2013 HB 4104 -- Closing OC loophole?

[jfmi87]

http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1273%3Aenslen-rallies-support-for-gun-control-in-schools&catid=75%3Ak-12-education-blog&Itemid=132
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/htm/2013-HIB-4104.htm

It adds this section and also adds public libraries as a PFZ

(i) A public library as defined in section 2 of the state aid
to public libraries act, 1977 PA 89, MCL 397.552.

(6) An individual shall not intentionally display or openly
carry a pistol on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (i)
unless the individual owns the premises described in subsection (1)
or is employed or contracted by the owner or other person with
control over the premises described in subsection (1), the
possession of the pistol is to provide security services for the
premises or is otherwise in the scope of the individual's official
duties, or the individual is acting with the express written
consent of the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner of
the premises. This subsection applies beginning May 1, 2013.
 

What can we do to stop this? I personally don't frequent (or at all) the areas in the CPFZs but that doesn't mean other people don't, if we give them an inch they will take a mile.

[bigt8261]

HB 4104 is a non-starter. It has been sitting for some time without a hearing and my contacts in Lansing tell me that is very unlikely to change.

Even if the Republicans are ok with what is in 4104, the provisions would never be allowed to pass in a Democrat sponsored bill. Right or wrong, that's the way it currently is.

If you want to stop the push then I recommend you interact with, and educate your local school board. Maybe even run for the board. That, and call your representatives and attend rallies.

[gryphon]

Yeah, hasn't gotten out of committee.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-HB-4104

[Xpiatio]

It's not a loophole

[casper]

It's not a loophole

+1,       "STOP CALLING IT A LOOP HOLE!"

[casper]

Yeah, disarm us where there are children, great idea. That's one of the best places to be able to defend yourself and others. People just don't get it.

[Pond Scum]

Survey is from April 2013 but questions 5, 6, & 7 show that officers believe that armed citizens will help in active shooter situations.  Goes to the NRA mantra …. the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).


6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.


http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives

And the Interpol Chief suggests arming citizens as well:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month's deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

[Jeff]

28% believe that having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help in preventing large scale shootings... then 90% feel that if civilians were armed it would lessen the casualty rate of a shooter incident.

So 90% feel that armed civilians could lessen the casualty rate of a shooting, but only 28% feel that people should be allowed to conceal in more places.

      

Those numbers should be the same percentage, if you believe armed civilians can lower the casualty rate then how could they not think the concealed carry policies should be more permissive?

[jfmi87]

I just realized the HB 4104 linked is almost a year old, I found it odd either the # of the bill is known before it is even composed but the 4104 linked does have the intentions Andy Schor outlined in the recent article. Maybe he intends to modify it or push the bill further. I don't have children so I have zero business being in a school other than passing through in vehicle much less be on the school board. It's not so much about guns and against gun control because I own guns, but because these people want something banned because they unjustly fear or dislike something so everyone else should bend to their will.  Murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc are already illegal it doesn't matter which of the countless other tools that are used.

[DanS]

......

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help MOST in preventing large scale shootings in public, ..........

28% believe that having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help in preventing large scale shootings... then 90% feel that if civilians were armed it would lessen the casualty rate of a shooter incident.

So 90% feel that armed civilians could lessen the casualty rate of a shooting, but only 28% feel that people should be allowed to conceal in more places.

      

Those numbers should be the same percentage, if you believe armed civilians can lower the casualty rate then how could they not think the concealed carry policies should be more permissive?

So more than 28% believe that of all the things that could be done, that would help the MOST.

I had to read it twice to pick that up.

sent from my Galaxy S3

[Pond Scum]

Those numbers should be the same percentage, if you believe armed civilians can lower the casualty rate then how could they not think the concealed carry policies should be more permissive?

So more than 28% believe that of all the things that could be done, that would help the MOST.

I had to read it twice to pick that up.

sent from my Galaxy S3

As DanS mentions they ask for you to pick only one answer that you believe helps the MOST.

You need to go to read all the options they give you.  I think several of the choices would help a lot.  Part of the decision of our policy makers should be to select the solutions that maximize the return on the public investment and resources.   

[jfmi87]

The problem I have with "mentally ill" options is who gets to determine what is "mentally ill". Are all mental illnesses the same or make people dangerous?  Some states take firearm rights away for very long time for being in a 72-hour hold, say 5 years in California, or perhaps permanently. Even if you end up there for spite. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/a-veterans-tale-sliding-down-the-slippery-slope-of-mental-health-checks-for-gun-owners/

If I had to pick one it'd be the last, more permissive policies.

[Jeff]

I watched a video on youtube where a guy went to his doctor because he couldn't breathe very well.  He told the doctor that he thought he was going to die and was suffering so much that he never thought about suicide more than that.  The doctor asked if he was suicidal, he said "NO".  The doctor asked if he killed himself HOW would he do it.  The guy said he rattled off 1,000 ways that someone could kill themselves being a smartass.  The doctor then called the police on the guy saying he needed to be held because he was suicidal, the man heard the phone call and left, to find the sheriff at his house waiting for him.

They took him in to the hospital against his will and refused to let him go.  He was then told he couldn't have firearms anymore.

------

I think all it takes is one anti gun doctor to ruin someones carry privileges and gun ownership rights.  If it's a matter of one doctors opinion, I'm sure they be happy to spread their views about firearms on the world and prevent as many people as possible from owning them with a simple check box and note on a form.

It's difficult to be proven not mentally ill once some doctor claims that you are.

[bobn911]

And will be even harder to find a doctor to sign off if you are proven not mentally ill.  Later, Bob