.” The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 370, which repeals the inspection requirement. A person would still be required to obtain a license to acquire a pistol, and not doing so would be a civil infraction with a $250 fine. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 27, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. Passed in the House (91 to 16) on June 27, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 10, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Joel Sheltrown on March 20, 2007. Passed in the House (92 to 16) on April 16, 2008. New Comment

1) No law needed [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008]
I will carry my unregistered, CONCEALED pistol on me anytime and anywhere I want to in the USA and I won't tell anybody. The 2nd Amendment gives me that right. It is a God given right. I am an honorable discharged veteran and I have NO criminal record, not even a traffic ticket. If anybody from the STATE demands my weapon, I will gladly turn it over to them..one bullet at a time.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Awesome [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2008]
are you running for governor?
The repeal of this law would be a good start.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) CRAZYCAJUN [by Anonymous Citizen on October 14, 2008]
has my vote, and he should have yours too.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) I'll run the campaign!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 15, 2008]
Gooooo CAJUN!
Reply New Comment

Line

5) all we need now [by crazycajun on October 16, 2008]
are a few million in campaign contributions.

maybe granmole can lend us some.

Reply New Comment

Line

6) RIGHT ON [by Anonymous Citizen on September 28, 2008]
RIGHT ON!!
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Safety Inspection? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2008]
Now that the safety inspection requirement has been repealed, when does it take effect?
....or is it effective immediately?

John

Reply New Comment

Line

8) internate [by Anonymous Citizen on October 9, 2008]
According to Public Act 196 0f 2008 it is effective 01/07/2009.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) tuxa zwpo [by Anonymous Citizen on April 23, 2008]
dvjup atpjq hzaytu igdmr bnqwkj wfbhmznj kqitzl
Reply New Comment

Line

10) no justice? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 18, 2008]
check your book of Michigan Gun law
pa 28.422a(2)
Reply New Comment

Line

11) as a permit carrier [by crazycajun on April 18, 2008]
in michigan, a 'privelege' that you paid for, you are allowed to purchase a pistol 'without a permission slip'.

as a CITIZEN of louisiana, i am allowed to purchase a pistol 'without a permission slip'.

as a permit carrier in michigan, a 'privelege' that you paid for, you are allowed to carry your pistol in your car, ready to use and where you can use it.

as a CITIZEN of louisiana, i am allowed to carry my pistol in my car, anywhere i want to, as it is an extension of my home. i can drive around with it concealed. i can drive around with it hanging from the mirror like an air freshener. i DON'T have to tell the nice officer i have it, he then treats everyone like they have a weapon in their car.

as a permit carrier, you are not allowed to use any capsaicin spray "pepper spray" over 2%.

as a CITIZEN of louisiana, i am allowed to use ANY concentration of pepper spray, carry it any way i choose, and use it to defend myself anywhere.

as a permit carrier, you are not allowed to carry a knife over three inches not designed to be a 'hunting knife'.

as a CITIZEN of louisiana, i can carry a knife anywhere i want, as long as it NOT being used as a weapon after i 'pull it from concealment'.

i list these things because all the things a permit carrier CANNOT DO here are not banned because permit carriers have 'messed up' and done bad things, but because the LEGISLATURE DOESN'T TRUST IT'S CITIZENS.

now, there are others who will say 'if you like it there so much, leave.'

this is an option.

another option is to GIVE THE CITIZENS OF MICHIGAN THE TRUST AND RESPECT THEY DESERVE.

now, if you don't WANT to be trusted and respected, stay.

if you DO.

your options are...

come with me, or....

repeal the laws that facilitate this nonsense.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) Permission to buy [by Anonymous Citizen on April 18, 2008]
Let's see; if memory serves, and I have a valid CPL I can still buy that new gun w/o another permission slip from Big Brother.

But it is still required that a registration form be filled out in triplicate and forwarded to law enforcement. Even though the seller is supposed to do this, how many have been asked to complete the form at point of purchase, either due to laziness on part of the seller, or lack of knowledge of the process, in which case you supplied the registration forms as well?

If no CPL resides in my pocket (yet), then I need that permission slip, same as always.

This whole bill is a very small step in the right direction. Somebody should have campaigned to eliminate the entire registration process.

However, it is important that we thank every legislator who voted our way (called "greasing the slide").

