Michigan House Bill 4694

(Authorize concealed pistol for certain state employees): Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet on April 28, 2005, to allow state workers with concealed pistol permits (CPLs) to carry a concealed firearm when doing off-site inspections on private property as part of their duties. Under current law, CPL holders doing inspections for the state (such as Family Independence Agency workers making home visits) are not permitted to carry while on duty.

Text on the bill can be read here.

For immediate release

Michigan residents with CCW permits now will no longer have to worry about their permit lapsing during renewal process and will be able to carry their spouse's registered weapon under legislation introduced by Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

Under current law, if the board does not decide on renewal or rejection prior to the expiration of the CCW, the permit holder can no longer use the permit until renewed. Jones' measure would extend the existing permit until the board issues or denies the renewal.

"Renewal applicants are law-abiding people. If they were going to commit a crime, they wouldn't be applying for a renewal," Jones said. "This decreases the amount of bureaucratic red tape and worry placed on residents when renewing a concealed weapons permit."

Jones is also introducing legislation to allow permit holders to carry a weapon registered to their spouse.

"Rather than make a husband and wife buy another gun, we let the CCW holder carry their spouse's," Jones said. "This is just plain common sense and makes the CCW permit more user-friendly to the good law-abiding residents of Michigan".

Text and Analysis:
House Bill 4642 (2005)
House Bill 4643 (2005)

Link and text via the MCRGO.

Rep. Ronald Paul from Texas has introduced H.R. 1703 to restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. The text of the bill can be found here.

Some firearm legislation that is currently being considered in the Michigan House.

House Bill 4650 (Expand "strawman" firearms purchase ban): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to explicitly define as a crime purchasing or attempting to purchase a firearm with the intent of furnishing the firearm to a minor or any other individual prohibited from having a firearm, and establish penalties. Note: "Straw-man" gun purchases in which the buyer of record is actually acquiring the firearm for another are already prohibited. This bill adds provisions regarding minors and ineligible buyers. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4651 (Expand "strawman" firearms purchase): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to provide sentencing guidelines for the crime defined by House Bill 4650 of purchasing a firearm with the intent of furnishing it to a minor. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4653 (Require pistol sale registration): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to require sellers to register pistol sales with the state police. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4654 (Repeal "duty to retreat" in home self defense): Introduced by Rep. Tom Casperson on April 21, 2005, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker. Details and Comments here.

I am glad they are considering repealing the "duty to retreat." portion of the law. As far as I am concerned if someone is in my house to do harm to my family or me, my only duty is to protect my family. It is the attacker who has a duty. His duty is to get out of my house post haste, like his very life depended on it because it may.

Titled: Retooling CCW zones

Pack heat in your house of worship? Carry a concealed handgun to your child's teacher conference in a school or day-care center? What about a pistol in the hospital emergency room?

Since July 1, 2001, Michigan residents licensed to carry a concealed pistol have been prohibited from carrying it in these and several other pistol-free zones. Now, a Michigan lawmaker -- state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt -- is conducting Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into revisions of the CCW law. One proposed change is to ease up these no-carry zones, possibly dropping some of them.

Gun-control advocates argue that licensed handgun bearers would provide security that does not exist under the present law. And they have a point.

In recent weeks a trio of unrelated attacks killed three people in an Atlanta, Ga., courtroom on March 11; seven in a Milwaukee, Wis., church on March 12; and eight at Red Lake High School in Minnesota on March 21. Would some of those people be alive today if someone had been armed and able to disable or obstruct the gunmen?

It's an interesting question. The article does a pretty good job of just presenting the information without pushing the reader one way or another. I really wish more of the main stream media would present news stories in this way.

For the record I believe I should be able to openly carry my firearm with me where ever I go.

But thats just me.

If any of you reading this Blog are from the Three Rivers, Michigan area I invite you join the Liberty1st Forum. And yes even if you are not from the Three Rivers area you are still welcome. We talk about much that doesn't have anything to do with Three Rivers politics. Check it out here.

In the mean time here are some pictures of various places in Three Rivers you might enjoy.

Titled: Stop Unjust Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles According to Speak Out Michigan there are bills that would force the police to return a vehicle of a car if the owner is not convicted of a crime. I am not sure how long they will keep this particular text up so I am going to post the whole thing. Afterword I will post a link to the bill's text.

Michigan law allows the police to confiscate a motor vehicle if they suspect that anyone used the vehicle for an illegal purpose. It doesn't matter whether the owner gave consent. It doesn't even matter whether someone stole the vehicle.

For example, if the police claim that they found any marijuana in your car, they can seize your car. How the marijuana got there doesn't matter. Maybe it fell out of the pocket of an auto mechanic, valet parking attendant, or auto thief. Or maybe the wind blew a miniscule amount of marijuana through an open window. The police can confiscate your car.

Although the government sometimes is required, and often is willing, to return the vehicle to an innocent owner, the owner must pay a large fee. In Wayne County the fee is $900.

Senate Bills 138-143 will help protect innocent owners from unjust forfeiture. These bills will require the government to return a motor vehicle, without any fee, if (A) the owner is not charged with a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation, or (B) the owner is charged with, but found not guilty of, a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation.

