Repeal the Michigan Pistol Free Zones

Recently a bill was introduced in Michigan to repeal the pistol free zones that were part of the Concealed Pistol Act that was passed in 2000 and became effective in 2001.




Say, I am a crazed, evil or unbalanced criminal who preys on innocent people and the voices in my head are telling me to go a school or hospital and kill as many people as possible. Is a paper gun law on “pistol free zones” going to stop me? Of course not. By definition criminals don’t obey our laws. Many of the high profile shootings in the past years have been in supposed “gun free zones.” Not only does this prove the point that these laws do not provide any real safety, it causes us to speculate if the bad guys consciously chose these places because they know there would be no armed resistance to whatever plan they want to carry out. If so, the law makes us less safe, not more safe.

Read the whole thing here. Also see HB 4009 – Pistol free areas; eliminate.


  1. Now here’s an example of a bill that was passed with compromises to address concerns of people. Okay, you can have concealed weapons but we want gun free zones because we are worried about having guns in schools say. Okay we’ll compromise on this.

    Time passes and the concerns of the people about concealed weapons have been shown to be just that concerns. No problems occurred with law abidding citizens and concealed weapons. Now would be the time to address the law again and allow guns in places where people who have not followed the laws have caused problems.

    This is where the constitution shines it greatest light. It is not an all or nothing set of rules as some people seem to think it is. We have the ability to come together and create the laws that we live by addressing people’s concerns and allowing people to get part if not all of what they want. Our laws are not written in stone and we can and should evaluate them on a regular basis to see if they are relevant, doing what they were intended for, not doing anything not intended for, and with an eye towards fixing any issues that have occurred because we cannot see into the future and cannot know everything that will happen.

    I would also like to think that people would not belittle people’s concerns when a compromise is made and then the concern never happens. Nothing good comes of the “I told you so” kind of mentality.

  2. Okay, here are Michigan’s currently defined “pistol free areas:”

    * Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian
    * Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.
    * Sports arena or stadium
    * A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises
    * Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons
    * An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more
    * A hospital
    * A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university
    * A Casino

    They’re also not allowed in federal building or courts.

    Each of these represent an area in which emotions run high, where normal rational judgment may be impaired or absent. I find no rationale for the presence of guns in these settings; rather, their presence exposes innocent children and typically defenseless staff members to unnecessary threats and potential violence.

  3. The thing is people can illegally carry guns into these places now and you don’t see rampant gun battles occurring in these areas with the exception of the crazed lunatic.

    The carry laws are designed to allow people who have passed tests and have demonstrated a responsibility level that they can handle themselves with regard to carrying a firearm.

    Everything that I have seen indicates that allowing people to carry in these areas will not create some addition risk that doesn’t already exist.

  4. shutesie you are absolutely right. The thing that has always astounded me is that there are people that think that words written on a piece of paper are going to stop bad people from doing bad things. Someone intent on doing harm is not going to stop because there are laws against it.

  5. A University of Pennsylvania study reports that those carrying weapons are about 4.5 times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without a gun.

    Other than that, I have found is no clear evidence showing whether or not carry laws have had any effect on public safety.

    Personally, however, I have serious doubts about how any non-law enforcemnt trained person who holds a carry permit will react in a dangerous or emotionally charged situation, especially considering that his right to carry requires him only to spend a little money for his permit, pass a background check and complete an 8-hour pistol safety course.

  6. Jim I don’t know about the source of those stats and or whether there is any built in bias to the numbers but for the sake of this discussion I will just accept that there is none.

    I am just not sure how anybody could conclude that without looking into a crystal ball. People and the environments they are in change from situation to situation and what may happen in Detroit is not likely to happen in Mendon so I am not sure how anyone could put a solid number on something like that and then say it as fact.

    And let’s say it is true. Does that mean that people should lose opportunity to protect themselves in a situation that calls for it? Based on that logic we have to conclude that people who drive cars are more likely to have deadly accidents than those who don’t so a ban on driving should, at least, be considered.

    As far as the training I not sure about the minimum required any more but when I took the class it was a two day session in class and on the range. I will accept you point though that many are probably not fully prepared for a situation where they may have to use a weapon but that should not be a reason that they should not have the ability to protect themselves should the need arise.

    Being prepared for a disaster situation is something that we should all do on a regular basis. We should all have a plan to protect ourselves and our families should the need arise and I would like to think that I do. If you don’t think it necessary then that is your prerogative. All I ask is that you don’t try and impede on my ability to do so.

  7. There are many good points here. People who want to do something bad, will. Regardless of where, when, or who says different. Also, there are people that have their CPL that probly shouldn’t because of their lack of experience. My CPL class was 8 hours that included about an hour at the range. I don’t believe that only law enforcement should carry in Pistol free zones, because of their experience, because I probly have more than most because of my military experience. Instead of getting awarded your CPL because of being a “good citizen”, I do believe that there should be more factors to determine who’s eligible i.e. mental evaluation, past experience with firearms. Not just because someone has a clean record and can pull a trigger. I also feel that a stipulation should be that you should have to have so many hours of range time every so often because alot of people get their permit then don’t practice until they have to renew, which is every 4-5 years. Everyone has a valid point, but I refuse to be a statistic because an unstable person or someone that doesn’t want to make an honest living wants to take what i’ve worked hard for or do me harm. At least I have the option weather or not to defend myself

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.