Thain said:
I'm unaware of any state in the union that does not have CCW restricted areas; Yes, they are an annoyance, but half of them are mandated by federal law, not state. Again, I didn't say it was ideal, just something I could live with...
We're not getting everything in one fell swoop... Frankly, it only hurts our chances to demand it that way.
The Anti's got as far as they did one inch at a time, by pushing their mantra of "reasonable" or "sensible" gun laws. We need to push back the same way.
Secondly, transferring issuing authority to the Secretary of State's office would be a bad thing. Local control is ideal, instead of one official deciding the right of every Michigander to carry, we have the power resting with the counties.
Local control is good.
28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined;
exceptions to subsection (1); violation.
Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or
who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any
of the following:
(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not
precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the
student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, “school” and “school
property” mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL
750.237a.
(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or
public or private child placing agency.
(c) A sports arena or stadium.
(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101
to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass
and consumed on the premises. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The
Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the
Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating
that “This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons”. The owner or operator of an
establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to
436.2303, may, but shall not be required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made
available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL
436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of
information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of
worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of
worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.
(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows
or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public
entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.
(g) A hospital.
(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
(2) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under
section 12a(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol in violation of R 432.1212 or a successor rule of the
Michigan administrative code promulgated pursuant to the Michigan gaming control and revenue act, the
Initiated Law of 1996, MCL 432.201 to 432.226.
(3) As used in subsection (1), “premises” does not include parking areas of the places identified under
subsection (1).
I will try to be concise. You are wrong concerning criminal safety zones. None listed in MCL 28.425o(a)-(h) are mandated by federal law. If 28.425o were removed, CPL holders could carry in all of those places. Do not even go to the federal law argument on in-school carry. US code of law exempts those who are “licensed” by the state; note my language is not exact.
I am not saying incremental gains are not acceptable. I would be happy with slow, but steady, forward progress, just as long as it is not “too” slow. Obviously, I would prefer a single crushing victory, though.
Concerning the transfer of issuing authority, I said would listen to arguments. I understand where you are coming from. The flip side is that actual adherence to the same standard for everyone could be a net benefit. The legislation in 2001 was supposed to address that. I am not certain if lawsuits/legal action in the last 6 years have brought all the counties in line. I am not approaching it from the standpoint that the SOS would actively work to thwart “shall-issue”, though I guess that may have to be addressed. I was thinking of it as more of a convenience and financial savings.
