Cc about to be legal in pfz's in michigan!!!


PDA






ezkl2230
December 13, 2012, 07:56 PM
BREAKING NEWS - SB 59 JUST PASSED THE MI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY A VOTE OF 68 TO 41 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT!!!

The bill now goes to Gov. Snyder, who has promised to sign it.

Beginning in March, with the submission of an application for an exemption to carry concealed in a pistol free zone, 9 hours additional training and more rounds fired, CPL holders will be able to CC in pistol free zones!!! No additional cost for the exemption if the request is submitted at the time of application or renewal, $20 all other times

The downside - open carry in pistol free zones will no longer be permitted. Gov. Snyder insisted on this as a condition of his signature. We will have to work to get that reinstated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cc about to be legal in pfz's in michigan!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Clipper
December 13, 2012, 08:30 PM
... And this POS gives 'no weapons' signs the power of law here, too. This is a step backwards.

smalls
December 13, 2012, 08:49 PM
... And this POS gives 'no weapons' signs the power of law here, too. This is a step backwards.

They did end up sneaking that in after all?

Snyder has gone back and forth on this a thousand times. I wouldn't be surprised if he still vetoed it.

Clipper
December 13, 2012, 09:04 PM
The CC only snobs would rather have bad legislation than have to OC in PFZs, even if it led to OC being outlawed. After all, can't upset the anti's, can we?

TheGloriousTachikoma
December 13, 2012, 09:14 PM
Well, at least I don't have to worry about finding a holster for the CZ with a retention strap. :(

oneounceload
December 13, 2012, 09:15 PM
Always amazes me how some folks whine when they can't shove their agenda in the face of antis instead of being glad they got more ccw freedoms

WTH is wrong with you?

chris in va
December 13, 2012, 09:18 PM
So what qualifies as a 'pfz'? Schools?

USAF_Vet
December 13, 2012, 09:20 PM
By giving no guns signs force of law, and removing a right CPL carriers had (OC in a PFZ), we lost. We won a bit too, but in some respects, we have taken a step backwards.

In order to CC in a PFZ (and remember, before we could OC in a PFZ with a CPL) we now have to undergo advanced training (not cheap) and pay more for a license (or wait for a renewal). I don't have an additional $300 laying around. So CC'ers lost in the PFZ battle, and we lose in the "No Guns signs' battle.

And you are asking WTH is wrong with US?

ETA:
Chris in VA: Schools, Bars, Hospitals, any public area seating more than 2500 people (i.e. theater, sports arena, etc.), places of worship and I think there are one or two more I'm forgetting, are Pistol Free Zones.

Prior to this bill, anyone with a CPL could open carry in a PFZ. Now, or rather once the bill goes into effect, unless you have the PFZ exemption checked on your CPL, you cannot carry a gun in any way, shape or form in a PFZ.

ETA2:
Any updates on HB5225, getting rid of the Pistol purchase permit and hand gun registry?

smalls
December 13, 2012, 09:22 PM
Pistol Free Zones:
Schools, hospitals, casinos, bars, entertainment facilities that seat 2500 or more, stadiums and churches.

I did hear that schools would not be allowed to post signs.

ezkl2230
December 13, 2012, 09:38 PM
Pistol Free Zones:
Schools, hospitals, casinos, bars, entertainment facilities that seat 2500 or more, stadiums and churches.

I did hear that schools would not be allowed to post signs.
Yeah. That was decided earlier this year after a young fellow OC'd to his polling place in a public school and almost got arrested for it. They finally determined that he did nothing wrong. Schools wanted to post, but were told they couldn't because they aren't private property.

ezkl2230
December 13, 2012, 09:41 PM
By giving no guns signs force of law, and removing a right CPL carriers had (OC in a PFZ), we lost. We won a bit too, but in some respects, we have taken a step backwards.

In order to CC in a PFZ (and remember, before we could OC in a PFZ with a CPL) we now have to undergo advanced training (not cheap) and pay more for a license (or wait for a renewal). I don't have an additional $300 laying around. So CC'ers lost in the PFZ battle, and we lose in the "No Guns signs' battle.

And you are asking WTH is wrong with US?

ETA:
Chris in VA: Schools, Bars, Hospitals, any public area seating more than 2500 people (i.e. theater, sports arena, etc.), places of worship and I think there are one or two more I'm forgetting, are Pistol Free Zones.

Prior to this bill, anyone with a CPL could open carry in a PFZ. Now, or rather once the bill goes into effect, unless you have the PFZ exemption checked on your CPL, you cannot carry a gun in any way, shape or form in a PFZ.

