CCW Reform Passes in Michigan

S

straightShot

New member
The Michigan State Senate and State House passed HB4530 on 12/13/2000. Although it added many restrictions on places to carry, it removes the obstacle of arbitrary denial by gun boards in many counties. Governer Engler is expected to sign the bill. Michigan will thus become a 'shall issue' state.

Here's an article in the Detroit Free Press.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/ccw14_20001214.htm



straightShot
 
This is GREAT news! When this bill passes into law, Michigan will become the 32nd state to become Shall Issue. I hope Ohio will become the 33rd next year.

This is an acknowledgement that keeping and bearing arms is a Right held by all law-abiding citizens. It is not the best solution in the world, but it is a step in the right direction.
 
Besides CCW we also got the Vear Transportation Bill passed.

So we not only have CCW ( finally ) but we can legally transport a unloaded firearm to places besides a range and/or repair shop.
 
I get the cake but can't eat it...

I am overjoyed that our state has finally passed the CCW reform. I feel like my letters and calls over the last 2 years have finally stood for something.

However, I must admit, I am furiously dissapointed with some of the last minute restrictions added. Particularly the provision against carry on university dormitories and classrooms. ( http://www.mcrgo.org/news_story.asp?key=263 )

I think this is absolutely ridiculous: I am an adult. Not only that, but to be at a university I am an obviously educated and intelligent adult. By law now only 21+ year olds will be elegible to carry, so age cannot be a valid excuse to deny college students their right to carry and defend themselves on, to, and from campus. What is it then? Students may be too stressed out by their classes and exams to be responsible? BS! I can tell you that if Gas station worker Joe Blow or car salesman Buck who has 2 ulcers and a nervous twitch or Doctor Smith who works 80 hours a week can handle their stressful lives, I don't think it's too much of a stretch for other legal adults who are normal but otherwise attending school should have too much trouble remaining responsible with a CCW. It is simply outrageous. There is all of this hoopla about campus safety and women buddying up when walking across campus at night, and the MSU campus police are always giving advice to people on how to "avoid" conflict and how to walk under lights at night, etc, etc.... I can only say that I am enraged.

To deny a segment of the population the right to defend themselves simply because they can be labelled a "student" and when they have do nothing criminal in their background to make them inelegible for that right, is such a liberal backassward idea that I am just sickened.

Oh well, at least the CCW in general is a big step in the right direction.
 
About the restrictions added: just keep pounding away at them. Many states have been successful in removing many restrictions on carry places after the law was originally passed. The longer you go without the predictions of death and destruction made by the antis coming true, and the more concealed carriers prove themselves to be a cut above the rest, in regards to lawful and responsible conduct, the weaker the arguments against loosening the law become, and the greater your chance to lift some of the restrictions.
 
Genso:

I currently have a General, Non-restricted CCW license. Until tonight, I had a night class at a college and regularly carried, as I did everywhere else. When the new law goes into effect, my CCW will be rather restricted and any subsequent night classes will be 'off limits'. I'll need to disarm prior to going.

I ask you- what's worse, creating 'criminal only' zones or law-abiding citizens legally carrying concealed?

This law opens the gates up to many more law-abiding citizens being able to legally do what they should be able to do, but it may create criminals out of those who carry without disarming when entering these newly created areas that are now off limits.

Myself, I'd rather not have to separate myself from my pistol, leave myself vulnerable, and leave it in the trunk where it could be stolen along with my car. With all of the new restrictions, however, I don't have a choice.

We'll need to work on removing these arbitrary, 'feel good', senseless restrictions. If we don't, a lot of people who now are celebrating will lose their enthusiasm and won't be renewing their licenses later when they tire of repeatedly removing 2 pounds of steel from their belts and putting it in their trunks when going out to eat, etc.

This is a step in the right direction, however...
 
Any victory against the anti-gunners, no matter how small, is to be considered another step towards freedom for all american citizens. Hooray!!!

michael
 
Congratulations!

Well, this is great news, in spite of the senseless restrictions.

It is smart to work at removing the restrictions later. Also, sometimes these restrictions are seldom enforced by LEO's. Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting you ignore the restrictions. However, LEO's naturally view some offenses as more critical than others. And, that means that some technical restrictions may have less practical effect than first meets the eye.

Regards from AZ
 
I'm just ticked off by the margin it passed by; You gotta know that they could have passed a better bill with a few less votes, but, NO, our feckless pro-gun legislators had to play that compromise with the enemy game one more time. Se we get a bill that's worse than the votes were available to pass, and the gun grabbers are STILL going to attempt to repeal it by ballot initiative! Are they ever going to learn?

Oh, well, you're right: After we've fought off that ballot initiative, we can get to work on improving it incrementally.
 
Hey it's a step in the right direction. I'm not thrilled about the dross that got added either, but at least my beloved and I can get a CCW now. We live in Wayne County, and I called about getting one when we were being stalked by someone. The LEO's told me that in order to get one I would have to be shot at first. So I'm happy that we passed anything.

Related question has anybody started a campaign to get Jennifer Grandholm (sp?) out of office? I do not like the way she abused her office to campaign against this issue.
 
Granholm abusing her office

gjwandkids:

I copied this from the mcrgo website at http://www.mcrgo.org. This is a start:

Granholm abusing her office in an effort to stop CCW...what YOU can do.

Submitted on: December 7, 2000

Attorney General Jennifer Granholm has begun speaking out against our CCW bill in a series of commercials, paid for by the anti-gun groups and their out-of-state donors, and she's claiming that we'll all carry "hidden guns" into schools and churches and that anyone, regardless of their criminal or mental history, will be carrying guns if the legislation passes.

OK...this needs to be addressed by every state citizen who's offended by this. What we have here is an elected official using her office to advance a personal agenda and lobby against a law that we, the People, have worked to pass.

Granholm should have run for office as a legislator if she wanted to make public policy. Had she done that, she would have had a right to try to make or block laws. But she chose instead to run for the position of Attorney General, and she did this knowing that her job would be to enforce the laws that the legislators pass.

So respond. Let her know that her actions are wrong. Call her office and protest. The number is 517-373-1110.

Then call your state rep and your state senator and request that they do something to keep her from using her position to interfere with the legislative branch's efforts. And write at least one letter to a newspaper objecting. The Lansing State Journal's the best one, because all the legislators get it, but the Detroit papers have circulation.

Her conduct as a public servant is unacceptable. It's time the People start demanding and getting some respect from her.


Lansing State Journal editorials can be posted at:
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/letter.html

Send letters to the Detroit News at: letters@detnews.com

and to the Free Press at:
letters@freepress.com

Finally--and this is crucial--call the Governor's office at 517-373-3400. Granholm's ads tell everyone to call there and demand that CCW be stopped. The Governor's office reports a ton of calls, both agaist and FOR CCW. They are counting each call that comes in. We need to rack up more calls to that office than Granholm's side, so call today and pass the word on to other pro-gunners you know.

Granholm started this fight, now it's up to us gun owners to win it.
 
OK done that part. I would like to see her removed from office-period. I didn't see anyhting on MCRGO's website about that. Can the legislature do that? If they can then I will direct my efforts there. If not let's start getting organized, to do it through the elective process.
 
Brett--

What's this about a ballot initiative to repeal the CCW reforms? I haven't heard anything about it yet. Is this a big threat or just a bunch of whiney liberal talk? My fear would be that fraud on the order of what happened in Missouri could actually make for a successful repeal. Does Michigan (Detroit) have as big of a problem with ballot fraud as Missouri (St. Louis) does?
 
Bab: Well, after they tried to take out our anti-lawsuit law with an initiative, I'd assume they'd go after this. But as it happens, there's proof:

http://www.detnews.com/2000/metro/0012/15/a01-163082.htm


Foes try to put gun bill to voters
They want statewide referendum on concealed weapons

By Mark Hornbeck / News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- The fight is on against a concealed weapons bill passed this week by the Michigan Legislature.
A petition drive to block the legislation, passed late Wednesday, will begin as soon as Gov. John Engler signs the measure, opponents said. Their ultimate goal is to overturn the law through a voter referendum.
The bill directs county gun boards to issue concealed weapons permits as long as applicants are at least 21. It also establishes gun-free zones around schools, churches and day care centers.
Dearborn Police Chief Ron Deziel, a leader of a law enforcement group and others opposed to the gun bill approved late Wednesday, said the law could be blocked now, pending a statewide ballot question in 2002. "We'll start immediately a petition drive to stop implementation of this bill and put it before the people."
Added Wayne County Deputy Executive Mike Duggan: "We'll be out in January collecting 250,000 signatures for good measure." A statewide referendum requires 151,356 petition signatures.
Proponents say they made the bill "referendum-proof" by adding a $1-million appropriation.
Ross Dykman, spokesman for the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, said that a fight on the ballot and in the courts will be expensive. "We've both got the money," he said.
Also on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin sent Engler a letter urging a veto. "The legislation would make us less safe, according to those best in a position to know," Levin said.
Engler aides said he'll sign the bill, which is to take effect in July.

********************************************

Ballot fraud in Detroit? I've got my suspicions, but there's nothing as blatent as St. Louis county Missouri.
 
Thanks Brett.

So can they really put the legislation on hold until 2002? If they qualify for the referendum, could it not be held earlier in a special election?

BTW, the quote by Carl Levin is just pathetic:
"The legislation would make us less safe, according to those best in a position to know," Levin said
Click to expand...

Is that the BEST reason he has? So tell me, Mr. Levin, just WHO is 'best in a position to know', the kind-hearted and unbiased folks at HCI? Okay then. What a bum.
 
Lets recall Jennifer.....

Ok, So lets start a petition drive to recall Ms. Granholm
for her efforts to influence legislation, instead of upholding the law, which IS her job.
 
BaB: No, actually, they probably can't put it on hold; Regular laws can be put on hold until voted on, if enough petition signatures are collected to make it to the ballot, but this does not apply to appropriations bills, and they appropriated about $1,000,000 for expenses involved in the CCW program, specifically to immunize it against being put in check that way. That also boosted the number of petition signatures they'll need, I understand. There's plenty of information at http://www.mcrgo.org

They'll probably try to litigate the matter, but the fact is that Michigan's courts are fairly conservative, and will *probably* (No bets!) go along with the legislature on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top