Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
Like Tree1Likes

Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!

This is a discussion on Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!! within the Firearm Politics & 2nd Amendment Issues forums, part of the Main Category category; BREAKING NEWS - In the wake of the Newtown shooting, Gov. Snyder says, "I wouldn't say I'm prepared to sign ...

  1. #1
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Thumbs up Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!

    BREAKING NEWS - In the wake of the Newtown shooting, Gov. Snyder says, "I wouldn't say I'm prepared to sign it by any means... I haven't made a decision one way or another on it ... I need to see what it says. But the shooting gives you clear pause to say, 'Would this be appropriate?' That was a terrible thing to happen."

    He expects to make a decision in the next 2-3 days according to the article.

    http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/...y_possibl.html

    We now have a new definition of gun control:

    Gun Control: The theory that 20 innocent grade school children found dead in their classrooms, many shot multiple times, is somehow morally superior to the principal explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!

    Is there another news source for this? If true, I think it's great.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/pdf/2011-HLA-0059-7C4AD496.pdf

  4. #4
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew49417 View Post
    Is there another news source for this? If true, I think it's great.
    I watched it live on the House webcast as they finished the debate and took the vote. Too soon for the new outlets to have it, but this is from Rep. Tom Hooker, posted on his FB page after casting his vote:

    SB 59 (H-4)(Green)Revises the Concealed Carry Law by eliminating county gun boards, and following increased training allows concealed weapons in gun-free zones, along with other changes. I voted yes. Bill passed 68-41.
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Sb 59 Passes In MI, Gov. Promised to Sign It!!! Cc In PFZ's Now Legal!!!

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5h0xbxjymvrjc5jyjkn1zbjq))/documents/2011-2012/billcurrentversion/Senate/PDF/2011-SCVBH-0059-17783.PDF

    Here is the adopted version. Status says "returned to senate."

  6. #6
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew49417 View Post
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5h0xbxjymvrjc5jyjkn1zbjq))/documents/2011-2012/billcurrentversion/Senate/PDF/2011-SCVBH-0059-17783.PDF

    Here is the adopted version. Status says "returned to senate."
    It was returned to the Senate for a concurrence vote (since the bill was amended); if you go back to the legislative web site, you will see its status listed as "Senate Concurred." That vote took place very late last night or early this morning and is now headed to the governor's desk for his signature.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...1-SCB-0059.pdf
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    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 that 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.
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    303

    Default

    My concerns are that it now limits the OC in those zones more than it did. And the way the law is written, schools, privately owned malls, colleges, etc can still opt out of the new law and still be PFZ.

    "(11) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FROM PROHIBITING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM CARRYING A PISTOL, INCLUDING A PISTOL THAT IS OPENLY 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.
    (12) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAS THE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 TO ENACT AND ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CARRYING, USE, OR TRANSPORTATION OF A PISTOL FROM ENACTING OR ENFORCING SUCH AN ORDINANCE."

  9. #9
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icemanii View Post
    My concerns are that it now limits the OC in those zones more than it did. And the way the law is written, schools, privately owned malls, colleges, etc can still opt out of the new law and still be PFZ.

    "(11) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FROM PROHIBITING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM CARRYING A PISTOL, INCLUDING A PISTOL THAT IS OPENLY 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.
    (12) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAS THE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 TO ENACT AND ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CARRYING, USE, OR TRANSPORTATION OF A PISTOL FROM ENACTING OR ENFORCING SUCH AN ORDINANCE."
    You're right. It does allow these properties to opt out. However, it also assumes that unless one of these entities actually informs you in some way that they have done so, you have the right to cc there. This is a small victory. Gov. Snyder masquerades as a supporter of the Second Amendment (he masquerades as many things), but he is doing everything he can to limit our progress.

    I have submitted two bills to legislators, one is listed in a previous post, the Hoven Self-Defense Act. The other is a bill that would require any business enforcing a no carry policy to plainly post it. There currently is no requirement that they do so. This is the bill I submitted:


    A BILL TO AMEND MCL 28.425 BY ADDING SUBSECTION P, PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF FIREARMS POLICY

    28.425P PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON PREMISES; “PREMISES” DEFINED; PRESUMPTION; VIOLATION; PENALTIES; INDEMNITY.