ETA2:
Any updates on HB5225, getting rid of the Pistol purchase permit and hand gun registry?
Gutted by amendments put forward by the MSP. Still have purchase permits and registries. This is from the NRA-ILA alert today:

The amended version of HB 5225 has many incremental improvements for which gun owners across the state will benefit, including:

Streamlining private sales to allow people to apply for a purchase license at any law enforcement agency rather than those in the city or county of their residence
Repealing the prerequisite handgun safety test currently required to obtain a purchase license
Extending the time that a purchase license for private transfers is valid from ten days to thirty days
Repealing the requirement that local law enforcement agencies maintain paper copies of purchase licenses

ezkl2230
December 13, 2012, 09:54 PM
... And this POS gives 'no weapons' signs the power of law here, too. This is a step backwards.
Actually, that has been the case for quite some time. This is what handgunlaw.us has to say (the article was written by an attorney on the board of MCRGO):

Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
“YES”
Frequently Asked Question From MARGO Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners.
Q: Is there a specific design for the no gun allowed sign? Does the law say where it has to be placed at a business, such as on the door or adjacent window leading into the business?

A: There are no specifications for "No Guns" or "No Weapons" signs in Michigan law. Under the law, there are two ways for a CPL holder to know that guns are not allowed in a specific location. The first is the list of "Pistol Free Zones" (often colloquially referred to as violent criminal empowerment zones) that we must all memorize, which is part of the CPL statute (Pistol Free Areas).

The second is when the owner or lessor of any real property communicates to us that our guns are not welcome there. That communication must be reasonable in order to be effective. By reasonable, I don't mean polite. I mean that there is an effective means of communicating to us that we are not welcome so long as we are carrying our guns. This can be done with a sign, verbally, or in some kind of printed material.

For instance, if there is a reasonably-sized and located sign in a retail establishment indicating that guns or weapons are not allowed, that would constitute reasonable notice. If an employee of the same establishment actually tells you that you may not carry on the premises, that would constitute reasonable notice. If your employer has an employee handbook or some kind of printed guidelines, and includes a prohibition on guns and/or weapons, that would constitute reasonable notice.

If you choose to ignore any such reasonable notice, then you become a trespasser rather than a business invitee. Trespass can be punished as a crime and/or in civil court, and could affect your CPL licensing status.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an Endowment Member of the NRA.

smalls
December 13, 2012, 10:13 PM
Yeah. That was decided earlier this year after a young fellow OC'd to his polling place in a public school and almost got arrested for it. They finally determined that he did nothing wrong. Schools wanted to post, but were told they couldn't because they aren't private property.

Aah, I remember that. That's good, at least.

So do signs carry the force of law always now, or just PFZ's?

USAF_Vet
December 13, 2012, 10:36 PM
So do signs carry the force of law always now, or just PFZ's?
the owner or lessor of any real property communicates to us that our guns are not welcome there. That communication must be reasonable in order to be effective. By reasonable, I don't mean polite. I mean that there is an effective means of communicating to us that we are not welcome so long as we are carrying our guns. This can be done with a sign, verbally, or in some kind of printed material.

The way I'm reading this is everywhere a sign is posted, it has force of law. I'm pretty sure this will encompass PFZ exempt license holders (other than law enforcement).

Can't say I'm overly excited about this.

USAF_Vet
December 13, 2012, 10:40 PM
Gutted by amendments put forward by the MSP. Still have purchase permits and registries. This is from the NRA-ILA alert today:
Eh. So they took the steak and left the gristle. Fantastic.

smalls
December 13, 2012, 10:40 PM
Can't say I'm overly excited about this.

I can't imagine anyone is. Well, except those anti's.

Truth is, I've only ever seen one sign. But I've never really looked for them, either. I never had to care. This is seeming less and less like a win.

ezkl2230
December 14, 2012, 07:24 AM
The way I'm reading this is everywhere a sign is posted, it has force of law. I'm pretty sure this will encompass PFZ exempt license holders (other than law enforcement).

Can't say I'm overly excited about this.
Business owners (whose property is considered "private property" - something I dispute), regardless of whether their business was considered a pfz under the law, have had the right to post their property as no carry zones for years. That isn't new under SB 59 or HB 5225 - it actually goes back to 2006, when access to CPL was expanded in Michigan. That's why I have been fighting to get a law passed that I have entitled the Hoven Self Defense Act, named for a Michigan pharmacist who used his legally owned sidearm in violation of Walgreen's "no escalation" policy to drive off two armed robbers who had physically abused store employees; he was fired. My proposed bill states,

The right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation, or education.

