Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 22, 2007, to add reserve peace officers who have had the proper training to the list of those not prohibited from possessing “tasers” or similar electrical incapacitation devices. Under current law these devices are banned for civilians, but peace officers, court officers, licensed private investigators and airplane pilots can have them

The vote was 34 in favor, 3 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 380 at Senate Journal 56)

Click here to view bill details.

According to our State Constitution, every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the State. I don't see anything there that defines "arms." Is a TASER a weapon or not? If not, then why are they prohibited? If it is, then banning their possession or carry is unconstitutional. Period. The law permits me, with the proper training and background checks, to carry a loaded .45 almost anywhere I go, yet the law currently prohibits me from having a less lethal option if I'm attacked. Why? What is the rationale? If you're a legislator reading this and cannot come up with a good answer OR a way around the aforementioned Constitution, then this bill MUST be voted down AND re-written to include all law abiding citizens.

At the very least, CPL licensees should be permitted to carry (and use, when necessary) any device that is less lethal than a loaded pistol. This should include tasers, high-potency pepper spray, mace, knives, canes with swords, etc. Any CPL licensee will tell you that he would rather have the option of using less than lethal force if the circumstances warrant. We should abolish all laws that provide for elite status of some citizens and admit all those who are willing to be trained to protect themselves and those around them. This bill should be voted down in committee. David Felbeck

writing "this group can carry what they want but YOU can't" laws. let the CITIZENS decide how best to defend themselves. the government should STAY OUT OF THAT DECISION.

This is another law that distinguishes government workers from the rest of us. Why don't we all get the right to carry the tools to defend ourselves? Why create a special class of people? I oppose this legislation unless it covers everyone in Michigan.

the government is afraid of an armed populace and doesn't trust you enough to allow you to arm yourselves.

It is a meritless concept that, somehow, a class of law-abiding citizenry who happen to be government agents are better than the rest of the law-abiding citizenry. Really, such thinking, and the legislation it spawns, reeks of tyranny. A taser is a reasonable weapon for self-defense, for those wishing to carry something less-lethal. We can come up with sensible laws regulating such things as training requirements for and usage of tasers, much like what is in place for concealed handgun carry. But such should apply to all citizens. Set out the requirements, meet them, carry your taser, and don't use it improperly or you will go to jail. It should be that simple, shouldn't it? There shouldn't be any mysticism attached to Joe Citizen just because he becomes a government employee.

THE SCOPE AND POWER OF GOVERNMENT even further by saying that you can buy a taser and use it, and if you use it improperly, you go to jail? why do you have to give the government something to appease it? it takes NO training to learn to use a taser, it's a put it up against a bad guy and press the button type of thing. if you can't figure that out, maybe you shouldn't be carrying one. it's also not the 'do all and end all phaser gun' that you think it is. yes, it's effective, but not 100% effective. it's up to YOU to fight the fight. yes, it's a weapon, so it can be taken from you and used against you, it's up to YOU to fight the fight. no, the batteries are NOT guaranteed to work, (as several of the police officers in my district found out after playing with them for a whole shift.) it's up to YOU to fight the fight. government tyranny cannot be appeased, it SHOULD NEVER be appeased. it should be ELIMINATED. it is not the proper role of government to tell us how, when, and with what we can defend ourselves with. it's the government's job to incarcerate the attacker, IF he survives.

Why not allow CCW permitted people to carry less lethal force? Doesn't make sense.