|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MI: Bill Would Eliminate Michigan Pistol Registration Mandate
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michiganders would no longer have to register pistols with the state under a bill introduced last week by Rep. Lee Chatfield, R-Levering.
Under current law, a person cannot purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in Michigan without first having obtained a license for it.
Chatfield's house bill 4554 would make that optional, and eliminate the $250 fine for not registering. It would also allow people who have already registered to request the Michigan State Police remove their information from the registry.
"There is no need for state government to maintain an exhaustive list of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase pistols," Chatfield said in a press release.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/8/2017)
|
| They should do away with the whole permit to purchase law entirely. NICS obviates it, so it isn't necessary, and it isn't the "least intrusive means possible" to achieve the compelling government interest. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
