Michigan Permit to Purchase

Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee to Consider Repeal of Permit to Purchase and Gun Registration on Wednesday

This Wednesday, July 18, the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a special hearing on legislation to repeal Michigan’s “permit-to-purchase” and registration requirements for handguns. House Bill 5225, which seeks to replace the state handgun “permit-to-purchase” requirement with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has already passed in the state House of Representatives by an overwhelming 74 to 36 vote on June 13. Additionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear the two companion bills to HB 5225, House Bill 5498 and House Bill 5499, both of which also passed the state House and were sent to the Senate last month.

HB 5225, sponsored by state Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93), would repeal the outdated and ineffective “permit-to-purchase” requirement. Under the current state process, gun buyers must apply with their local law enforcement agency and pass a written test before being authorized to buy a handgun. This “permit” is valid for only one gun and it expires after ten days. This process became obsolete when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) took effect in 1998. Since that time, federal law has required a national criminal records check for the purchase of any firearm, from any gun dealer, in every state. The NRA has been working diligently to repeal the antiquated, costly and unnecessary “permit-to-purchase” obstacle for gun owners, and has coordinated with several state Representatives to produce the new language for HB 5225.

HB 5225 as amended would, if enacted:

  • Repeal the state requirement to seek police permission to purchase a firearm by traveling to a local police station and obtaining a permit to purchase.
  • Repeal the requirement for a law-abiding citizen to register a legally purchased and owned firearm with the government through the police.
  • Adopt the use of the federally-funded National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
  • Cut Michigan’s costs by using the federally-administered national instant background check system and eliminate wasted man-hours of tracking lawful gun owners in Michigan.
  • Default to the federal standard of prohibited persons and require a background check for each purchase.

Murdoc is optimistic that this is going to become law, but Michigan residents take a few minutes to contact your senators to make sure they know you care about this. Combined with the elimination of the “safety inspection” (registration) requirement after any pistol purchase, Michigan is finally on the right path for handgun ownership.

One of the few backwards states left

(Heh. “Left.”)

District Court Upholds Illinois Total Ban on Carrying Guns

The district court reasoned that even a total ban on carrying guns for self-defense outside the home should be judged under “intermediate scrutiny,” and the ban passes because “[t]he State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm.”

Canada’s Long Gun Registration Ended

Canada sank $2.7 billion into a pointless project

The program has been cancelled.

Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities…The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

For what it’s worth, the fact that gun registration has not even once proved useful for murder solving INCLUDES the handgun registry, which has been in effect since 1934.

Not. Once. Ever.

Via Of Arms & the Law.

The System

If a Cop Is Illegally Searching You, You Have to Take It

The dreary lesson from this case….Police need only the flimsiest of suspicions to stop you on the street, detain you, and search you. But even if they don’t even have that, they aren’t likely to suffer any serious sanction for an illegal search. Nor is a court likely to believe you should you try to complain. If you resist—physically or verbally, whether the search was legal or illegal—they can bring the hammer down, with damn-near impunity. And after the violence, you’ll be the one going to jail.

And this, from the comments, seems very likely:

I don’t think the judge believed the officer’s testimony, he simply pretended to in order to protect the system and the police officers.

That is trouble. Especially when more and more police officers are being equipped like the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Loser Cops and their Loser Cop Buddies

Officers Jeer at Arraignment of 16 Colleagues in Ticket-Fixing Investigation

A three-year investigation into the police’s habit of fixing traffic and parking tickets in the Bronx ended in the unsealing of indictments on Friday and a stunning display of vitriol by hundreds of off-duty officers, who converged on the courthouse to applaud their accused colleagues and denounce their prosecution.

Hmmm. Cops breaking the law are supported by other cops. There were more than 100 of the off-duty supporters, many of them holding signs reading “Just Following Orders“:

NYPD Just Following Orders
NYPD Just Following Orders

That shit oughta make anyone’s blood a bit chilly.

The unsealed indictments contained more than 1,600 criminal counts, the bulk of them misdemeanors having to do with making tickets disappear as favors for friends, relatives and others with clout. But they also outlined more serious crimes, related both to ticket-fixing and drugs, grand larceny and unrelated corruption. Four of the officers were charged with helping a man get away with assault.

So to summarize: Some cops have been breaking the law for their friends. Other cops are standing with them publicly. At the behest of the union, who supplied them with signs using the same excuse used by concentration camp workers.

Eugene J. O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice:

“The Police Department is a very angry work force, and that is something that should concern people, because it translates into hostile interactions with people.”

Ya think?

Via Instapundit. Photo from NYDailyNews.

They’re worried that they’ll be punished for breaking the law, that is

End of local concealed-gun bans worries officials across South Florida

Effective Saturday , many of South Florida’s “No guns allowed” signs are gone. That’s thanks to a new state law imposing fines of up to $5,000 on county and municipal officials, and even threatening them with removal from office, if they enforce firearms and ammunition restrictions other than those spelled out by state statute.

Seems straightforward. So what are these officials “worried” about?

The state legislation has been on the books since 1987. But because it did not contain any penalties until now, many local governments passed their own, more restrictive laws.

People who have been breaking state law since 1987 are suddenly worried that they’ll be penalized for it now.

One city manager, Joseph Gallegos of Wilton Manors, claims that penalizing officials who break state law is “speaks to a degree of intimidation seemingly unprecedented.” What an idiot.

Via Instapundit.

We’re all criminals these days, even if we don’t ‘know’ it

As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines

In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.

As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time.

Proving “willful violation” of laws is tough. But a lower threshold of “knowing violation” can be, well, a bit extreme. Here are a couple of examples from the story:

In one case, Gary Hancock of Flagstaff, Ariz., was found guilty in 1999 of violating a federal law prohibiting people with a misdemeanor domestic violence record from gun ownership. At the time of his domestic-violence convictions in the early 1990s, the statute didn’t exist—but later it was applied to him. He hadn’t been told of the new law, and he still owned guns. Mr. Hancock was convicted and sentenced to five years’ probation.

His lawyer, Jane McClellan, says prosecutors “did not have to prove he knew about the law. They only had to prove that he knew he had guns.”

Upholding the conviction, a federal appellate court said that “the requirement of ‘knowing’ conduct refers to knowledge of possession, rather than knowledge of the legal consequences of possession.”

So if you know you’re doing something (duh), and that something is illegal, you “know” you’re “doing something” illegal.

And then there’s

In 1998, Dane A. Yirkovsky, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, man with an extensive criminal record, was back in school pursuing a high-school diploma and working as a drywall installer. While doing some remodeling work, Mr. Yirkovsky found a .22 caliber bullet underneath a carpet, according to court documents. He put it in a box in his room, the records show.

A few months later, local police found the bullet during a search of his apartment. State officials didn’t charge him with wrongdoing, but federal officials contended that possessing even one bullet violated a federal law prohibiting felons from having firearms.

Mr. Yirkovsky pleaded guilty to having the bullet. He received a congressionally mandated 15-year prison sentence, which a federal appeals court upheld but called “an extreme penalty under the facts as presented to this court.” Mr. Yirkovsky is due to be released in May 2013.

Even though a bullet is not a firearm, this guy knew he had a bullet. And federal prosecutors proved that having a bullet was the same as having a firearm. So the guy “knew” he had a bullet, and therefore was convicted of knowingly committing a crime.

Boom. 15 years.

Clearly, the firearms violations will get highlighted on this site. But the principle applies across the board.

Via Instapundit.