Instituting “May Issue” A Little At A Time….

Once more, using an emergency - actual or contrived - to infringe on a Constitutionally protected (both state and US Constitutions) right.

First, an emergency that results in diminished law enforcement services, as has been the case during the pandemic, DEMANDS that citizens have INCREASED ability to protect themselves.

Second, setting aside the Constitutional considerations, the decision of county clerks to refuse to process cpl applications is a violation of Michigan law, MCL  123.1102, “A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”  A clerk may not unilaterally set aside state firearms laws, regardless of their motivation for doing so.

Third, Whitmer’s argument that cpl applications somehow require in-person interactions that endanger clerks and their staffs is disingenuous.  The entire process can be accomplished online, research can be conducted remotely.  Anyone with a computer or a smartphone, including the so-called “Obama phones”, can complete the application process without ever darkening the door of a clerk’s office; the cpl is mailed to the applicant upon completion.

Whitmer’s veto is without any basis in fact.  It represents an effort to enact a de facto “may issue” standard using an emergency as pretext.

http://www.yourmix1069.com/news/localnews/gov-whitmer-vetoed-legislation-to-allow-gun-permits-to-be-issued-during-emergencies/

Michigan H.B. 5500, Enforcement of Michigan's Pre-emption Law….

Michigan is a pre-emption state with regard to firearms ownership, carry, etc. State law pre-empts any local ordinance. The problem is, up until now there has been absolutely no way to enforce that law, which is why mayors like George Heartwell in Grand Rapids are still trying to enact gun control in any way they can and face no consequences for doing so. Here is the text of the bill, and it will be readily apparent why all those who support the Second Amendment should take the time to contact their representatives in Lansing to get this bill out of committee and onto the floor of the House for a vote.  All bolded text is proposed language:

HOUSE BILL No. 5500

April 30, 2014, Introduced by Reps. McMillin, Lyons, Shirkey, Genetski, Crawford, Hooker, Rogers, Johnson, VerHeulen, Yonker, Dianda, LaFontaine, MacMaster, Callton, Goike, Kesto and McBroom and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1990 PA 319, entitled

"An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase, sale,
transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms," (MCL 123.1101 to 123.1105) by amending the title and by adding sections 4a, 4b, and 4c.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing
certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase,
sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other
firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components
of pistols or other firearms; AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES.

SEC. 4A. NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT HAS AN EXISTING ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHALL BRING THAT ORDINANCE OR REGULATION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT.

SEC. 4B. BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION MAY BRING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THAT LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IS LOCATED.

SEC. 4C. (1) BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION BRINGS AN ACTION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4B AND THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT

OF GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE COURT SHALL DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) DECLARE THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

(B) ISSUE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(C) ORDER THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TO AMEND OR REPEAL THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(D) AWARD COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION  CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(2) IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (1), IF THE COURT DETERMINES AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION 1 OF THIS ACT, THEN THE COURT SHALL ASSESS A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 AGAINST THAT ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY THAT MAY BE ASSESSED UNDER 1966 PA 158, MCL 752.11 TO 752.12.

(3) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEFEND OR REIMBURSE AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.