• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception

Master Control

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
144
Location
SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception
Passed 96 to 11 in the House on May 17, 2012, to eliminate the concealed pistol license training requirement for veterans and active duty military. The bill would also revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired federal law enforcement officers who carried a firearm during their employment. This provision prohibits regular citizens who have received a permit after meeting the background check and training requirements, from carrying a pistol in schools, day care facilities, sports stadiums or arenas, bars, bar/restaurants, places of worship, college dorms and classrooms, hospitals, casinos, large entertainment facilities and courts.

House Bill 4591 (H-1) as amended May 15, 2012

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/pdf/2011-HEBH-4591.pdf

 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Bs alert! Warning! Danger!

House Bill 4591: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception
Passed 96 to 11 in the House on May 17, 2012, to eliminate the concealed pistol license training requirement for veterans and active duty military. The bill would also revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired federal law enforcement officers who carried a firearm during their employment. This provision prohibits regular citizens who have received a permit after meeting the background check and training requirements, from carrying a pistol in schools, day care facilities, sports stadiums or arenas, bars, bar/restaurants, places of worship, college dorms and classrooms, hospitals, casinos, large entertainment facilities and courts.




Wow so much for our pro 2A PALS in Lansing! With friends like them who needs enemies. If you are not livid over this you need to really think about your pro 2A credibility. They are trying to close "the loopholes" as they call them, which allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's openly if I'm reading this correctly?
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Wow so much for our pro 2A PALS in Lansing! With friends like them who needs enemies. If you are not livid over this you need to really think about your pro 2A credibility. They are trying to close "the loopholes" as they call them, which allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's openly if I'm reading this correctly?

I don't see that in the text of the bill at all. Maybe you can point it out to me...?

I don't like special exemptions for special people...this bill isn't a nice one on that account.
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
Being a veteran this sure sounds nice if I had my CPL, I can understand why certain groups get caught up in supporting things that benefit them. However, I cant support it since this doesnt allow civi's who get extra training to carry, not all military carry guns, theres probably some vets that havent touched a gun since getting out of basic. Simply being a vet or a retired police officer shouldnt be a qualifying factor. Lets have a standardized NRA class for the extra training for everyone so that everyone is sure to be on the same page with the laws and exempts all those who seek the additional training.
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
I don't see that in the text of the bill at all. Maybe you can point it out to me...?

I don't like special exemptions for special people...this bill isn't a nice one on that account.

You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:

Look at the actual bill (btw, I haven't as of yet). I think, but could be wrong, that the person who wrote the synopsis just wrote it much as they used to write it on the back of our licenses... forgetting the all important word "concealed". I'll take a look at the bill later to see if it has changed that provision... my guess is no (hope I'm right)
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. However, this bill does make the prohibited CC zones apply to those who are exempt because they are out-of-state licensees licensed by their home state (see Sec. 5k. (1) of this bill). As I have argued here before, currently, people licensed in their home state to carry a concealed pistol are exempt from the NO CC Zones;this bill expands the coverage of the zones to those people.

Once again, the Republicans have shown their true colors by not only exempting some more "Only Ones", they have also expanded the no CC zones application to those visitors licensed to conceal by their home state. THIS IS A TERRIBLE BILL!!

This along, with the revision of the definition of pistols, shows me that the most rabid ANTIs are members of the Republican Party.
 
Last edited:

fozzy71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
921
Location
Roseville, Michigan, USA
I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. ....

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I too could see where G9mmOS was coming from by the reading of the synopsis because it didnt specifiy 'concealed'.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
You are MOC's point man in the legislature. If you can explain why we should be happy that CPL holders who are not vets or Leo's should lose the ability to open carry in PFZ's I will be quiet. Your curt little jabs will not cut it here, please give detail on why any that currently have this ability should lose it? If this is a bill to support
The second amendment I am having a hard time seeing it. Please explain....


Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:

Yikes man! All I asked was if you could point our the part of the bill that spike if what you were saying. I had read the bill and didn't see it. I was hoping that I had missed something and you could point it out...?

Sorry I asked you to read the bill you were opining on :( I won't do it again.
 

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
Being a veteran this sure sounds nice if I had my CPL, I can understand why certain groups get caught up in supporting things that benefit them. However, I cant support it since this doesnt allow civi's who get extra training to carry, not all military carry guns, theres probably some vets that havent touched a gun since getting out of basic. Simply being a vet or a retired police officer shouldnt be a qualifying factor. Lets have a standardized NRA class for the extra training for everyone so that everyone is sure to be on the same page with the laws and exempts all those who seek the additional training.

