Here is the link to the yet unpublished Senate Bill 442 (Green): http://mcrgo.org/doc/sb0442.pdf.
What MCRGO says about it:
The bill will create an exemption to concealed carry pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o. Any CPL holder can qualify for the exemption upon request with no additional training. New and renewal applicants will not be charged any additional fee. Clerks can charge current CPL holders up to $20 for a replacement CPL with the exemption box checked.
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. This is the “concealed means concealed” clause with an exemption for express consent on private property. We feel the language in the bill is sufficient to protect people printing or accidentally exposing their firearms.
Private property owners can continue to prevent all forms of carry under Michigan trespass law. Public property will continue to be preempted by state firearms law, meaning that concealed carry with the exemption cannot be prohibited on public pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o.
We expect the bill to be referred to Senate Judiciary Committee next week on July 15. Sen. Green has stated that Gov. Snyder has indicated he will sign the bill. MCRGO supports the legislation as it will result in far more of Michigan’s nearly 500,000 concealed pistol license holders carrying in concealed pistol free zones. We anticipate this will ultimately result in the elimination of pistol free zones altogether. It will also be a huge boost to public safety as it will result in more gun owners carrying legally in more places.
In short reading the bill and looking at related forum posts here is what I gather it will do in short.
- Trade Open Carry in PFZ’s with a CPL to Concealed Carry in PFZ’s with an endorsed CPL
- Endorsements must be granted if requested
- There can be a charge for a replacement CPL with an endorsement limited to $20
- This affects all PFZ’s not just Schools mentioned in MCL 28.425o
- Sports Arena’s Stadiums
- Bar’s and Taverns
- Churches, Synagogue and other houses of religion
- Entertainment facility over 2500
- Dorms, classrooms colleges
- Will still allow for private property to ban firearms
- Provides preemption for any state or govt property including schools from banning firearms.
- Requires the weapon be concealed but allows for printing and accidental exposure
We will continue to watch this closely to ensure that preemption is not removed from this bill as well as make sure that the concealed means concealed clauses do not open up gun owners to unfair attacks for printing and such.
Added 4:10pm 7/6/15
I have spoken to a member of the Open Carry movement and hope to have him share his opinion on the proposed legislature and reasoning behind them.
In the meantime there is a few issues that have been brought up that stick out to me.
The need to make this an additional exemption as opposed to a basic function of the CPL makes no sense especially if there is no training requirement. Likely it is a horse trade to show anti’s that the person received a state issued exemption, but it’s UN-needed.
It was also made clear to me that the protection from brandishing or accidental exposure may not be as solid as claimed. We will certainly need to see further drafts of this legislation and would like to see what the state is considering open carry. Who draws the line on concealed means concealed? Does this give cities like Ann Arbor the ability to make legal carry difficult on gun owners?
More people carrying is a good thing and no legislation is perfect. It is my hope we as gun owners can discuss this without name calling or attacks and do what is best. This legislature like any legislature has negative and positives and we encourage you all to review it for yourself to make an informed decision. We have closed comments on all posts on this blog but encourage you to discuss this issue on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/248Shooter
Added 5:13 pm 7/6/15
From Tom Lambert of Michigan Open Carry.
How about we just let the gun groups do what they are here to do. The momentum is in our favor and now is not the time to strike.
Added 12:06 7/15
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: After meeting with the Senate yesterday, changes are being made to SB 442 (general exemption for pistol free zones):http://mcrgo.org/doc/sb0442.pdf
The main change is that all of subsection (9) will be eliminated and subsection (8) amended on page 37. This will eliminate the “shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol” language that would have created a ban on open carry in concealed pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o. Consequently, there will be no outright statutory ban on open carry.
Instead, a second Senate bill will be introduced to amend MCL 750.234d (general weapons free zones) and MCL 750.237a (schools) to require that carry with a concealed pistol license in those zones be concealed. This will close the exemption in those sections that has been referred to in the past as a loophole. The general exemption language in SB 442 for concealed pistol free zones in MCL 28.425o will remain. Owners of privately owned pistol free zones can continue to allow open carry.
The various attorneys have determined that existing case law is preferable to attempting to more tightly define in statutory law what constitutes concealed carry. The case law maintains that if a person has made a reasonable effort to conceal a pistol, it is concealed carry. This is preferable to writing printing and intentional display language into statutory law.
The other change will we see to SB 442 are automatic exemptions put in place for people upon renewing their license who have requested and were granted an exemption. People will still be required to request the exemption once. MCRGO will engage in an ongoing educational campaign to let CPL holders know a general exemption exists once the bills become law.
Sen. Green has already done extensive outreach to various stakeholders including sheriffs and prosecutors on SB 442 and we expect easy passage in the Senate. It’s possible that similar, but not identical, legislation is expected to be introduced in the House and the House & Senate will work out the differences between their legislation once they pass in their respective chambers.
We will not likely see a position on the bills from Gov. Snyder until the enrolled bills reach his desk and he’s put in a position to either sign them into law or veto them. The legislature will move forward with addressing pistol free zones regardless of a commitment that Snyder will sign them.
We will provide more specific details once the other bills are introduced. None of the bills will compromise preemption and we do not expect to see any additional training required.
The goal of this legislation continues to be a result that will greatly expand the number of concealed pistol license holders regularly carrying concealed in pistol free zones. It is a halfway step toward the eventual elimination of pistol free zones. The halfway step, rather than full repeal, is necessary if the bills are to have any chance of being signed by the current governor.