Social and Civil Liberty Issues

Re: Confusing

crazycajun — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:19:15 GMT

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.

Already covered

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:38:46 GMT

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.

Hmmm...

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:59:42 GMT

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....

no, they simply

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:29:55 GMT

want to disarm you. case closed.

Not needed

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:39:14 GMT

This law is dumb. Non-Residents are already exempt from the crime of CCW. See MCL 750.231a(1)(a) and 750.234d(2)(c). But you must be resident of another state. People v Mamassian, Mich Ct. of Appeals, 8-2-05 This legislation is a step backwards. Don't legislators read the existing law before they propose new ones?

how about we

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:12:46 GMT

simply honor out of state cpl's? simple, elegant solution that WON'T COST US A DIME and won't make law abiding citizens criminals. this law is a 'CATCH-22'. it makes legal activities illegal with no recourse.

Confusing

David Felbeck — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:10:03 GMT

Paragraph (f) says the following are exempted: (f) A United States citizen holding a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state. Then it says that non-residents with CPLs are exempt for only 30 days. Confusing? In any event, I believe that the intent of this bill is unreasonable. If a non-resident cannot achieve residency until he is here for six months, and he can't use his out-of-state CPL after 30 days, what is he to do? As a non-resident he is ineligible for a Michigan CPL until he's been here for six months, so this bill disarms him for up to five months. The bill should be changed to honor any out-of-state CPL for at least six months. For the past 80 or so years, non-residents have had their CPLs honored, and I know of no problems with that situation. What has changed so that we need one more law?

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

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on April 15, 2008

Click here to view bill details.