A Michigan House committee to hear legislation to eliminate the pistol 'purchase permit'

Detroit Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 7 June, 2010 | Rob Reed

[marktwain]

A Michigan House of Representatives committee will hold hearings tomorrow on legislation to further streamline the Michigan handgun registration system by eliminating the requirement for non-CPL holders to first obtain a "permit-to-purchase" before buying a handgun.

The Michigan House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee will hold hearings on House Bill 5972, sponsored by State Representative Kim Meltzer (R-33) and House Bill 5973, sponsored by State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103).

The hearings will be Tuesday, June 8, at 10:30 a.m., in room 521 of the Anderson House Office Building, across from the Michigan State Capitol. The hearings are open to the public. Anyone who wants to testify before the committee on these bills needs to supply 30 written copies of their testimony.

Under current law any Michigan resident who does not posses a valid Michigan Concealed Pistol License and who wants to purchase a handgun must first obtain a "permit-to-purchase" from their local police department or county Sheriff. The applicant must pass a written test and the purchase permits are only valid for 10 days.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I left this exception out because it said "in a secure wrapper," which I took to mean a locked case. It may not be."

That is a strange bit of wording. However, I wonder if being cased is "in a secure wrapper". I would think so. They probably leave it vague that way so that they are not too constrictive on how to transport a weapon. Being cased (i.e. in a holster being one form of cased) should fit the guidelines of being wrapped and secure.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"which I took to mean a locked case. It may not be."

If it meant a locked case, it would not cover all the exceptions I raised. When you buy a firearm, the dealer is not required to sell you a locked case to go along with it. So either it does not cover the exception or if it is supposed to I would think that by law they would be forced to sell you a locked case to go along with the firearm.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Whoops, my post 22 was meant for you also...

[Dan Nunn]

So either it does not cover the exception or if it is supposed to I would think that by law they would be forced to sell you a locked case to go along with the firearm.

Not necessarily, for example, the dealer is not required to even see your LTCF because it is not necessary to purchase a firearm. Thus, he can assume that everyone who purchases can legally carry it loaded in their vehicle.

You're right, I can't see a definition of a secure carrier. But making an effort to carry it securely and unloaded, even if not in a case, may be sufficient. I don't want to be the one to be the test case though, nor could I since I have my LTCF :)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"nor could I since I have my LTCF :)"

I'm with you. Avoid the whole thing, spend a $25 processing fee and have an LTCF in my wallet...

[ExGeeEye]

Do you know what, if anything, came of this?

[marktwain]

I have not heard anything more. However, the common pattern is to keep coming back with the legislation until it passes. The Michigan legislature should be a bit more amenable to this legislation in January.

[ExGeeEye]

How about now?

The kids in the back: “Are we there yet?”