MI - Legal Analysis of HB4490 (to Remove Safety Inspection.)

[Barbara]

Analysis by Atty. Jim Simmons of Shelby Twp.:

HB 4490, introduced by Representatives Paul Opsommer, Joel Sheltrown,
John Stahl, Fred Miller, David Palsrok, Jacob Hoogendyk, Arlan Meekhof,
Neal Nitz, Richard LeBlanc, Jeff Mayes, Kim Meltzer.

If enacted it would do two important things. First, it would eliminate the "safetly inspection" process, which amounts to little more than registration, from Michigan law.

Second, it would direct the Michigan State Police, and local law
enforcement agencies, to destroy all the records that have maintained of pistol inspections up to now.

As drafted, the bill would not eliminate the pistol purchase
permitting scheme. A Michigan resident who wants to obtain a pistol would first be required to apply for a purchase permit, or possess a concealed
pistol license, as is the law. However once purchased, the pistol would not
have to be submitted for inspection, or otherwise registered. The "green
cards" for pistols would no longer be issued.

This bill would not have any effect on the types of firearms allowed
or prohibited under Michigan law. Anything that is legal today will
still be legal if 4490 is enacted. Contra-wise, anything illegal today will
still be illegal if 4490 is enacted.

This analysis is based on the language of HB 4490 as introduced. If
the bill is amended, this analysis may no longer be accurate.

 

[Dan from MI]

well....it's a start

Glad to see Mayes cosponsor this, since his survey was squishy at best.

 

[creitzel]

Thanks for the analysis Barbara. So, what do you think is the likelihood of this bill passing?

Should we start hammering our representatives with email and letters? Or is it still too early?

 

[Standing Wolf]

It's a step.

 

[Sean85746]

I lived in Genessee County for 8 years, and never found the whole "green card" process to be anything OTHER than de facto registration.

Even sworn LEO's (as I was) had to go to the "desk" and obtain a green card, though no 24-hour wait was neccessary.

It would be nice to see this pass, though I have no dog in this fight, as I returned to my native Arizona 19 years ago.

It amazes me still how draconian gun laws are in other states being from Arizona.

 

[bsf]

Excellent.

 

[bsf]

What about Pistol Sales Records and the requirement that a copy to be sent to the MSP?

 

[Trebor]

I'm a little unclear on the point here. If it goes this far, why not eliminate the "Permit to Purchase" requirement as well?

The only reason I can consider is so that private purchasers still get a NICS check run on them by the PD when they apply for the "Permit to Purchase." Of course, that only applies to those private purchasers who don't have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License.

Still, it's a good step.

 

[nelson133]

We have to fight these fights the same way the antis do. One step at a time, incrementally pushing back the limitations on our rights It's the way politics works, you have to be in it for the long haul.

 

[Ryder]

That's nice they would no longer have to be hypocrites and lie to us anymore. I suspect they'll be more willing to let the current situation stand by changing the name from "safety inspection" to "registration" though.

I was kind of looking forward to them being able to locate me when confiscation comes. Suppose I could always hang an American flag out front to draw their attention?

 

[Trebor]

That's nice they would no longer have to be hypocrites and lie to us anymore. I suspect they'll be more willing to let the current situation stand by changing the name from "safety inspection" to "registration" though.

Actually, the way I read this it elimintes the *registration* part of the law. Notice that the Michigan State Police and local PD's are required to destroy the "registration" records.

I think the purpose is to maintain a system for running a background check on private purchases. Obviously, NICS checks are done on all purchases through FFL's, but a private purchase only goes through a background check when you bring the gun in to register. It looks to me they'd run the background check on the buyer when he goes to get the "Permit to Purchase" instead.

Barb, do you think I'm reading this right?

 

[Barbara]

They are required by this bill to destroy new and existing records. From what I've been told that means those records also created by a private seller sending in a copy of the sale record to the State Police.

Rob, I don't think Jim is a member here but he's a lot more qualified to answer this than I am. I'll ask him to check in or there is an ongoing discussion here:
http://www.firearmsalliance.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1719

 

[Thain]

As Johnny Cash sang, "I got it one piece at a time..."

Today, we get rid of registration and police-officer-cover-you-with-muzzle, er, safety inspections.

Tomorrow, we work on the whole permit to purchase thing.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Great news!

 

[bsf]

HB 4490

This legal stuff is complicated. I have been reading through MCL 28.421 – 28.434 (Act 327 of 1927) and trying to figure out the implications of HB4490 concerning Pistol Sales Records and the requirement that a copy to be sent to the MSP. I know what some have said, but I felt the need to check it out for myself.

Basically, HB4490 would modify Sections 12 and 12b, eliminate Section 9, and add a new Section 9d. The modification in Section 12 and 12b simply removes reference to the deleted Section 9.

So that leaves us with the ramifications of the new language in Section 9d and the deletion of Section 9.

Below would be the new Section 9d.

SEC. 9D.
(1) THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL, WITHIN 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, DESTROY ALL RECORDS OF SAFETY INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 9 THAT ARE MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT.
(2) EACH SHERIFF, COMMISSIONER, OR CHIEF OF POLICE SHALL, WITHIN 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, DESTROY ALL RECORDS OF SAFETY INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 9 THAT ARE MAINTAINED BY THAT SHERIFF, COMMISSIONER, OR CHIEF OF POLICE.

So, the gun registration records created through the “safety inspections” would be destroyed.

Below is Section 9, which would be deleted.

28.429 Pistols; safety inspection required; certificate of inspection; exemptions; requirements of pistol presented for inspection; violation as civil infraction; fine.
Sec. 9. (1) A person within the state who owns or comes into possession of a pistol shall, if he or she resides in a city, township, or village having an organized police department, present the pistol for safety inspection to the commissioner or chief of police of the city, township, or village police department or to a duly authorized deputy of the commissioner or chief of police. If that person resides in a part of the county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, he or she shall present the pistol for safety inspection to the sheriff of the county or to a duly authorized deputy of the sheriff. If the person presenting the pistol is eligible to possess a pistol under section 2(1), a certificate of inspection shall be issued in triplicate on a form provided by the director of the department of state police, containing the name, age, address, description, and signature of the person presenting the pistol for inspection, together with a full description of the pistol. The original of the certificate shall be delivered to the registrant. The duplicate of the certificate shall be mailed within 48 hours to the director of the department of state police and filed and indexed by the department and kept as a permanent official record. The triplicate of the certificate shall be retained and filed in the office of the sheriff, commissioner, or chief of police. This section does not apply to a wholesale or retail dealer in firearms who regularly engages in the business of selling pistols at retail, or to a person who holds a collection of pistols kept for the purpose of display as relics or curios and that are not made for modern ammunition or are permanently deactivated.
(2) A person who presents a pistol for a safety inspection under subsection (1) shall ensure that the pistol is unloaded and that the pistol is equipped with a trigger lock or other disabling mechanism or encased when the pistol is presented for inspection. A person who violates this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of not more than $50.00.

Since that would be gone, “safety inspections” would be eliminated.

I do not see anything that affects Pistol Sales Records and the requirement that a copy be sent to the MSP, both mandated by 28.422 and 28.422a. Below is what I think is the relevant text.

The following portion of 28.422 is for people who do not have CPL’s and obtained a License to Purchase.

(5) Upon the sale of the pistol, the seller shall fill out the license forms describing the pistol sold, together with the date of sale, and sign his or her name in ink indicating that the pistol was sold to the licensee. The licensee shall also sign his or her name in ink indicating the purchase of the pistol from the seller. The seller may retain a copy of the license as a record of the sale of the pistol. The licensee shall return 2 copies of the license to the licensing authority within 10 days following the purchase of the pistol.
(6) One copy of the license shall be retained by the licensing authority as an official record for a period of 6 years. The other copy of the license shall be forwarded by the licensing authority within 48 hours to the director of the department of state police. A license is void unless used within 10 days after the date of its issue.

The following portion of 28.422a is for people who have CPL’s.

(2) If an individual licensed under section 5b purchases a pistol, the seller shall complete a sales record in triplicate on a form provided by the department of state police. The record shall include the individual's concealed weapon license number. The individual purchasing the pistol shall sign the record. The seller shall retain 1 copy of the record, provide 1 copy to the individual purchasing the pistol, and forward the original to the department of state police within 10 days following the purchase.

So, this tells me that there will still be Pistol Sales Records, hence registration. It would be nice if a lawyer or someone more understanding of law than I would comment.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and you would be a fool to make decisions based on what I posted here.