PFZs again..

PFZs again..

This is a discussion on PFZs again.. within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here we go again. Our governor veto the legislation the last time it was put on his desk. Lets hope this time he signs it ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: PFZs again..

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    8,933

    PFZs again..

    Here we go again. Our governor veto the legislation the last time it was put on his desk. Lets hope this time he signs it and does away with PFZs. I am hoping he signs it this time....

    Senate Bill 442 What Does it Mean for You? |
    rocky, Aceoky, RickyD and 5 others like this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  2. #2
    Member Array HotBrass45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    I am hoping he signs it this time....
    You and me both.
    Aceoky and gatorbait51 like this.

  3. #3
    Lead Moderator
    Array rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    16,857
    Would be nice to do away with the PFZ.
    gatorbait51 and Aceoky like this.
    "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


    Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

  4. #4
    Member Array Chicagobill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    heavily wooded,USA
    Posts
    120
    Praying he does

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array patri0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Retired to the Heartland
    Posts
    1,773
    From much experience, I do not trust lib prosecutors in MI. Good points made here:

    "....SB 442 would take something that is currently lawful and make it punishable with a $500 fine and a 6 month license suspension, then eventually all the way up to a 4 year felony. 4 years in prison and the extermination of the right to even possess a gun just for doing something that has been legal since the founding of the state. All without even the intent of doing something wrong.
    It has been stated that there is protection for accidental exposure and “printing”. We disagree. The bill reads “shall not intentionally display or openly carry…”. Having just gotten a bill passed where the placement of the word intentionally was very critical, we firmly believe that language to be very dangerous. Remember, it punishes intentional display OR open carry. Not intentional display OR intentional open carry. Open carriers know that anti-gun prosecutors will use anything they can. (Note: MCRGO is now commenting that they would like better language too)

    There is a ton more, but the last thing I will mention is that SB 442 makes it so the acquisition of a CPL would take away a previously ability [rights]. Making this change in 28.425o is absurd because it doesn’t match up with other statues. For example, without a CPL, I would be able to OC in an entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2500+. However, once I obtain a CPL, then I would lose the ability to OC and would only be allowed to CC. The net effect is an actual loss of rights by obtaining a license. I don’t even want to think about how an officer would enforce this. Establishing RAS (reasonable suspicion) to detain and investigate someone would be a mine field.
    There is a better way forward than this. Even if we wanted to “swap” there is still a better way to go about that. This has to be the worst way conceivable...". (emphasis added)

    No longer my state, but I would have to give this mediocre legislation some serious thought before buying into it. Tough deal to trade off Civil Rights.
    MI residents deserve REAL 2A rights!! As a resident and MI LEO, I have fought for those most of my life.
    sdprof, HotBrass45 and Aceoky like this.
    Retired Deputy- State Trooper (38 long years) 8 yrs RTO - MS Degree- Criminology
    Gun Control measures are Unconstitutional Infringements. Period.
    "...He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"- Luke 22:36

  6. #6
    Member Array mnmbrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    322
    Hmm Interesting. I like the idea of the elimination of the PFZs. However the wording on printing and accidential exposure needs improvement as stated. I am a little confused on the bills ability to make OC legal in the current PFZs without a CPL but with a CPL you would be required to CC. If that is the case it seems a little silly just like the need for an endorsement on your CPL to CC in PFZ but there is no training or testing required for the endorsement. It will have to be given when requested. If that is the case why have the endorsement at all? I need to do some more digging on this.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    8,933
    Quote Originally Posted by mnmbrewing View Post
    Hmm Interesting. I like the idea of the elimination of the PFZs. However the wording on printing and accidential exposure needs improvement as stated. I am a little confused on the bills ability to make OC legal in the current PFZs without a CPL but with a CPL you would be required to CC. If that is the case it seems a little silly just like the need for an endorsement on your CPL to CC in PFZ but there is no training or testing required for the endorsement. It will have to be given when requested. If that is the case why have the endorsement at all? I need to do some more digging on this.
    Simply stated, with a CPL you can carry in some PFZs in the state of MI. Without you cannot. They want to do away with OC in PFZs, that is one of the reasons for this type of bill...
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array steve4102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    630
    The bill would prohibit a person from intentionally displaying (open carrying) a firearm on the premises of a pistol free zone in MCL 28.425o unless the person is the owner or employee of the premises or has the express written consent of the owner.
    Sounds to me like they want to stop "Permit" holders from Open carrying in "schools"?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't MI law allow for a permit/license holder to Open Carry on school property? This Bill would squash that, yes?

  9. #9
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    8,933
    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    Sounds to me like they want to stop "Permit" holders from Open carrying in "schools"?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't MI law allow for a permit/license holder to Open Carry on school property? This Bill would squash that, yes?
    Yep. We have some weird laws as it pertains to the CPL and open carry...
    Aceoky likes this.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

  10. #10
    Member Array mnmbrewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Harryball View Post
    Yep. We have some weird laws as it pertains to the CPL and open carry...
    Weird is an understatement for some of them. Unfortunately this would make them almost as confusing. It would be much simpler if they would change the law to just say "you have a CPL so you can carry where and how you want"
    Aceoky likes this.

  11. #11
    VIP Member
    Array RoadRunner71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,935
    Quote Originally Posted by steve4102 View Post
    Sounds to me like they want to stop "Permit" holders from Open carrying in "schools"?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't MI law allow for a permit/license holder to Open Carry on school property? This Bill would squash that, yes?
    They just don't want to see it. It's kind of like closing your eyes just before a car crash. If you can't see, it can't hurt you.

    How do you argue with logic like that?

    Aceoky likes this.
    *WARNING - I may or may not know what I am talking about.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array T Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Metropolitan Detroit
    Posts
    2,058
    Well the real downer is making something that is and always has been legal now a crime. That in and of itself sucks, yet I REALLY want to be able to CC in what are now PFZs. That's the crux of it. If I go into a bar (I don't drink, but go for music or socializing) OCing, I have zero doubt I will be asked to leave. So CC is obviously the way to go, and this 442 would facilitate that (interesting choice for the bill #, same as my latest little CC pal ;).

    But to make what is now legal a crime just rubs me wrong. If we could trust that the law is a first step towards elimination of PFZ,s so be it. But when have the politicos ever really proven themselves trustworthy, and why not just eliminate PFZs now?). And as asked by someone else, how would an out of State resident (we honor all permits/licenses issued by State of residence) get an exemption? (Guessing they wouldn't).

    Did the Governor really veto it last time? My (mis?)understanding was that it was in the works (CC in PFZs with additional training?) but was squashed when the incident at Sandy Hook occurred (I was living and working temporarily out of Michigan at the time).

    I want one of the results of this bill quite badly. Not so crazy about the other.
    Regards, T Bone.


    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    VIP Member
    Array RickyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    3,327
    I don't understannd the need to get an exemption? If there is no training requirementand the process is the same as a standard license, why not just make the rules proposed standard? Is it just a way of furrtherr taxing permit holders?
    Aceoky likes this.
    Member Georgia Carry

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array T Bone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Metropolitan Detroit
    Posts
    2,058
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD View Post
    I don't understannd the need to get an exemption? If there is no training requirementand the process is the same as a standard license, why not just make the rules proposed standard? Is it just a way of furrtherr taxing permit holders?
    Doesn't seem to be. The most they are allowed to charge is $20 to replace the CPL, and if new or renewal there's no additional fee. It really is puzzling, other than maybe they feel they have to "give up" something (OC in PFZs and getting "permission" in the form of the exemption, which is Shall Issue just like the original CPL) to "get" something (a sort of almost elimination of PFZs, with the exception of OC which is not done that much in many of them now, becoming a crime). It's a puzzler really.

    ETA: Overall, I'd probably take it if it were my choice. But I'd want the watch dogs to be vigilante for some other back door policy, and I'd like to see a push continue to elimination of PFZs altogether, or better yet the move to Constitutional Carry (no CPL required, now in effect in 6 States I think). Of course I'd still want my CPL. Covers me in 39 States (was 40 until Nevada recently dropped us, something I hope will be remedied by re-instituting 24/7 LEO database info being made available).
    RickyD likes this.
    Regards, T Bone.


    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    8,933
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD View Post
    I don't understannd the need to get an exemption? If there is no training requirementand the process is the same as a standard license, why not just make the rules proposed standard? Is it just a way of furrtherr taxing permit holders?
    That is IMO stupid. The previous bill had additional requirements to make it a true multi tear system. This bill seems to stream line all of that and put an end to the BS. I hate loosing something to gain something, but OCing in PFZs right now can be downright scary.....
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

    Never be ashamed of a scar. It simply means, that you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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