Go to the MCRGO web site and see what legislation has been initiated but isn't moving; pick one or two and before or after patting your Representative on the back, (previous paragraph) tell him/her (nicely) how you would appreciate it if your most desired change to Michigan gun law were to be guided through the system next, and soon, aided by him/her.

Up until the last year, several bills a year of substance were moved through. Now, almost nothing. And this half-way bill...

...was likely made to sell us on what a good job was done on our behalf.

More must be done before I write another renewal check to MCRGO.com.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Notice than only [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
Democrats fely that the phony registration scheme should not be repealed. Why is that?
Reply New Comment

Line

14) no one seems to be able [by Anonymous Citizen on April 16, 2008]
to give one good reason, other than CONFISCATION for registering handguns.

no one seems to be able to give one good reason that we, as free citizens, NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE STATE TO PURCHASE A WEAPON.

no one seems to be able to give one benefit to the citizen of being on a 'LIST' of handgun owners. it solves no crimes, it protects no one but the criminals, and it wastes tax money to maintain, yet we have not ONE list, but TWO.

is this list only being kept as a convenience for the criminals so they know which houses have weapons to steal?

who does it help to have to keep your weapon UNLOADED and LOCKED AWAY while it's in your car? the terrified revenue collectors and the criminal who would do you harm while you are on the road, that's who.

the longer i look at it, the more i see our representatives, not as 'public servants' but as CRIMINAL SERVANTS. they are the only one who benefits from all those silly rules.

Reply New Comment

Line

15) there are no good reasons. [by Anonymous Citizen on April 16, 2008]
weapons that were stolen from you and were used in subsequent crimes are forfieted to the state for destruction.

you CANNOT get them back, no matter how valuable they are, and no matter how hard you try.

this is theft.

pure and simple.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Having Police safety inspect my pistol [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2008]
is the same as going to a pizza delivery guy to inspect my new truck.

Both USE the tool in their work, but neither is a trained expert.

A real "Safety Inspection" should only be done by a qualified gunsmith, and should ONLY be required by common sense, not state law.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) is your car [by Anonymous Citizen on April 8, 2008]
required to undergo a 'safety inspection' before you can posses it?

no.

there is the belief that it is 'prepared properly for it's intended use' as you take it out of the box. you take your car for a 'test drive', which is YOUR OWN inspection to see if this is true. no government agents need accompany you, just a salesman.

the same is true of owning a weapon. you take it to the range and 'test fire' it.

if it goes bang, it's a weapon. if not, it's a useless hunk of metal.

by the way, the 'safety inspection that doesn't inspect for safety' is just another registration scheme. registration is only useful for confiscation.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Some animals are more equal than others [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007]
Here's the real problem--selective enforcement. The law is in place for those in power to use as they see fit. Don't want Muslims or Blacks or Libertarians to have guns? We got laws to disarm or arrest them. But if you are a policeman, judge or IRS agent, you aren't prosecuted, and exceptions to the law are made for you.
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Unequal? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 26, 2008]
I dont remember the race, religion, and political preference questions on my "safety inspection" registration paperwork. Could you elaborate?
Reply New Comment

Line

20) selective enforcement [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007]
isn't what i'd call this process of demanding a 'safety inspection' that doesn't inspect for safety, only RE-REGISTERS THE GUN.

i'd call it LYING TO THE PUBLIC.

why can't the legislature simply call it what it is? because they would be voted out of office in a heartbeat if they called it 'WE DON'T TRUST YOU TO ACTUALLY REGISTER YOUR WEAPON, SO WE WILL CALL IT A SAFETY INSPECTION SO YOU WILL BRING IT IN FOR US TO REGISTER IT'.

everywhere there has been REGISTRATION, there has been CONFISCATION. new york has confiscated weapons SEVERAL TIMES, so has california. even louisiana, which doesn't have registration as a statewide policy, DID have it in one parish, orleans, and they had confiscation there after KATRINA.

anti-gun voters are out there shrugging their shoulders and saying 'so what'.

the FACT is, most pistols cost around $600.00 today, and some go even higher. how would you like it if the government came in, for NO GOOD REASON and took six hundred dollars out of your pocket, and gave you NO CHANCE to ever get it back?

this is what the bill of rights was written to protect us against.

let's vote out the people who STEAL our guns and our rights.

let's end ALL REGISTRATION, and while we are at it, let's stop the SILLY PROPOSITON of a PERMIT TO PURCHASE, we are CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Eliminate the purchase permit entirely [by David Felbeck on March 23, 2007]
This bill is a good start but doesn’t eliminate the requirement for non-CPL licensees to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun. For what earthly reason is this requirement left in Michigan’s law? Anyone who purchases any firearm must have the dealer check him out on the National Instant Check System maintained by the feds. Any similar requirement by Michigan is clearly redundant and without merit.

It is clear to everyone that the current law forces any non-CPL licensee who wishes to purchase a pistol to lose part of two working days: first, to obtain the purchase permit he must go to his police or sheriff, and second, he must return with the pistol to have the useless “safety inspection”. We don’t need the permit, and the inspection serves no useful purpose. I have registered handguns in Michigan since 1961 and have never had a police officer do anything except write down the model and serial numbers and count the number of rounds in the magazine. NICS makes this whole procedure completely unnecessary.

Let’s have this bill amended in committee to completely eliminate any requirement for anyone to obtain a permit to purchase any firearm.

David Felbeck
MCRGO legislative analyst

Reply New Comment

Line

22) it DOES serve a purpose [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2007]
it keeps those who CAN'T AFFORD to lose those two days of work from buying a handgun.

that's one less armed individual, or, to put it in terms liberals like better, one less gun on the street.

it's time for another hurdle to be removed from the path of law abiding citizens who wish to purchase a weapon.

stop being redundant with my money.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) are the police here [by Anonymous Citizen on March 22, 2007]
so afraid of law abiding citizens that they had to ban the carrying of loaded weapons in cars?

it sure sounds as if they don't TRUST the average law abiding citizen to restrain himself from shooting the "nice officer" when he violates his rights by pulling him over at random to see if he has been drinking.

i would think that they would want as many law abiding citizens to be armed as possible.

this is a SAFETY BUFFER against being the only "good guy" when everybody else that has a gun is a "bad guy" and is looking to do you harm.
(remember, only the law abiding citizen cares about obeying the law. the criminal, by definition, doesn't. they carry weapons concealed without the states permission. we should too.)

Reply New Comment

Line

24) re:are the police here so afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on April 16, 2008]
YES. And they should be. If you have had to deal with one of our so called police officers lately you would have seen that they treat all citizens like crap. They have a massive P.R. problem since they have become revenue agents. They are too busy suckling at the public teat, writeing more tickets for more overtime to give a crap what happens in the neighborhoods.

When is the last time you saw a cop on your side street??
Reply New Comment

Line

25) i always see cops on my [by Anonymous Citizen on April 16, 2008]
side street. waiting for me to back out of my driveway so they can give me a ticket for something i don't do.

they don't patrol for speeders, they don't patrol for burglars, so we have people who drive as fast as they want to on the streets they DON'T patrol, and we have a rash of burglaries.

did you know that if you are a bus driver, and someone hits your bus, if ANY of your passengers has had even ONE drink, the accident is labeled 'ALCOHOL RELATED' even though NEITHER DRIVER WAS DRINKING???

such are the ways of our revenue agents.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) No Justice???? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 22, 2007]
When the ex-city manager of Kalamazoo (Mr.Mark Ott)was discovered to have violated this law it was refered to the procecuting attorney in Allegan County for disposition. The Allegan procecuter stated that even though the law said it had to be safety inspected, it did not stipulate a time period for this being done. Therfore no charges were held against the city manager providing he then got it done. Which of course he did.
Point being...the law has no teeth for procecution and now because of this case we have case law established whereby a good attorney could get a violator off based on that case law.
Solution...get rid of an unenforcable infringement.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) i wonder how many [by Anonymous Citizen on March 22, 2007]
otherwise law abiding gun owners got "stung" in that operation?

how many of them lost their rights?

Reply New Comment

Line

28) lets ban ALL registration [by Anonymous Citizen on March 22, 2007]
it costs the taxpayers money.

it infringes on our rights.

it doesn't deter crime.

it can't prevent crime.

if you WANT to register your weapon, fine, go to the office where you want to register it, and pay a small fee to cover the cost. just like 'registering' a bicycle.

and then, just like when your bicycle get's stolen, you can sit and watch the police DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.

Reply New Comment

Line

29) Great! [by swallen on March 22, 2007]
Another great piece of legislation. Thank you Rep. Joel Sheltrown!
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site