• 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 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions

Master Control

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
144
Location
SE Regional / Augusta, Michigan
House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/pdf/2012-HEBH-5282.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 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.





This reeks of back door slight of hand. It sounds good until YOU THINK about it. It re-opens LEO's going after you for not going or coming from most places currently protected by the lawful purpose clause.

Example > Cop - Is that a pistol case in the back? Yes it is. Where are you coming from? Well I was at XYZ place not on the list in HB 5262, Your under arrest, don't move! But I was not breaking any laws... Shut up maggot...oh we got you good pal... but I was just visiting my cousin...Is it your home? Well no. Right, fool you broke the law now your going to pay...I pitty you fool!

This is a throw back to before shall issue when it was only legal to transport to and from the range & home period! Someone is trying to pi$$ down our backs & tell us it's raining.

I urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them to fight this NOW!
 
Last edited:

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
From my understanding of this is it eliminates the current definitions of "lawful purpose" in .231a, which at this point can put a LEO in the position to say "well you werent coming from or going to" and "open carry isnt on the list." The newer version simply says that you can transport a firearm for any lawful purpose, it doesnt give a list of examples as to what is lawful purpose which can be confused.

Unless I missed something I would think this would be a better alternative for the non-cpl holders than the current .231a
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
From my understanding of this is it eliminates the current definitions of "lawful purpose" in .231a, which at this point can put a LEO in the position to say "well you werent coming from or going to" and "open carry isnt on the list." The newer version simply says that you can transport a firearm for any lawful purpose, it doesnt give a list of examples as to what is lawful purpose which can be confused.

Unless I missed something I would think this would be a better alternative for the non-cpl holders than the current .231a

Could you please cite or link? My concern having had to deal with this type of bs in the past, it makes me very uneasy when they start playing with the lawful purpose clause. As it stands now it covers exactly that any lawful purpose. Why the sudden need to tweak it?:confused:

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

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
House Bill 5282: Revise pistol transport restrictions
Passed 95 to 14 in the House on May 31, 2012, to revise restrictions on transporting an unloaded pistol in a vehicle for lawful purposes if it is in “a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms” and is in the trunk or a place “not readily accessible” to vehicle occupants. The bill would eliminate a very narrow definition of “lawful purpose,” and establish that nothing prohibits transporting a "not readily accessible" pistol between a home or business to a place where shooting is legal.



There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.:mad::mad::mad::mad:
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Ding, ding, ding - we have a winner! Give that man a prize! Clearly a smart person here.

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

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/House/htm/2012-HEBH-5282.htm

It mentions nothing to the effect of "where its legal to shoot" It simply strikes the "lawful purpose includes" portion of the current MCL 750.231a from the law.

I was told by the MSP that open carry "is not one of the listed purposed to transport a firearm" and they listed off the "only reasons you can transport a firearm" this only eliminates that misunderstanding. Lawful purpose is anything that isnt against the law, so instead of making a list they are striking the list and just leaving it at lawful purpose. LEO cant argue what a lawful purpose is if they dont have those examples.

and the link is to the version as passed by the house, so I'm not sure where everyone is getting this information from (other than the OP).
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
There are a plethora of places that have ordinances against discharging a firearm; hence, taking your gun to town where shooting is NOT legal is a problem.

So, yes, we'd be limited to ranges, hunting grounds, home. Shoot, if that language is truly in there, you wouldn't be allowed to take it to the gunsmith for repairs, unless its legal to shoot at the gunsmith's facility.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I don't agree. You presuppose every use of a gun involves firing it. Mere possession for self-defense is a "use" that doesn't involve discharge.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Master control is adding opinions with the statute and that is what is confusing people. If he would just post the link to the actual law it would be less confusing.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
Well, It sounds like a good thing. But the problem still remains: THERE IS STILL A LAW THAT INFRINGES ON OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!
 

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
The problem is that with that list LE will tell people that they cannot transport except only for those reasons. I was told this by the MSP, the trooper said transporting for open carry was a "gray area." So if this is taken out it will remove any confusion as to why or when someone can transport a firearm. Leaving it at "lawful purpose" pretty much allows someone to transport a firearm for any purpose that isnt specifically a crime.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.

+1000
 

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Is this such a prevalent issue that all other pro2A legislation needs to take a back seat? I have no problem with the intent, but is this legislation a major step forward? Making changes to existing law that really do little to forward our ability to carry is proof positive that changes need to be made at the next election; here we are in the home stretch of the 96th Legislative term and this bill, along with the other legislation posted, is the best that our politicians can do??? Those who were elected with the support of Michigan gun owners should be ashamed of themselves.

+1000 Amen brother!


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