Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on May 15, 2007, to exempt retired and current state court judges from the “gun-free zone” provisions of the concealed pistol permit law. These zones include schools, day care facilities, sports stadiums or arenas, bars, bar/restaurants, places of worship, college dorms and classrooms, hospitals, casinos, entertainment facilities that hold more than 2,500, and courts

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

(Senate Roll Call 17 at Senate Journal 4)

Click here to view bill details.

This bill is wrong for SO many reasons! First, it adds to the growing list of cultural "elites" such as off-duty and retired police officers and private investigators while shutting out all other Michigan licensees who have taken the time, gone through the expense, background checks and obtained a valid CPL. Adding to this elitist class without including all licensees not only violates our 14th amendment (equal protection under the law), but makes no sense considering that bad guys don't obey the laws anyway. I'll be just as dead if I'm shot on the street or in a church. Our carry laws, and the Second Amendment itself, are designed to deter crime and allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves when and where police aren't present. (Which is most of our daily lives.) If you take a good hard look at Michigan's firearms statistics, you'll see that CPL holders have an exemplary record and, in fact, have behaved far better than even police! We lost our right to carry a firearm while enjoying ourselves at a casino because an off-duty POLICE OFFICER infamously shot and killed himself at one. Now, police can STILL carry in a casino, but regular CPLs cannot. Does this make any sense? Instead, legislators should consider drafting a bill that eliminates these silly "no carry" zones for all licensees. They don't deter crime (and may, in fact, foster it in those very areas deemed "off limits") and make no sense in light of the behavior exhibited by licensees. The Senate needs a mirror version of Daniel Acciavitti's House Bill 4759 that would eliminate such zones. It's time for them to go.

If there is a legislator out there that disagrees with the above, I challenge you to go on the record. Call Paul W. Smith at WJR and voice your opinion. Go on record with the Detroit News and your local newspaper. Let your voice be heard. Thought so. Chicken.

this was a reply to this comment. Well said. If there is a legislator out there that disagrees with the above, I challenge you to go on the record. Call Paul W. Smith at WJR and voice your opinion. Go on record with the Detroit News and your local newspaper. Let your voice be heard. Thought so. Chicken.

Whatever happened to equal protection under the law ? Why should CPL holders who obviously are among the most law abiding of society not be able to carry their own defense but a retired judge can ? Judges arent and elite class of special people, in fact they are still civil servants and we ALL need to be treated equally under the law, especially when it comes to being able to defend yourself and others.

Well it looks like if you are a judge at a boy scout derby car race-then you are exempt! If you are a judge at a high school swim competition- Then Carry! A judge is a judge is a judge! If your magistrate judge on an indian reservation! then you can Carry! If your a judge at the local VFW post-Then you can carry also! Lets get this legislation passed! and we all can become judges!

This bill is essentially the same as HB 4744. Not only would it expand the elite group that has special concealed carry privileges, but if all works out, this bill will be unnecessary. Let's just pass Rep. Acciavatti's HB 4759 and eliminate the "criminal safe zones" for all CPL licensees. David Felbeck MCRGO legislative analyst

So some more Privileges for a Special Group. I see lets take care of our Legal Buddies. How about having No gun free Zones for all CPL licensees that way the criminal will go somewhere else

I could not agree more.

Well said.

I think it should include retired LEO's also.

Are rock concerts exempt??? This bill also made me think of that show with the vigilante judge who rode a motorcycle. Now what was the name of that show???

include everybody able to carry a gun. all gun free zones do is promote criminal activity. it's like putting up a sign on your house that says "COME ON IN, I DON'T OWN A GUN." what makes judges lives worth more than yours and mine? don't we have a right to self defense any time and anywhere?

Maybe exclude permanently retired LEO's, and allow anyone else who specifically is not a retired LEO. Now that would be fair to the people.

HOW ABOUT ADDING ALL THE MILITARY VETERANS TOO THEY TOOK A LOT OF TRAINING IN HANDLING FIREARMS THEY WERE TRUSTED IN CARRYING ALL SORTS OF WEAPONS IN THE MILITARY. I IMAGINE THEY COULD GIVE LESSONS TO JUDGES.

This is an admission by legislators that pistol-free zones are dangerous places to be. If they are dangerous, then ALL law-abiding CPL holders should be allowed to carry as well. My life and the lives of my wife and children are every bit as important as any judge. Yes, they should be able to carry, but so should the rest of us. We have proved our honesty and integrity for many years now. Do the right thing and abolish these killing fields called "pistol-free zones". It's the right thing to do. Skip Coryell www.skipcoryell.com

abolishing all 'gun control laws' and allowing the law abiding citizens to carry any weapon, any time, any where? or do the legislators fear us too much to allow us that kind of freedom?

Pass Rep. Daniel Acciavatti's HB 4759 to eliminate gun-free zones for all CPL licensees.

gun free zones for every citizen. let's eliminate registration. lets eliminate the requirement for a permit to purchase. let's eliminate the requirement for a license to carry. let's let free men act like free men. let's stop preparing the citizens of this state for the day when your legislators decide you can't have guns any more.

It's time everyone licensed to carry a firearm be allowed to carry anywhere. Currently the only one's carrying in Gun Free Zones are criminals, off duty law enforcement, and soon judges.

you NEED A LICENSE to defend yourself? please tell me HOW YOU WILL DEFEND YOURSELF IF THE GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ISSUE THAT LICENSE? please tell me WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE. THE PEOPLE OR THE GOVERNMENT? why does the government feel it needs to be 'protected from us'? is it afraid that we will get tired of this silly game they play? is it because they have something far worse planned for us and they don't want us to be armed and able to resist? look at what happened in new orleans post katrina. do you want your government kicking your door down and taking what you have from you? it's not MIGHT HAPPEN. it's HAS HAPPENED.

Are the lives of judges more valuable then the rest of us? Why should they get breaks that we don't? Remove all "gun free" zones! They are just invitations to bad guys where they can find easy victims.

to assure that NO LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WILL BE ARMED IN THIS AREA. i wonder why they would want that? is it FOR OUR PROTECTION or THEIRS?

Government is in charge! you factory rat peasants mean and can do nothing to stop us. Your our slaves FOR LIFE!

 

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted ‘no’ on SB 505 (H-3) for the simple reason that we should consider the usefulness of a weapons free-zone when we allow exceptions. Perhaps the better approach would be to review the entire concept of weapons free zones rather than allow specific exceptions.”

I'm inclined to agree with Rep. Bieda.  

Additionally, I object to creating specially privileged classes of people -- in this case, judges, who would qualify for this privilege only because they happen to be judges.  

 how about really thinking this through and getting rid of "gun free zones" altogether?

they only tell the criminals where the people will be unarmed, and thus more vulnerable. is this what you really want the law to do?