    SEC. 5P

    (1) ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES SHALL CONSPICUOUSLY POST NOTIFICATION OF SAME. SAID NOTIFICATION SHALL CONSIST OF SIGNAGE THAT SHALL MEASURE NOT LESS THAN 5”X7” AND SHALL BE AFFIXED PROMINENTLY AT ALL EXTERIOR ENTRANCES OF PREMISES OWNED OR OPERATED BY SAID COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY.

    (2) AS USED IN SUBSECTION (1), "PREMISES" DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS OF THE PLACES IDENTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (1).

    (3) THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY NOT CONSPICUOUSLY POSTING A NOTICE OF PROHIBITION OF FIREARMS CARRY AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) PERMITS FIREARMS CARRY.

    (4) ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES WITHOUT CONSPICUOUSLY POSTING NOTIFICATION OF SAME AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CIVIL INFRACTION, AND SHALL BE LIABLE FOR COSTS INCURRED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONDING TO A FIREARMS CARRY RELATED CALL OF TRESPASS.

    (5) A LEGAL FIREARMS OWNER CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A CONCEALED PISTOL LICENSE ENTERING ANY COMMERCIAL OR NON-PROFIT ENTITY ENFORCING A POLICY PROHIBITING THE CARRY OF FIREARMS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED PREMISES WITHOUT CONSPICUOUSLY POSTING NOTIFICATION OF SAME AS REQUIRED IN SUBSECTION (1) SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED WITH REGARD TO A CHARGE OF TRESPASS.
    I also sent the following email to the NRA-ILA and Michigan Open Carry, asking them to file suit against Michigan to overturn the elimination of the right to OC in a pfz:

    As you know, SB 59, permitting concealed carry in a pistol free zone by one possessing a CPL who has completed additional training, passed in the Michigan State House last night, with the Senate concurring. It now goes to the governor for his promised signature.

    The price for his signature was an amendment that, for the first time in Michigan's history, placed limits on open carry. Until SB 59 passed, a person possessing a CPL could openly carry in a pistol free zone; with the passage of this bill, that is no longer the case.

    At no time has the governor enunciated a substantive reason why elimination of this right is in the interest of public safety or crime prevention; he simply finds it personally objectionable, and is hoping to mollify a vocal minority who also find the exercise of this right personally objectionable.

    This portion of the bill (Section 5o (13)) is a violation of the decision handed down in federal appeals court (Maryland) by Judge Benson Everett Legg, 2 March 2012, Woollard v. Sheridan. While this decision specifically addresses the need for an individual to show a "good and substantial reason" why they should be issued a license to carry a firearm, it also addresses the broader issue of the government's obligation to "show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method" when enacting laws infringing a Constitutional right. More to the point, Judge Legg's opinion specifically address the "fear" that has been the mainstay of those who oppose ANY kind of firearms carry, that "when handguns are in the possession of potential victims of crime, their decision to use them in a public setting may actually increase the risk of serious injury or death to themselves or others", an argument that Judge Legg found to be wholly insufficient.

    At issue, then, is the government's obligation to "show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method" demonstrating how this change in the law meets a government interest regarding public safety or crime prevention.

    Here are the key arguments of Woollard v. Sheridan that address this issue:

    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.

    There is ample precedent to bring suit against Michigan to have this portion of the law overturned. Simply put, aside from some individuals finding open carry of a firearm in a pistol free zone (or anywhere, for that matter) objectionable, there have been no situations of which I am aware in which a person in possession of a CPL, living in Michigan, who was openly carrying has been involved in ANY situation that posed a threat to public safety or a criminal violation of the law. Per the decision rendered in Woollard, this lack of evidence constitutes an insufficient justification for the infringement of this Constitutional right. I hope one of your organizations will see fit to address this issue quickly.

    Sincerely,

    I have had a busy morning already.
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is online now I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    With the events in Connecticut yesterday 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, armed adults carry in schools. We need to contact his office immediately with logical, rational arguments to counteract the emotional arguments he is receiving now. The bill may be flawed but it could prevent a Connecticut style event from happening in Michigan by allowing us to carry in schools.
    "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind... Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •