Introduced by Rep. Frank Foster (R) on February 14, 2013, to revise details of the law prohibiting carrying concealed edged weapons “with unlawful intent.” The new language would replace references to specific types of blades with language that prohibits carrying an “object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury.” The bill also clarifies that the prohibition does not apply to weapons being transported to the field if they are securely encased and not readily accessible for immediate use.
Referred to the House Tourism Committee on February 14, 2013.
Reported in the House on March 7, 2013, with the recommendation that the following amendment be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Amendment offered in the House on March 13, 2013, to establish a new date on which the bill will go into effect if passed. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 13, 2013.
Amendment offered by Rep. Frank Foster (R) on April 9, 2013, to clarify some of the definitions in the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 9, 2013.
Amendment offered by Rep. Frank Foster (R) on April 9, 2013, to establish a new date on which the bill will go into effect if passed. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 9, 2013.
Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 10, 2013.
Reported in the Senate on June 12, 2013, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Re: 2013 House Bill 4262 (Revise ban on carrying dangerous weapons ) by Rabidog on February 24, 2013 Michigan Constitution, Article 1, Section 6 states, "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Any law that inhibits my right to bear arms for my defense is therefore unconstitutional.
When I carry a weapon for defense, I intend to use it to cause death or injury in the defense of myself and my family. I hope and pray I don't have to, but the intent is to use the weapon as necessary to stop the threat. How in the world could one argue otherwise? That alone renders the language in this proposal absolutely absurd!
This proposal trades new ambiguous language for old, but it does one other thing as well, by removing the "...blade over 3 inches in length..." and adding "...any object designed, manufactured, or intended to be used to cause death or injury..." - now even your folding Boy Scout pocket knife, a large wrench or a sharp stick are included equally in the prohibition! To be fair, it is all up to the court's interpretation, we must simply trust them to correctly interpret:
- our intent to harm
- whether an instrument is dangerous (like a claw hammer or a brick - Rodney King)
- whether we're going between our home and place of business
- if the object is reasonably required for our stated hobby (or occupation, though not stated)
The current law is way out of bounds, and this new language simply gives the state more latitude to prosecute us at their whim.
2013 House Bill 4262 (Revise ban on carrying dangerous weapons ) by admin on February 22, 2013 Introduced in the House on February 14, 2013