Please ask your state senator and state representative to support Senate Bills 138-143.

SpeakOutMichigan provides an easy way to send e-mail to them. It provides a prewritten letter, to which you can add personal comments. Type in your zip code and SpeakOutMichigan will identify your state legislators and send them the letter. It takes only a minute or two.

SpeakOutMichigan also provides an easy way to send e-mail to your friends, so that they can contact their state legislators. Again there is a prewritten letter.

Help protect yourself and other innocent owners from unjust forfeiture.

Support Senate Bills 138-143.

Here is the text of the bill(s).

Did you know there was a Museum of Left Wing Lunacy? Me neither. However we do now.

Also there is a Conservative Brotherhood, which bills themselves as a group of African American writers whose politics are on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Expanding the dialog beyond traditional boundaries, they seek to contribute to a greater understanding of African Americans and America itself through advocacy and commentary.

I can't remember how I found the first link but I found the second one via The Black Informant.

On April 15th I saved someone. No not on their taxes. I turned the author of this Blog onto the Republican Liberty Caucus. I did so in response to this post.

Senate Bill 374 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Bruce Patterson on April 13, 2005, to require a court to notify the Secretary of State when it issues a personal protection order prohibiting an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Under current law a court must notify the county weapons board. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 375, which would eliminate the county weapons boards and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here. 

Senate Bill 375 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on April 13, 2005, to eliminate county concealed weapon licensing boards, and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here.

Other Michigan CPL bills can be found here, here and here.

Sarah Brady's press release to the U.S. Newswire dated 4/11/2005.

"The Kansas Legislature last week passed a bill that should be called the 'No Local Rights' bill. If Senate Bill 195 becomes law, no city or town in Kansas would be able to pass its own regulations about guns, if those regulations are stricter than state law. That's a lot of nonsense, and Governor Sebelius should veto it, and the legislature should uphold her veto.

Nonsense? Exchange any other unalienable right with the right to bear arms and tell me this is nonsense. What if a city in Kansas decided that there is no explicit freedom of religion and that everyone in the city must worship at a Church of their choice each Sunday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Still think it's nonsense?

Why is it OK for local governments to regulate guns but not religion or speech? I mean why do we have a Constitution proclaiming and protecting the rights of the individual if some local politicians can remove them with a majority vote?

"Since 1860, local communities in Kansas have been regulating firearms because locally elected officials understood that different laws are necessary in different communities.

Is Mrs. Brady saying that some people in Kansas do not deserve the right to self-protection? How does one determine such a thing? Americans, are supposed to have equal protection under the law. Shouldn't we also have the right to equally protect ourselves from those outside the law?

People can feel the way they want about gun laws, but we should all agree that in a democracy, the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy."

Pet peeve alert!!! I wish that people who insist on characterizing our form of government as a democracy would, at the very least, add the word constitutional to the beginning of their sentence. This would help ensure they realize there is a difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Democracy.

Mrs. Brady is a little confused by our system of government. We are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic and the distinction is important. The founding fathers knew the danger that a majority or the mob, if you prefer, could pose to the minority. They set up a government where the individual would have equal access to everything America offers. When that access is encroached on by a third party such as the governments the individual can seek relief through the courts.

She may be right about putting such wording into the law. It may be anti-democratic if, in fact, the majority does disapprove of it. However it is not unconstitutional and that is all that should matter when it comes to such things.

By the way, I found this press release via this post from the War on Guns who follows it up today with this one.

Titled: Two-Fifths of Americans Online Have Read Political Blogs

Two-fifths of Americans who are online have read a political blog, and more than a quarter read them once a month or more, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll.

Still, 56% of the public has never read a political blog and only 7% of online adults have posted a comment, according to the poll.

Of online adults who have posted comments on a political blog, 21% have posted 10 times or more in the past year. Half have posted between two and five times and 20% have posted only once.

People who identify themselves as Liberals are mostly likely to post comments to political blogs (28%); Moderates (17%) and Republicans (17%) were least likely.

Interesting. See the rest of the results here.

Titled: Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House

In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the disastrous FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.

This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.

Redstate has more.

It is clear to me that Dr. Zen has never faced a rapist, or a gay basher. What should I do, Dr. Zen, if faced with a rapist? Give him what he wants? Sorry, but I would rather give him what he deserves - a couple of hollow point slugs carefully aimed.

Yea what she said.

James Joyner from Outside the Beltway has this concerning the repeal of the death tax.

Titled: Michiganders to face tighter border rules

Metro Detroiters might need passports to re-enter Michigan from Canada under new federal rules being phased in by 2008.

Such a regulation would represent a significant tightening of a border that has been one of the world's freest for more than two centuries.

According to Bush administration officials, new passport regulations -- designed to curtail terrorism -- would apply to Americans returning to the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama and Bermuda.

I don't know. Is this a bad thing? On one hand it seems like another worthless measure that will do nothing to prevent bad guys from getting into the country. On the other hand I do appreciate the attention that borders are receiving.