Pressure mounts to veto Michigan bill that would allow some charged with domestic violence to retain firearms
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is facing increased pressure to veto a proposed bill—Senate Bill 789—that would let some people subject to personal protection orders carry a concealed gun.
The legislation would also abolish county concealed weapon licensing boards and transfer their duties to county clerks or law enforcers. The provision facing criticism from gun control and anti-domestic violence advocates would let subjects of protection orders get concealed pistol licenses unless the orders specifically restrict gun use.
According to wsbt.com, U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Dearborn) has written a letter to the Republican governor describing her childhood fear living in a “volatile” domestic situation. She says allowing domestic abusers to have firearms is a “formula for disaster.”
The bill’s supporters say critics are spreading “misinformation” and it would merely make various state laws uniform.
Senate Bill 789 would allow some people restricted by personal protection orders to get permits, which is prohibited under current law.
In a separate letter posted by michiganradio.com, former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords also urged Snyder to veto the bill, noting that it would weaken current protections for victims of domestic abuse and stalking in Michigan. “The mere presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk that a woman will die by five times,” she wrote.
Giffords’ letter stated that the bill would have a national impact since concealed weapon permits granted in Michigan would be valid in 39 other states through reciprocity agreements.
The trend is the opposite in other state legislatures, such as Vermont and Missouri, where legislation has been introduced to restrict access to firearms for those accused — not convicted — of a domestic violence related crime.
For more, go to:
Lawmaker withdraws bill requiring driver’s license show carry permits
A veteran Indiana lawmaker has withdrawn a proposed bill requiring driver’s licenses to indicate whether motorists also have permits to carry handguns.
According to John Touhy of the Indianapolis Star, veteran Republican lawmaker Rep. Douglas Gutwein was pressured to withdraw House Bill 1029 amid howls of protest from his colleagues. He thought the bill would keep police safe and gun owners happy.
Gutwein said his gun bill would have let police officers on traffic stops know with a glance if drivers are permitted to carry guns. That would save them the wait of getting the information over the police radio or through the in-dash computer in their patrol cars. It also would have prevented the gun owner’s information from being broadcast over the police scanner.
“In some of these small towns, that information comes over the scanner and now everyone and his brother knows he has a license to carry if they’re listening,” Gutwein said.
The bill would have required residents to tell the Bureau of Motor Vehicles if they are licensed to carry a gun. The BMV would then note it on the driver’s license, perhaps with a “P” for concealed carry “permit,” Gutwein said.
Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association Legislative Director Bill Dowden said the organization opposed the bill because it violates state law protecting the identities of people with licenses to carry handguns.
“You have to show your driver’s license for a lot of things now,” Dowden told the Indianapolis Star. “So we are saying that a clerk at a grocery store can now see if you have a license to carry. That’s in direct violation of restrictions on the release of that information.”
For more, go to:
[Hands-free driving, gun laws among Indiana bills to be considered](http://wishtv.com/2015/01/14/hands-free-driving-gun-laws-among-indiana-bills-to-be-considered/Driver’s license gun designation withdrawn in Indiana; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/14/proposed-drivers-license-gun-designation-withdrawn/21773267/)
Lethally stupid San Francisco gun storage law challenged by 26 state AGs
Attorney Generals from 26 states on Jan. 8 filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court over a San Francisco gun control ordinance that requires “locked storage for handguns” because it endangers those who actually abide by this lethally stupid law.
According to The Washington Post, the amicus brief says handguns in San Francisco “must either be stored in a locked container or with a trigger lock at all times in a home unless the owner is carrying the firearm.” The ordinance even applies to people who live alone or are asleep.
In other words, according to the Post, the law prevents a single occupant from keeping a gun racked and ready to go on the nightstand at night.
The 26 AGs contend that this law “threatens” the rights protected by the Second Amendment. They say that under the stress of a home invasion, unlocking a firearm may prove a perilous task.
The amicus brief says: Common sense dictates that in high stress, emergency situations, the ease and speed with which a person can utilize one of these mechanisms to unlock a safe drastically decreases. It is common to fumble with keys while trying to hurriedly unlock a door, to forget a series of numbers when under pressure, or to struggle with hand-eye coordination when subjected to stressors.
State attorney generals filing briefs: Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
For more, go to:
10TH AMENDMENT UPDATE
Montana bill would nullify some federal gun control efforts
Montana, Texas, South Carolina and Minnesota legislators will ponder bills blocking any potential federal ban on semiautomatic firearms and large capacity magazines in the coming weeks.
According to the 10th Amendment Center, the Montana bill—House Bill 203 (HB 203), the “Montana Federal Semiautomatic Firearm and Large Magazine Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act”—would prohibit the state “from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.”
The bill also prohibits state participation in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines. A similar “nullification” bill was passed by Montana lawmakers in 2013 but vetoed by Gov. Steve Bullock as “unnecessary.”
According to NBC News, nullification laws have been introduced in more than three-quarters of U.S. states since 2008. In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law in 2014 to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting firearms freedom from the federal government since 2010.
And while such measures are considered symbolic, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano recently said a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
For more, go to: