Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House 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 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

The vote was 98 in favor, 10 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 276 at House Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

This is something that has needed to be done for quite some time. Michigan's "safety inspection" system for handguns (read registration) is a joke. It had it's roots in racism, and serves no purpose to this day, I say get rid of it!

now, let's eliminate the ORIGINAL registration. it too serves no useful purpose, other than to deny law abiding citizens the right to own firearms. let's also change the carry laws to allow law abiding citizens to carry a weapon in their vehicles. this 'lock the weapon up and throw away the key' philosophy only makes carrying the weapon a joke. if a weapon is not loaded and available for use in defending ones self and family on the road, it is simply a useless hunk of steel. for those who say that it is kept that way for the safety of police officers, i say, as a cop, that's why you are issued a gun and a vest. USE THEM BOTH. i spent seven years as a police officer in a state that has very lenient car carry rules, believing that your car is an extension of your home, and we do not have a higher incidence of 'traffic stop shootings'. i'd rather, as a police officer, have lawfully armed citizens (who don't have to pay 150 dollars to get a concealed carry permit to allow them to carry a weapon in their own cars) out there to 'back me up'. i've been assisted by lawfully armed citizens almost as much as i have been assisted by my fellow officers. it's time we threw off the yoke of repressive laws such as these.

What about all those technicians that have spent the better part of their working lives studying to be Firearm Safety Experts????? tongue out of cheek here

We will never have a Vermont style law pertaining to carrying in your car. No sense in wasting time even thinking about it. If someone wants to, they can be like the rest of us and get the training and pay the fees to get a CCW. As for the inspections, they never found anything wrong with my new pistols. It is a hassle, a waste of time and doesn't serve any purpose.

This is a great piece of legislation. The "safety inspection" has been a joke all a long. What percentage fail?

I think this is a lobbiest bill. Gun safety in my book is much more important then the license. I feel the license is an imposition on the 2nd amendment, but have the gun check for safety is a good idea. I'd rather see no licensing.

been reading, the "safety check" DOESN'T check for safety. it says so on the back of the registration form. they also accept NO LIABILITY if the gun is somehow UNSAFE. they don't even look at the gun, just the serial number. it's just to RE-REGISTER the gun. if you want your gun SAFETY CHECKED, let a comptetent gunsmith do it.

i HAVE the training. i used to GIVE the training. i want to carry freely in my car (it IS my car, after all, not some state owned loaner.). i DON'T want to give the state a dime to BUY a right that i should already have. vermont isn't the only state with 'your car is an extension of your home' legislation. i can tell you as an ex cop, it certainly straightens out that silly 4th amendment search and seizure thing quick. you make your case, and call in to get a warrant. you talk to the magistrate, answer his questions, and send your report back to him with what you find. and you had BETTER not find NOTHING. in other words, you better have your ducks in a row BEFORE you call for a warrant. if you don't, you don't get any more warrants, ever, not from THAT magistrate at least.

firearms safety experts don't get hired by the podunk police department to "safety inspect" handguns. they just tell the guy at the desk to look at the thing, write down all the information,and put it into the computer. later, they compare it to what's already in the computer, to see if you have a "permit to purchase" and have purchased within the time limit, and gotten the thing inspected. heaven help you if you don't.

I am so happy to see that we actually have representation that listens. Thankyou Sir, for making a difference.

there must be continual pressure on the state to do the right thing. just as there is continual pressure to become a leftist gulag. if you give up without a fight, then indeed, there will never be any improvement. the very fact that this repeal is even being considered is good news to gun owners. now, while we are at it, we should watch very carefully who votes for it, and even more importantly, who votes against it.

Do you think that the police check to see if the pistol has a safety? Or that the pistol is safe to fire? No, they do neither! All they do is record the serial number from a database of manufacturers and log it into the computer. If it's a unique pistol, then they pass it around the office and all ooh and aah over it like they did with my black powder revolver. Then they couldn't find the manufactuerer cross reference to the serial number range in their book, so they had to call Lansing to verify they could manually override the code in the computer to accept the number that was on the revolver. WASTE OF TIME!!!! I hope this passes with flying colors and Granholm signs it immediately. Brady will give us a lower (higher) grade next year when their state report cards come out. YESSS!!!

I am very disappointed. Getting rid of the safety inspection is fine, but gun we need to dump the purchase permits too.

has all the earmarks of legislation bought and paid for by a PAC and lobbying organization. anybody care to guess which one?

you to have MORE freedom tomarrow than you do today. THAT pac? maybe. if you don't want to keep and bear arms, then by all means, DON'T. you don't HAVE TO. just don't make it to where no one else CAN.

I know exactly where this bill orginated, has nothing to do with a PAC. Why not thank a freshman legislator for trying something positive instead of sitting on the sidelines like so many other reps?

new guy. keep up the good work.

please, while you are at it, repeal the permit to purchase requirement, as it implies that we are all inept citizens, unable to make a decision as to whether or not we should purchase a pistol without the state's permission. and how about doing away with gun registration altogether? it's racist roots are showing.

lobbyist's PAC bill. the PAC lobbyist writes it, and feeds it to a bought and paid for stooge legislator. happens every day.

a political action committee wish to voluntarily give you more access to your rights? where is the "benefit" to the pac? there is no 'money trail' here to follow, except the one the state is leaving by spending too much of it to register weapons. a futile waste of time and energy. and they say that conservatives are paranoid.

Why will we never have Vermont style arms laws? I'm sure that the people of Michigan are able to read as well as Vermonters.

the people of michigan have been 'suckered' more than once by the leftist idology. reading skill seems to have nothing to do with it. it's a MINDSET. something for nothing... the easy way out...

The 'safety inspection' is a misnomer. Some people have had the inspectors (read: police clerfical staff) point the weapons at people without checking first to see if they are unloaded, keep their fingers on the trigger, dry fire, etc.

keep going. registration is racist, it keeps those (insert racial group of choice here) who 'shouldn't have guns' from getting one. it doesn't keep CRIMINALS from getting guns. while you are at it, save us all some money by shutting down all the county gun boards. we don't need them any more. then, when that is done, get rid of the 'permit to purchase' requirement. we can all get guns for ourselves, thank you. and the next time a leftist tells you that 'it will cause blood to run in the streets', tell him to PROVE IT.

doesn't want to save the taxpayers money. this bill would save us thousands of dollars needlessly spent to RE-REGISTER our guns. it would also save the taxpayer's money by not having to keep records of a registration. it would also save the taxpayer's money by having one less dumb law to enforce. why won't they do this???

The "safety inspection" was nothing more than a registration scheme by another name. It treated law abiding handgun owners similar to sex offenders. How many criminals registered their guns, and how many lives were saved and injuries prevented by these "safety inspections" (which were usually done by clerks)? IOW, what percentage of guns were found defective? I am for keeping the purchase permit requirement. That does not keep those with criminal records from from getting guns but at least they won't be able to purchase them legally. It is not racist. It does not judge anyone by the color of their skin, but by the content of their criminal record. My thanks to the sponsor and co-sponsors of this bill. (Good work, Neal.)

permit to purchase requirement on this general principle. the people make up the 'militia', the federal constitution says so. the state constitution says the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms for defense of self and state. so, why does the state have to give permission TWICE? the federal records check should, if the local police are doing their jobs (hint hint) be enough to catch all the criminals out there. by the way, they'd rather just steal OUR guns than buy them legally.

I can honestly say, no PAC was there at the start of the bill. We have only helped to make sure it was never forgotten. The overwhelming support of the citizens of Michigan as expressed though their email, mail and calls to their representatives is what got this bill passed. As long as everyone tells their senators what they think of this bill as they did with their representatives, it will pass with a margin that you just can't veto. Contact your Michigan State Senator and voice that support!