By the way, Bloomberg sank a little money - and misinformation - into Michigan to try to keep these bills from being passed in ANY form; He was the major backer of the MSP amendments. He noted after HB 5225 was passed in its gutted form that this proves that the NRA can't "give marching orders to Lansing." The AP release containing this statement from Bloomie was a complete pack of lies. This is what it said:

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The Michigan Senate has rejected a National Rifle Association-backed proposal to let people buy handguns without undergoing criminal background checks.

The Senate voted 27-11 Wednesday for a substitute bill that makes it easier for people to apply for gun permits but retains the checks.

The state House earlier approved a bill to repeal the requirement to undergo a check before buying a handgun. Federal law requires checks before buying guns from licensed dealers but not for private sales.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg co-chairs Mayors Against Illegal Guns and says the vote shows the gun lobby can't always "give marching orders to Lansing."

The NRA says the bill falls short of its goals and says it will keep working to end Michigan's background checks in the Legislature's 2013 session.

First, the article states that the bill had failed, when, in fact, it had passed and been sent to the House for a concurrence vote (since it had been amended). It was passed late last night.

Second, HB 5225 simply replaced Michigan's outdated background check system with the federal NICS system - it didn't call for the end of background checks.

Third, it would have eliminated pistol purchase permits and owner registries, treating pistol purchases the same way long gun purchases are treated.

I short, it didn't get a single fact right.

fatcat4620
December 14, 2012, 07:31 AM
So you guys have up some rights so you could CC in places where you could only OC before?

ezkl2230
December 14, 2012, 08:02 AM
Yes. We can, with additional class time, now cc in a pfz.

ezkl2230
December 14, 2012, 08:03 AM
This bill marks the first time in Michigan's history that a limit has been placed on open carry, and I believe it represents a violation of the federal court case Woollard v. Sheridan. The only reason it was limited is because the governor and a handful of people found OC in a pfz objectionable, not because CPL holders openly carrying peacefully in pfz's have caused any problems. That does not meet the legal standard required under Woollard:

"A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered "reasonably adapted" to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be. Maryland`s goal of "minimizing the proliferation of handguns among those who do not have a demonstrated need for them," id. at 40, is not a permissible method of preventing crime or ensuring public safety; it burdens the right too broadly. Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. "[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner." Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464-65 (1980).

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government`s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs....

The Court finds that Maryland`s requirement of a "good and substantial reason" for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State`s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Frankly, I think the NRA, MCRGO, or MOC need to file a suit challenging this limitation. There is ample legal precedent to have that portion of the new law overturned.

In the meantime, I am still working to get my own bill, the Hoven Self-Defense Act passed. It states,

The right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation, or education.

fatcat4620
December 14, 2012, 11:00 AM
Yes. We can, with additional class time, now cc in a pfz.

Sounds like you went backwards to me.

ezkl2230
December 15, 2012, 12:06 PM
With yesterday's events in Connecticut governor Snyder is under intense pressure to veto SB 59 instead of signing it as he promised to do, and he is now questioning the "wisdom" of allowing responsible adults to carry in a school. We need to contact his office immediately with logical, rational explanations to counter act the emotional arguments he is receiving now. The bill may be flawed but it would prevent a Connecticut style event from happening in Michigan by allowing more people to carry in a public school.

answerguy
December 15, 2012, 04:19 PM
" The bill may be flawed but it would prevent a Connecticut style event from happening in Michigan by allowing more people to carry in a public school."

That's a rather bold claim. The best I could say is that CC might have been able to limit the carnage.

Separately; I couldn't imagine open carrying into a school right now. I would expect panic to ensue.

76shuvlinoff
December 15, 2012, 09:51 PM
In light of recent events Snyder is likely to bury this anyhow. If he does wouldn't OC remain the same?

smalls
December 15, 2012, 10:07 PM
In light of recent events Snyder is likely to bury this anyhow. If he does wouldn't OC remain the same?

If he doesn't sign it, it stays the same, because no new law is being signed.

I think a lot of people just want him to sign it so we can have a "win", no matter how much it negatively affects us, as well as positively affects us.

I feel that trading allowance of CC in schools (let's be realistic, every other PFZ will post signage) and trading off OC'ing in these places, and signs now holding the weight of the law is NOT a win.

76shuvlinoff
December 15, 2012, 10:14 PM
trading off OC'ing in these places, and signs now holding the weight of the law is NOT a win.

Agreed and right now Snyder is going to see cc-ing in a school as incomprehensible to his supporters. I would think he would see signing this as bad PR and it's all about the PR with a professional politician.

.02

smalls
December 15, 2012, 11:17 PM
I'm fine with him not signing it. I don't like what the bill turned into. If he really doesn't sign it, and it is because of the Connecticut school shootings, then I don't agree with his reasoning. He also needs to realize that a ton of people are going to open carry into schools in protest, and he won't like that either.

Kaeto
December 15, 2012, 11:32 PM
No gun signs for private property would have the same force of law that they do now. The Trespass Law. If you carry a gun on private property that is posted no guns you are trespassing plain and simple, the new bill doesn't change that. It simply states that the new bill doesn't prohibit private property owners from posting no gun signs.

smalls
December 15, 2012, 11:37 PM
No, currently they must tell us to leave, and refusal would result in a trespass charge.

It's my understanding that the bill would cause it to be an automatic trespass charge if you are caught.

Kaeto
December 16, 2012, 12:09 AM
This is from the SB59 H-4:

NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNER FROM PROHIBITING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM CARRYING A PISTOL,
INCLUDING A PISTOL THAT IS OPENLY 1 DISPLAYED OR CARRIED IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (13), ON THE PREMISES OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1), AND ENFORCING THAT PROHIBITION UNDER SECTION 552 OF THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.552.

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931
750.552 Trespass upon lands or premises of another; violation; penalty.
Sec. 552. (1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by
the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the
owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.
(c) Enter or remain without lawful authority on fenced or posted farm property of another person without
the consent of the owner or his or her lessee or agent. A request to leave the premises is not a necessary
element for a violation of this subdivision. This subdivision does not apply to a person who is in the process
of attempting, by the most direct route, to contact the owner or his or her lessee or agent to request consent.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than 30 days or by a fine of not more than $250.00, or both.
History: Add. 1951, Act 102, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1951;ľAm. 2007, Act 167, Eff. Mar. 20, 2008.

smalls
December 16, 2012, 03:18 AM
...fenced or posted farm property...

Nowhere does it say businesses or other properties.

Kaeto
December 16, 2012, 04:38 AM
Nowhere does it say businesses or other properties


Sec. 552. (1) A person shall not do any of the following:
(a) Enter the lands or premises of another without lawful authority after having been forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant.

I think a sign qualifies as notice you are forbidden. And premises includes a buisness.

smalls
December 16, 2012, 10:38 AM
Any sources of that interpretation meaning a sign?

Kaeto
December 16, 2012, 10:45 AM
I'd say a sign saying no guns constitutes being forbidden under trespass law.

smalls
December 16, 2012, 11:22 AM
Unless someone can show me an interpretation, case law or otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

Kaeto
December 16, 2012, 12:07 PM
Enjoy your handcuffs after you trespass. And don't do it in Tenn. There if you go past a no trespassing sign the property owner is legally allowed to shoot you.

smalls
December 16, 2012, 01:28 PM
If signs held force of law, it would have read "fenced or posted property", like section C states about farm property.

They also would not have had to state (b) Remain without lawful authority on the land or premises of another after being notified to depart by the
owner or occupant or the agent of the owner or occupant Because you would have already been trespassing. Whether you remain trespassing is irrelevant, you would have already committed the crime.

rodinal220
December 16, 2012, 10:09 PM
CCW is big business now. Lots of folks making a living at it or good side money.This is what happens when you let the govt excessively regulate a right and treat it like a drivers license.You do not need a permit or license to carry a weapon.Gun laws have to be one of the most insane areas in law,they often defy all logic and reasoning.
You can have a concealed handgun,but if its carried openly you are now a criminal???Stupid and illogical.

smalls
December 16, 2012, 10:54 PM
What?

USAF_Vet
December 17, 2012, 06:57 PM
CCW is big business now. Lots of folks making a living at it or good side money.This is what happens when you let the govt excessively regulate a right and treat it like a drivers license.You do not need a permit or license to carry a weapon.Gun laws have to be one of the most insane areas in law,they often defy all logic and reasoning.
You can have a concealed handgun,but if its carried openly you are now a criminal???Stupid and illogical.
Open Carry without a license is still lawful in Michigan. The only places it was unlawful to open carry without a license are still unlawful to open carry without a license.

USAF_Vet
December 18, 2012, 04:33 PM
Snyder vetoed it

ezkl2230
December 18, 2012, 05:08 PM
Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michigan/governor-snyder-will-veto-concealed-weapons-expansion-121812

smalls
December 18, 2012, 10:32 PM
Not surprised.

But, I'm actually glad he vetoed it. I was NOT happy about what the bill became.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cc about to be legal in pfz's in michigan!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!