Another Michigan Bill

This is a discussion on Another Michigan Bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; While you are writing your State Rep's there is another bill in the House that would allow holders of concealed weapons permits to carry tasers ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Another Michigan Bill

  1. #1
    Member Array jamierah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    316

    Another Michigan Bill

    While you are writing your State Rep's there is another bill in the House that would allow holders of concealed weapons permits to carry tasers with all the same restrictions as a firearm.

    HB 4156

    Sec. 224a. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a
    person shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess in this state a
    portable device or weapon from which an electrical current,
    impulse, wave, or beam may be directed, which current, impulse,
    wave, or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure, or kill.

    (2) This section does not prohibit any of the following:
    (a) The possession and reasonable use of a device that uses
    electro-muscular disruption technology by any of the following
    individuals, if the individual has been trained in the use,
    effects, and risks of the device, and, in the case of an individual
    described in subparagraphs (i) to (x), is using the device while
    performing his or her official duties:
    (i) A peace officer.
    (ii) An employee of the department of corrections who is
    authorized in writing by the director of the department of
    corrections to possess and use the device.
    (iii) A local corrections officer authorized in writing by the
    county sheriff to possess and use the device.
    (iv) An individual employed by a local unit of government that
    utilizes a jail or lockup facility who has custody of persons
    detained or incarcerated in the jail or lockup facility and who is
    authorized in writing by the chief of police, director of public
    safety, or sheriff to possess and use the device.
    (v) A probation officer.
    (vi) A court officer.
    (vii) A bail agent authorized under section 167b, including an
    individual who has been issued a concealed pistol license issued
    under section 5b of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b, and has in his or her
    possession specific written authorization appointing him or her as
    a bail agent's fugitive recovery representative and bearing an
    expiration date that is not later than December 31 of the year in
    which the authorization was executed.
    (viii) A licensed private investigator.
    (ix) An aircraft pilot or aircraft crew member.
    (x) An individual employed as a private security police
    officer. As used in this subparagraph, "private security police"
    means that term as defined in section 2 of the private security
    business and security alarm act, 1968 PA 330, MCL 338.1052.
    (xi) An individual who holds a valid license to carry a
    concealed pistol under section 5b of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b.
    We the willing, being guided by the unknowing, Doing impossible feats, for the ungrateful, Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
    We now feel qualified to do, absolutely anything, with literally nothing

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Grislic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    50
    Cool! I hope it passes. I would also like to see a provision to allow MI cpl holders to carry fixed blade and automatic knives.

  4. #3
    Member Array karlmc10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    75
    I would love to see the taser law enacted.
    As far as knives go, you can carry fixed blade now, no length stipulation. What you can't do is carry anything over three and a half inch blade with the intent to illegaly cause harm. Of course local ordinances apply as there is no preemption law for knives.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    I hate the bill. Eventually the idea could be to take away your firearm since you have a Taser. They are not effective all the time and are range limited.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array Super Trucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S.E. Michigan
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Supertac45 View Post
    I hate the bill. Eventually the idea could be to take away your firearm since you have a Taser. They are not effective all the time and are range limited.

    Are you aware there are only 7 states that people can not carry a taser? They will not take your gun away if this bill were to pass.
    It might just give you a way to defend your self in a CEZ. Since the exemption bill has a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    I don't understand the need for a taser if you can carry a handgun? The bill says the taser will have the same restrictions as a handgun so what is the benefit?

    If it has the same restrictions seems you would only be able to use it in life threatening situations, not the less than lethal ones law enforcement uses them for.

    Am I missing something?

    Michael

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,048
    Taser is less lethal than a firearm.

    Certain situations garnish the need to use force but not deadly.

    When all you have is a hammer, your problems are all nails.

    It's all about options, like OC spray. If I could spray some hot taco sauce on someone and stop them from harming me or someone else I'd do it. If that doesn't work I might choose the option of lethal force if the criteria are met.

    A gun should be the last resort, but some situations dictate it is the first and only resort (active shooter, time constraints, et cetera).

    I carry a gun as an option to stop. I'd like to carry a Taser as an option to stop.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Well I'm kinda stuck on his original post where he said same restrictions as a handgun. I don't know his he meant restrictions on possession or on use?

    Michael

  10. #9
    Member Array jamierah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    316
    Sorry about the confusion. The restricions are on where you can carry as far as use I copyied some more text of the bill below. As I read it the taser could be used before the need for lethal force.
    Link to full text http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...9-HIB-4156.pdf

    THE INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT USE THE DEVICE AGAINST ANOTHER
    PERSON UNLESS THE DEVICE IS REASONABLY USED IN THE PROTECTION OF PERSON OR PROPERTY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VIOLATES THIS SUBDIVISION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 2 YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $2,000.00, OR 10 BOTH.
    We the willing, being guided by the unknowing, Doing impossible feats, for the ungrateful, Have been doing so much with so little for so long,
    We now feel qualified to do, absolutely anything, with literally nothing

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285
    It has always bugged me that I could legally carry lethal force but not non lethal...
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by jamierah View Post
    Sorry about the confusion. The restricions are on where you can carry as far as use I copyied some more text of the bill below. As I read it the taser could be used before the need for lethal force.
    Link to full text http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...9-HIB-4156.pdf

    THE INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT USE THE DEVICE AGAINST ANOTHER
    PERSON UNLESS THE DEVICE IS REASONABLY USED IN THE PROTECTION OF PERSON OR PROPERTY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE INDIVIDUAL'S USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO VIOLATES THIS SUBDIVISION IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 2 YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $2,000.00, OR 10 BOTH.

    This part I highlighted still bothers me. Are those circumstances spelled out, reasonable fear, or what? I guess I'm trying to find anything that might trip up a person when using one.

    Michael

  13. #12
    Member Array glockman31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ypsilanti, Michigan
    Posts
    67
    I think this is a great idea. Why? because as we all know there are people out there that would indeed get a Concealed Weapons Permit and just carry a tazer. A lot of people dont like guns. To us that just does not sound right, but for those that still want to defend themselves it is perfect, they still have to go through gun training and they still have to apply for the permit. However, with that being said, sometimes that tazer can be more dangerous than a gun. It also in my opinion opens you up to more lawsuits. If you ever have to shoot someone, dead people dont talk.

    So it could be a good thing, we will have to see the final writing of the bill.
    Eric


    There were NO Guns used to take over the flights on 9-11, IT STILL HAPPENED

    Wake up Americans - GUN CONTROL - Means WE LOOSE

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Hello From SE Michigan
    By brylow in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: July 1st, 2010, 12:44 PM
  2. New From Michigan
    By JC31 in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: June 15th, 2010, 11:16 PM
  3. Michigan bill to remove "gun free zones"
    By spartywrx in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 19th, 2009, 11:53 AM
  4. Michigan Bill to remove no carry zones
    By Sheldon J in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: August 14th, 2007, 09:08 PM

Search tags for this page

michigan legislation 167b
,

michigan taser law feb 2011 cpl passed

Click on a term to search for related topics.