I was for the permit to purchase because I have seen several who I have no doubt were straw buyers purchasing guns for others. Maybe having to go down to the sheriffs dept. to get the permit would help deter the straw buyers.

like every other state does it, and putting dealers who allow straw purchases in jail? i guess we haven't tried that one. there are already federal penalties for that one, a state law that covers what a federal law already covers is redundant, costly, and a waste of law enforcement money. if you are caught making a straw purchase, it's a federal crime anyway, the feds aren't going to let you off with a state charge. so, other than to duplicate federal law enforcement with our money, what OTHER purpose does a permit to purchase accomplish?

criminal want to walk into a gun shop full of cops when all he has to do is get a STOLEN gun? the percentage of 'straw purchased' guns used in crimes is INCREDIBLY SMALL. current state laws would make a gun purchased, then sold to ANYONE a 'straw purchase'. if the same laws applied to automobiles as applied to guns, it would be illegal to sell used cars. now, we don't hear people jumping up and down when people use a car they bought from someone else in a crime, do we? no. a car is a machine. people treat it like a machine. no one blames the CAR for the drive by shooting, but they DO blame the gun. they see the THING, the MACHINE as the evil, not the hand that holds it, and points it and shoots it. there ARE evil people, there are NO evil machines.

the straw purchasers to the federal authorities? that would stop straw purchases, or prove that they were LEGITIMATE purchases. a permit to purchase will do neither. all it will do is add the name of the person who wishes to purchase a weapon to a LIST of other people who wish to purchase a weapon. this permit to purchase has not stopped ONE straw purchase in this state. it cannot. it was never designed to. it was only designed to keep track of the names and addresses of people who want to purchase weapons so that the weapons can be taken away when the time is right. so far, michigan has not had open confiscation, but it is the only state so far not to try. by the way, if your weapon is stolen, and get's used in a crime, it is DESTROYED rather than being returned to you. this state doesn't care about your GUN rights OR your PROPERTY rights.

a CITIZEN who actually observes a KNOWN STRAW PURCHASE should report such a crime to the federal authorities... that would give no reason to have the legislature pass 'feel good' laws like it's going out of style. the state already has far too many laws concerning weapons on the books. such paranoia we have had in our lawmakers. as if passing a law were magically going to stop the crime.

I would be interested in the hearing the comments on why no votes were cast. Perhaps those folks have some insite in our society that most of our legislators are lacking.

ME report the straw purchase to the Feds? How do I go about that? Just ask the dealer for the name and address of the buyer and "companion'? How can I prove it was a straw transaction if I don't seee the other person take possession of the gun? It's quite obvious that when a young girl is taking orders on what to buy from some thug standing behind her that she is not buying it for herself. Especially when she is afraid to even touch it. I did not witness this type of transaction in Michigan but have seen it at least twice in Indiana in recent years. I don't think Indiana requires a purchase permit and I don't think they can refuse to sell the gun based on the suspicion that it is a straw transaction.

cars are purchased with the intent to commit a crime. If the number of "straw purchased" guns used in crimes is "incredibly small", why even have a law against straw purchases? Tell me how the government proves the gun was "straw purchased"? The buyer could claim the perp stole the gun or otherwise did not have permission to use it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but two out of the three I have witnessed have occurred at gun shows-at booths set up by licensed dealers. The third was at a dealership but did not go thru because the buyer couldn't pass the background check.

Sometimes a Rep just doesn't want to vote because it is better than voting against the constituency, or the constituency was split and the Rep did not know what vote would be in his/her districts majority. Also, some are just lazy, but I haven't seen that in this cycles congress.

that democrats NEVER VOTE FOR GUN RIGHTS. it is a 'show of solidarity' with the leftists of the world that they not even deign to cast a vote that might be considered 'pro gun'. they see it as 'one step above' voting 'NO' to citizens having gun rights.

of the people OPPOSED TO THIS BILL or REFUSING TO VOTE ON THIS BILL was a republican. that should tell you who cares about the second amendment and your rights to keep and bear arms to defend yourself and this state.