Why not just eliminate the PFZs for all CPL holders? I don't see the need for extra training. Using/carrying a firearm in a PFZ for self defense is no different then lets say a grocery store. If I'm missing something on PFZs let me know, I'm always open to feedback and suggestions.
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Yikes man! All I asked was if you could point our the part of the bill that spike if what you were saying. I had read the bill and didn't see it. I was hoping that I had missed something and you could point it out...?

Sorry I asked you to read the bill you were opining on :( I won't do it again.

Thanks for explaining your stance... it must be classified...:rolleyes:

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
I had a minute to look... it still says that one may not carry a CONCEALED pistol on those premises listed under MCL 28.425. However, this bill does make the prohibited CC zones apply to those who are exempt because they are out-of-state licensees licensed by their home state (see Sec. 5k. (1) of this bill). As I have argued here before, currently, people licensed in their home state to carry a concealed pistol are exempt from the NO CC Zones;this bill expands the coverage of the zones to those people.

Once again, the Republicans have shown their true colors by not only exempting some more "Only Ones", they have also expanded the no CC zones application to those visitors licensed to conceal by their home state. THIS IS A TERRIBLE BILL!!

This along, with the revision of the definition of pistols, shows me that the most rabid ANTIs are members of the Republican Party.

Thanks Doc for the post. I had skimmed the bill, late last night & missed the concealed caveat. I agree if our current batch of A$$hats in Lansing are the best we can hope for...we are in for a bumpy ride ahead. :mad:

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 
Last edited:

mecayuse

New member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
5
Location
Michigan
:uhoh:

So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
:uhoh:

So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.

Nope, no changes regarding OC in those areas. Perhaps the PD needs to actually read the PROPOSED law (bill) before spouting off. Probably hoping that no one is paying attention.
Just download the link and compare the law as it is now with this bill...the changes are so noted in the bill.
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
:uhoh:

So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.
Next time you see that officer, tell him he needs to go back and read that law, IN DETAIL. In fact, you might even print it out and hand it to him. :)
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
:uhoh:

So, does this mean there has been a significant change in the ability of CPL holders OCing in PFZ's or not? My local PD sure think so. I had a local officer who I see around the lunch counter tell me this behavior is from henceforth illegal and would be duly enforced. The local high school put up "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs on all the doors and on the chain link fences and gates defining the borders of the school property. I would sure like some definitive clarification on this topic before I find myself proned out by some huckleberry and stripped of my carry permit. Any help with clarification or direction to who can give some would be greatly appreciated.

Nope, no changes regarding OC in those areas. Perhaps the PD needs to actually read the PROPOSED law (bill) before spouting off. Probably hoping that no one is paying attention.
Just download the link and compare the law as it is now with this bill...the changes are so noted in the bill.

Next time you see that officer, tell him he needs to go back and read that law, IN DETAIL. In fact, you might even print it out and hand it to him. :)

The police officer may well be correct! If the School posted "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs, you may be charged with tresspassing for carrying their. Schools are not listed as a local unit of .gov in MCL 123.1102, and until it is, or a court rules it is a local unit of .gov in regards to firearms, tread lightly. Unless you want to be the test case. Notice you say the Police Officer said "henceforth", meaning now? He didn't say once the new revisions of the law were in effect? So in light of what the officer told you, and since that the new revisions of the law does not appear to make OC w/CPL illegal in GFZs, in conjunction with the new signs I would consider he was talking about tresspassing!

What does everyone else think? Could this be the case?
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
The police officer may well be correct! If the School posted "Absolutely no firearms allowed" signs, you may be charged with tresspassing for carrying their. Schools are not listed as a local unit of .gov in MCL 123.1102, and until it is, or a court rules it is a local unit of .gov in regards to firearms, tread lightly. Unless you want to be the test case. Notice you say the Police Officer said "henceforth", meaning now? He didn't say once the new revisions of the law were in effect? So in light of what the officer told you, and since that the new revisions of the law does not appear to make OC w/CPL illegal in GFZs, in conjunction with the new signs I would consider he was talking about tresspassing!

What does everyone else think? Could this be the case?

1. Trespass is a different issue.
2. I have done a little reading during my week off and I went back and read the Ferndale decision. In that decision, the MI Supreme Court stated:

"In other words, although stated in the negative, rather than the affirmative, the statutory language of § 1102 demonstrates that, in effect, state law completely occupies the field of regulation that the Ferndale ordinance seeks to enter, to the exclusion of the ordinance, although subject to limited exceptions. See Llewellyn, supra at 322, 257 N.W.2d 902. 12 With the enactment of § 1102, the Legislature made a clear policy choice to remove from local units of government the authority to dictate where firearms may be taken."

I believe that this statement gives exclusive power to the state to regulate and control firearms in Michigan. This is somewhat more broad than saying that only specific entities are prohibited from controlling the use and possession of firearms, somewhat recent events notwithstanding.
 
Top