Michigan House Approves Constitutional Carry Bill

Will Michigan become the next state to approve Constitutional carry legislation?

We’ll have to ultimately wait and see but so far things are moving in the right direction as the state House this week approved HB 44164419, which would make the following changes:

  • Allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
  • Remove open and concealed carry from laws that restrict one from carrying dangerous weapons.
  • Allow security guards to carry concealed when they’re off duty.  Currently, they can only carry while on duty.

The bills passed along a mostly party-line vote Wednesday, 59-49.  During the debate on the floor, Republicans pointed out that there is no permit requirement for open carry in Michigan so it makes little sense to have one for concealed carry.  They also argued that the 13 states that have enacted permitless carry haven’t descended into chaos.

“The people’s Republic of Vermont, Bernie Sanders-ville has had this for years and it’s not a hotbed of gun violence,” said state Rep. Gary Glenn (R-Midland), according to the Detroit Free Press.

Democrats, on the other hand, claimed that the new laws would make a cop’s job more difficult and do nothing to improve the safety of communities around the Great Lake State.

“This is dangerous for our law enforcement and families. As a law abiding gun owner, I honor and respect the second amendment,” said state Rep. Donna Lasinski (D-Scio Township). “Expanding concealed carry while removing training requirement is not sensible, dangerous and it’s not good for our community.”

The bills now head to the Senate for consideration.  Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof (R-West Olive) said that there is no timeline for the chamber to review the bill.  Hopefully, it’s sooner rather than later.  We’ll keep you posted.

In other Michigan-related news, Democratic lawmakers in the House introduced an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” bill this week that would allow judges to strip an individual of his or her 2A rights if law enforcement or family members present evidence that the individual is a threat to himself/herself or others.

“This legislation is about public safety. If someone has made threats of violence or suicide, it only makes sense to take those threats seriously,” State Rep. Robert Wittenberg (D-Oak Park) said in a press release. “By following a court process to only temporarily limit access to guns for these individuals, we can better protect our families and communities. This legislation would give us another tool to try and prevent more senseless tragedies.”

While the intent of the law is to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, it also leaves the door open for abuse as it provides the government an expedited way to strip away basic rights without the traditional channels of due process.  Put quite simply, it inverts the legal paradigm as it relates to firearm seizure to confiscate today, litigate tomorrow.

{ 10 comments… add one }
  • Donn June 10, 2017, 11:51 am

    Ditto on training requirement. I’m a rural Michigander and have carried firearms with me in my vehicle for decades. I took hunter safety as a kid and the CWP course 15 years back. Hands down the gun safety training is the most important part. It should be required for all MI carriers, licensed or not. Whether you are in metro Detroit or the far reaches of the U.P. wilderness, where carry reasons may be opposite, gun safety is primary. Does concealed w/o a permit change anything? Nope. Assuming the Dems don’t crash this, if some crazy is planning shooting up a nightclub, theater, school or other public gathering place, the fact that he might meet up with some resistance changes things a bit. I like it.
    But plenty of good responsible people need to be instructed… you simply don’t carry with a round in the chamber! Always handle it as if loaded! Keep the barrel pointed up and away! Kids and gun storage! And if you are going to point it at a person, you better have one hell of a good reason…. (I instructed the legal part of the CWP course).

  • Old Sailor June 9, 2017, 12:51 pm

    These politicians never listen to themselves and how stupid they sound.
    “This is dangerous for our law enforcement and families. As a law abiding gun owner, I honor and respect the second amendment,” said state Rep. Donna Lasinski (D-Scio Township). “Expanding concealed carry while removing training requirement is not sensible, dangerous and it’s not good for our community.”
    Open carry in MI, along with many other states, does not require a permit. Therefore, it also does not require a “training requirement”. However, the politicians in these states (N.M. is the same) seem to believe putting a coat on over your open carry weapon somehow makes you more dangerous and requires more training. The stupidity of politicians, especially anti-gun politicians, never ceases to amaze me.
    These politicians have also shown it has nothing to do with carrying or training. It’s all about the money generated by selling permits. It’s always about the money!

    • Tuck June 9, 2017, 1:29 pm

      Exactly the same in NC…. smh

  • Gilbert C Shoemaker June 9, 2017, 10:37 am

    Requiring a permit to own or carry a gum is against the law in my thinking. That was not intended by the men that wrote the constitution. The Justice department of our government is on their own path and fails to keep U S A on the path intended. That are the core reason we have so much trouble here. They should be prosecuting reps and senators for violations against the people. Stealing from the S S funds and “witch” hunts that waste tax payers $ $ $. The violations against the public are so bad and the lies so large and continuous there is no news that is truthful. Monopolies are everywhere. Oil companies , Real Estate ,TV Papers or should I lump them all together as “Tabloids”. People act on the behest that only they count. I say this ; What are You leaving for Your great grand children ?

  • Frank Engle June 9, 2017, 8:34 am

    I have an Arizona CCW permit and even though our state no longer requires one. As the father of a police officer, I still favor the training and fingerprint requirement for concealed carry. Many citizens here are still getting their CCW for some of the other benefits that they provide, such as knowledge of the laws about the use of physical and lethal force, waiting period waiver, and demonstrably showing no prior background that would prohibit possession to both LE and also to anyone for private party purchases or sales.

    • Jim Miller June 9, 2017, 9:18 am

      Agreed…I already have a Michigan CPL and support the very basic course to obtain one. That said, I would still continue to renew my license for the reasons stated and for reciprocity reasons. My only suggestion for a useful amendment to the bill would be to make the permit renewal cost like a Drivers License, say $20-$25 for the 5 year renewal (instead of the current $105)

    • rev_dave June 9, 2017, 4:04 pm

      May we ask your specific reasons for still favoring training and fingerprints and a permit for carrying a gun in a concealed fashion? And of course, and statistics you may have that would back up your reasons. Perhaps some of us are ‘missing something’….

      • JT June 12, 2017, 9:20 am

        I\’m not Frank, but let me give you my reasons for supporting at least minimal training before carrying a firearm. I\’ve been a firearm owner since the age of 7 and I\’m now in my sixties. Over the course of my life, I\’ve been shooting and hunting with countless others, and I\’ve seen my share of dangerously untrained and unsafe shooters. When taking my CCW class several years ago, I was shocked to find that of the dozen or so people in the class, at least one quarter HAD NEVER FIRED A GUN IN THEIR LIVES and had zero prior training. Need I say more? I personally don\’t believe anyone should be carrying a firearm without a minimum of training in the operation of said firearm and in firearm safety. By comparison, I would never just hand the car keys to someone who had not received prior driver instruction, would you?

  • Jay June 9, 2017, 8:24 am

    The question of the century is: Why do States have to approve of a bill/law etc.. to give law abiding citizens a right already spelled out in Our Constitution! Red Herrings at work!

    • Sam June 11, 2017, 6:17 am

      I believe it’s done to appease the anti gun legislation people in our country up on Capital Hill.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend