NOTE This is now Outdated. Please see the new Post: http://248shooter.com/index.php/just-released-sb442-s-2-revised-and-sb561-s-1-revised-summary-with-explanations/
Even after talking about this with informed people, outlining the changes and thinking about it deeply the fact is there is still a lot to grasp.
In short this is what I think this all means:
- Non CPL holders get access to places they did not have before that were licensed to sell alcohol.
- CPL holders have a right to request an exemption
- At renewal or creation of a CPL its free
- If the license needs to be re-issued it can cost up to $20
- Everyone with a CPl is eligible to request the exemption and it must be issued in 10 days.
- If you get the exemption or not, open carry in CPFZ’s would not be allowed
- CPFZ’s would become Concealed Only Zones (COZ’s) and only with a CPL that has an exemption
- Private ownership still trumps all and can ban any form of carry.
- Open Carry in COZ would be treated as unlicensed carry and punishable as an illegal concealed weapon offense.
MCRGO has stated the following:
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: SB 442 S-1 Substitute & Meekhof Companion Bill
Several important changes will be made to SB 442 (Green: General Exemption for PFZs) and its companion bill introduced by Senator Meekhof.
Two classes of PFZs are eliminated for everyone. Package liquor establishment such as party stores, gas stations with liquor licenses and stores such as Meijer or Walgreen’s will no longer be pistol free zones. Consequently, anyone will be able to carry in them, concealed with a CPL or openly without a CPL. In addition, the language regarding entertainment facilities with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more will be struck from MCL 28.425o applying that section only to theatres. That will end any debate on whether places such as convention centers, trade shows, zoos, etc. are PFZs. The general exemption will allow a person with a CPL to carry in theatres.
Finally, there will no longer be any language criminalizing open carry or intentional display in SB 442. The current exemption in MCL 750.234d will be changed to require that a concealed pistol license holder carry concealed. This offers substantial protections to the CPL holder who accidentally exposes over the previous language by forcing a prosecutor to prove display was intentional, a very difficult legal hurdle as Michigan law defaults to concealed. It will keep any explicit prohibition on open carry out of state law. Printing will continue to remain legal in Michigan.
MGO Statement to Sen Judiciary Committee…
Chairman Jones and Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee,
In a document dated July 4th, 1776, our founding fathers stated in short that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As I am sure you are all aware, that document is our Declaration of Independence, which has been a guiding principle for our democracy for nearly 240 years. Amongst other reasons, our founding fathers came to this land to escape the same type of thing that Senate Bill 442 is seeking to do; trading one right for another and tearing liberty away from “we the people.”
Today, as you consider Senate Bill 442, the Constitution, and more specifically the Second Amendment, is being attacked. It is being attacked not by a terrorist organization overseas, but rather by our own legislature. In Michigan, a vocal crowd of misinformed individuals would love to eliminate Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan constitution, which states, “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the State.” They seek to trample on the rights of law abiding gun owners. Michigan Gun Owners believes the rights of gun owners to bear arms in defense of themselves is under attack by the sponsors of Senate Bill 442. Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is the only gun rights advocacy group in the state who supports this bill; it should be noted that Senator Green, as well as Arlan Meekhof (both co-sponsors) are on the board of directors for MCRGO, so it comes as no surprise that they support it.
It is the belief of Michigan Gun Owners that this proposed law does nothing but alienate gun owners by forcing them to trade one method of carry for another. Hoplophobia, the irrational fear of firearms, does not necessitate a change in the law. By proposing the banning of openly carried firearms in PFZ’s, this legislature has opened the door to potential civil and criminal prosecution of any person who intends to conceal, but may accidentally expose their firearm while in a PFZ. This is unacceptable to the members of Michigan Gun Owners. We ask the sponsors of SB 442 to respond to the following question: Does this legislature really seek to burden our already overworked criminal justice system with a law that serves no legitimate safety purpose? As many will note, citizens of this state are already overtaxed with understanding the magnitude, complexity, and most notably, the number of laws in existence. Many of those laws prohibit certain actions of the people while serving no legitimate purpose for the state.
This bill also seeks to force citizens to ask for an exemption to be able to carry in a PFZ. The legislature has written SB 442 in such a manner that any person who asks for the exemption will be granted the exemption. If the exemption is automatically granted, why should a citizen be forced to ask for it? Michigan Gun Owners believes that this language was inserted because the legislature hopes that the vast majority of citizens will be ignorant to the law and unaware that they can ask for the exemption. This is a slap in the face to the members of our community. If this is not the intent of the language, what is? Furthermore, if any person who asks will be granted the exemption to carry a concealed firearm in a PFZ, what purpose does a PFZ serve?
Senate Bill 442 allows for the exemption to be added to a Concealed Pistol License for free, but only when applying for an initial or renewal license. There is, however, a $20 fee for a CPL if the exemption is requested prior to the next CPL renewal date. This means that those who are between renewals will yet again be forced to pay a fee to do something that is allowed by the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. When did our rights as citizens become hostage to state permission and fees? The rights of the people should not be associated with a fee for any citizen, regardless of their next CPL renewal date.
Senator Green has admitted that Governor Snyder is unlikely to sign this bill unless schools are allowed to opt out of allowing legally armed and licensed citizens their right to carry. This cannot be an option. The right to open carry a firearm should not be on the table as a “trade” to gain concealed carry in PFZs. It should be made as an absolute, recognized by the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. A legally armed citizen should be able to carry their firearm in a manner they believe is fitting to their own situation and comfort level, not however this legislature deems “appropriate” for society. There are plenty of instances where concealing may not be practical. In the summer months, many individuals choose to wear clothing that makes concealing a firearm difficult. A portion of our members carry openly because that option allows them to respond to a threat quicker than if they are concealing. The manner in which a person chooses to carry their firearm, in any location, should not be governed by the legislature, but rather should be left to an individual’s discretion.
Chairman Jones has been quoted as saying that open carry in schools is “disruptive and isn’t needed”. The members of Michigan Gun Owners disagree with that statement. Members of our organization have carried openly displayed firearms in PFZs for years, as the law currently mandates, in a number of school districts across the state without any disruption at all. The disruption that does happen comes from the schools, not from the person carrying a firearm.
Michigan Gun Owners advocates for the rights of all gun owners. We believe those rights should extend to any method of carry chosen by the citizen. In 1880, Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas M. Cooley said the following regarding the Second Amendment: “The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people…, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.” Rather than attempting to regulate the manner in which a law abiding citizen carries their firearm, we should be working to repeal Pistol Free Zones, which do nothing more than place our citizens in danger. We know that PFZs do nothing for the good of safety, but rather empower criminals. Within the text of Commonplace Book, Thomas Jefferson quotes the 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria by writing, “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Two hundred fifty years later, this principle still echoes true.
We call on members of this committee to reject Senate Bill 442. We ask this legislature focus on eliminating pistol free zones, adopt constitutional carry, and provide sanctions against schools and other local units of government that seek to harass citizens who lawfully carry firearms. Members of Michigan Gun Owners come from all walks of life. We are comprised of doctors, lawyers, police officers, security experts, and educators. Most importantly, we are comprised of law abiding citizens who oppose Senate Bill 442.
Board of Directors
Michigan Gun Owners
MOC has not responded to us in full but has made it clear to us that neither the revisions to SB442 nor the wording of SB561 have overcome the concerns they had prior to today.