- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Douglas Geiss (D) on March 4, 2009, to revise the definition of “pistol” so that it applies to a firearm less than 26 inches long, rather than 30 inches. Many commercial rifles and shotguns have folding stocks that make the gun less than 30 inches when folded, presumably making them qualify for pistol registration requirements.
- Referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on March 4, 2009.
- Reported in the House on June 9, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 16, 2009, 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 House on June 16, 2009.
- Referred to the House Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on March 4, 2009.
- Passed 108 to 0 in the House on June 16, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 17, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 17, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4501 (Revise “pistol” definition ) by albaby2 on June 10, 2009Gypsy, give up. You are correct in yopur assessment but you will never get the paranoid ones to admit this is not an attempt to take their guns away. BTW-I own rifles, pistols shotguns, support the NRA and MCRGO etc and hold a CPL.
Reply
[quote user="Mike Hignite"]
Let's address the fact that all of these laws, gun boards, CCW, regulations, and registrations are unconstituitonal. Michigan's constitution guarrantees the right of ALL citizens to be armed. Period. ...
[/quote]
If, in fact, these various laws violate the Michigan Constitution, as claimed, it is difficult (even impossible) to conceive that in the years they have been on the books they would not have been challenged in court and thrown out by court decision.
Arguments on many fronts can be made for liberalizing these laws. Constitutional principles certainly are a legitimate part of those arguments. But making specious claims about supposed violations of Michigan's Constitution does not serve the cause well at all.
Reply
Let's address the fact that all of these laws, gun boards, CCW, regulations, and registrations are unconstituitonal. Michigan's constitution guarrantees the right of ALL citizens to be armed. Period. If, in the past, citizens let those in government attempt to steal their rights away, that is a shame. It doesn't mean that those rights don't still exist. Here are two ways to recover these rights:
1. Contact your legislator. Repeatedly. Until they eliminate these unconstitutional statutes. If they refuse, support someone else who will do your will. Never vote for them again, and encourage everyone you know to never vote for them again.
2. Read and understand your rights as a juror. If you are ever on a case where someone is charged with any kind of weapons law violation, vote innocent. If they robbed a bank with a machine gun, and killed ten people, convict them of bank robbery and murder, but do not convict anyone of using a gun in a crime, or being in the possession of a gun, or an unregistered gun, or illegal ammunition, or anything like that. This is called jury nullification and it was used most reasonably to help end slavery and prohibition.
Reply
View Full Conversation
