2008 House Bill 5985: Revise out-of-state pistol owner regulations

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on April 15, 2008, to establish that a nonresident who is licensed to carry, possess, use, and transport a pistol in another state can do the same in this state for up to 30 days without a Michigan pistol or concealed pistol license.
- Referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on April 15, 2008.
  - Reported in the House on September 16, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: Confusing by crazycajun on November 24, 2008

don't be confused. it is the sole intent and purpose of the michigan legislature and all local governments to totally disarm the population of this state.

make no mistake about it. gun boards, permits to purchase, mandatory registration, these confusing regulations infringing on the freedoms and rights of it's citizens, and those who wish to be citizens is proof positive of that position.

how about we simply say that anyone who is not a felon can carry a weapon anywhere, anytime, and for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.

that woud give the state a real job, to sort out the criminals from the law abiding citizen, not to try to make criminals out of law abiding citizens.

Line

2) Already covered by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2008
I agree this appears to be already covered by (f). What is the purpose of this bill and how did it pass all those readings etc without it being discovered that it is already covered. Felbeck makes an interesting point-if you have to be a resident for 6 months before you can apply for a Mi. permit, and can only carry for 30 days on the permit from another state-what happens during the other 5 months? Another reason to not move to Michigan unless you have no other choice.
Reply

Line

3) Hmmm... by Anonymous Citizen on September 17, 2008
Actually Rick Jones is on our side. So something must be amiss in this as he proposed this. It would seem that f) already protects that individual, so we have to check with Rick and find out what's up with this....
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation