Author Topic: SB 789  (Read 15343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gryphon

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3892
  • Karma: +129/-128
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: SB 789
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2014, 03:22:19 PM »
Isn't a firearm greater then 26 inches considered a long gun? 

It is now.  Prior to 2013, in Michigan a rifle that was never designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder could have a length between 26" and 30" and be registered as a pistol.  Hence it was commonly referred to as a "Michigan pistol" and you could carry it loaded on you or in your car.   If rifle is under 26", then it is a short barreled rifle. If it is over 30", then it is no longer a pistol and just a rifle.

In 2013 the law was changed to match the federal definition, OAL > 26" = rifle.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
  • Karma: +591/-37
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
SB 789
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2014, 05:36:12 PM »

I need some clarification on this part.

"(2) A person may lawfully own, possess, carry, or transport as
a pistol a firearm greater than 26 inches in length if all of the
following conditions apply:

   (a) The person registered the firearm as a pistol under
section 2 or 2a before January 1, 2013.

   (b) The person who registered the firearm as described in
subdivision (a) has maintained registration of the firearm since
January 1, 2013 without lapse.

   (c) The person possesses a copy of the license or record
issued to him or her under section 2 or 2a."

Isn't a firearm greater then 26 inches considered a long gun?   Under what circumstances would one need to register a gun longer then 26 inches as a pistol?

This is a part of existing law -- something called a "Michigan Pistol". If you own a shotgun > 28" or rifle over 26", and you had it registered as a pistol prior to 1/1/13, you may still carry it concealed or in your passenger compartment under your CPL as if it was a pistol.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: SB 789
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2014, 09:12:13 PM »
91W, that definition of a pistol was unique only to Michigan. It required the registration of those firearms as pistols. In doing so, a CPL holder could possess and carry them just like any other pistol. So as Q mentioned, loaded in the passenger compartment, or even concealed.

Some examples with folding stocks or pistol grips:
Mini-14
.30 carbine
Sig 556
HK91A3
HK93A3
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline detroit_fan

  • AmmoDump
  • *
  • Posts: 249
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • 2 chairs, no waiting
  • First Name (Displayed): Jason
Re: SB 789
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2014, 10:04:54 PM »
I think that's referring to the "michigan pistols" that were registered before 2013.

Offline gryphon

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3892
  • Karma: +129/-128
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: SB 789
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2014, 09:44:07 PM »

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2014, 10:23:40 PM »
Hey Sheriff Mike, if this bill is so bad, then why are all of the gun groups in Michigan strongly behind this bill?

Does anyone know how this guy stands on OC?

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: SB 789
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2014, 10:36:46 PM »
Hey Sheriff Mike, if this bill is so bad, then why are all of the gun groups in Michigan strongly behind this bill?

Does anyone know how this guy stands on OC?
The Gun Boards are supportive of our 2A rights??? Sure they are.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline Jeff

  • Posts: 1166
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 789
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2014, 12:10:40 AM »
My gun board can't even obey the time constraints put on them to issue or deny their applicants.  Then pony show us with a mandatory meeting with a hundred other people to answer everything we already answered on our application just to wait for our name to be called and say the exact same thing the previous person said.

Offline Raggs

  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 789
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2014, 08:46:59 AM »
I understand he disagrees with MOC on this, But that doesn't mean his opinion isn't worthy of being looked at. Who is he? Is he known to be anti gun? just because every group is behind a bill does not make it a good bill. I am not trying to start any fights about the past, I would like to see civility in the present. Perhaps Tom or Phil could reach out to him.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2014, 08:54:47 AM »
Raggs has a valid point, that being said, if you look at the sheriff's points, they are little more than sensational BS (IMO). He urges reading the bill. I would suggest the same to him, with an extra urging to read the ENTIRE bill.

It is my interpretation that this guy is not new to this fight. I assumed someone from MCRGO has already attempted to reach out to him. However, and again, Ragg's point is valid and another polite attempt shouldn't hurt.

Offline Raggs

  • Posts: 262
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 789
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2014, 09:45:32 AM »
Understand if this was written by Heartwell I would dismiss it right a way. But this guy might actually be pro 2A. Why make enemies when not needed?

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2014, 10:17:23 AM »
From what I've gathered, attempts have been made in the past and supposedly Mr. Raines has proven himself to be incapable of rational conversation. After reviewing the image above, this sounds very plausible to me.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
  • Karma: +591/-37
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
SB 789
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2014, 10:34:58 AM »

Understand if this was written by Heartwell I would dismiss it right a way. But this guy might actually be pro 2A. Why make enemies when not needed?

Does a pro-2A person oppose law-abiding ppl carrying guns in a school? Mike Raines does. I spoke to him about it personally in 2012.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: SB 789
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2014, 11:14:06 AM »
I understand he disagrees with MOC on this, But that doesn't mean his opinion isn't worthy of being looked at. Who is he? Is he known to be anti gun? just because every group is behind a bill does not make it a good bill. I am not trying to start any fights about the past, I would like to see civility in the present. Perhaps Tom or Phil could reach out to him.
Historical performance is generally an excellent litmus test for future expectations. Reviewing his past we find that "reaching out has already been done with little accomplished. We had a protracted effort undertaken during the SB59 debacle. This sheriff's efforts, combined with other MSA members, to prevent it's enactment was in part a reason for having the current version of SB789 drafted with the MSP included instead of the sheriffs. Last time the sheriffs cried "inadequate resource funding that took away from their primary law enforcement objectives." Now this sheriff is saying that it doesn't and should stay the way it is. In layman's terms we call that "talking out of both sides of his mouth."

Make no mistake about it. This sheriff sees the removal of his participation in the star chamber gun board as an erosion of his power.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
  • Karma: +591/-37
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
SB 789
« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2014, 11:30:14 AM »
Historical performance is generally an excellent litmus test for future expectations. Reviewing his past we find that "reaching out has already been done with little accomplished. We had a protracted effort undertaken during the SB59 debacle. This sheriff's efforts, combined with other MSA members, to prevent it's enactment was in part a reason for having the current version of SB789 drafted with the MSP included instead of the sheriffs. Last time the sheriffs cried "inadequate resource funding that took away from their primary law enforcement objectives." Now this sheriff is saying that it doesn't and should stay the way it is. In layman's terms we call that "talking out of both sides of his mouth."

Make no mistake about it. This sheriff sees the removal of his participation in the star chamber gun board as an erosion of his power.

QFT. Now if you could post this comment as far and wide as this loon posted his picture.

Edit: I used most of it to post a comment on his wife's post on MOC's page.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline jgillmanjr

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 652
  • Karma: +14/-32
    • Freedom Forged Security Consulting
  • First Name (Displayed): Jason
Re: SB 789
« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2014, 11:04:47 AM »
http://rightmi.com/falsities-about-sb789-being-spread/

Not the usual point-by-point beatdown I like to throw, but meh.
IT Director
Deputy Treasurer
Legislative Aide

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2014, 11:21:24 AM »
Last night Mr. and Mrs. Raines and I spent a considerable amount of time talking about their issues with SB 789. Our conversation exceeded 4 hours and was very lively at times.

Now that we have had a chance to talk, I believe I have a sufficient understanding of their concerns. While I believe they mean well, I remain unconvinced. My recommendation to MOC's board to support SB 789 will not change, and if anything, is stronger today than it was yesterday.

Both myself and MOC remain in full support of SB 789 as proposed by Sen. Green.

Offline CV67PAT

  • MOC Charter Member
  • Posts: 2615
  • Karma: +148/-143
Re: SB 789
« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2014, 11:56:31 AM »
I listened to two sheriffs sit right in front of Mike Green and say how they like having control over the CPL program because they know the applicants and how they can "investigate" them, or call them before their gun board, prior to issuance of a CPL.

What possible "concerns" could an elected official (politician with a badge) possibly have over "shall issue?"

It's about nothing more than the ability to exert control over their "constituents."
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2014, 01:19:14 PM »
Essentially the exact same concern was expressed to me last night. I must have said SHALL ISSUE about 100-200 times and MCL 28.425b about 200-300 times. I believe I had no effect which I why I am more convinced than ever that we need to eliminate county gun boards.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Karma: +27/-28
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: SB 789
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2014, 04:17:32 PM »
If you want to see what my conversation was like last night. Take a look at the comments here:

http://rightmi.com/falsities-about-sb789-being-spread/