Such A Good Thing That You Can't Legally Carry In A Hospital In Michigan

Because such prohibition clearly stops people intent on murder from carrying a firearm in there.

Or really not. 

WXYZ Detroit:  Suspect in deadly Henry Ford Hospital shooting now in custody, police say

The Detroit News: Police: Suspect in fatal shooting at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital in custody

Yep, that prohibition worked so well that the SOB who is the focus of the story was able to waltz right into the hospital, make his way to the basement of the hospital, shoot and kill his ex-wife who worked there, and waltz on out without being intercepted and then drove away not being caught (or possibly he turned himself in - reports differ) until 12 hours after the fact

So, the ex-wife, who had twice applied for PPOs against him after he committed various hostile acts including running her off the road (first application denied, second one granted but not served) was not allowed to be armed.  It would have been illegal for her to carry at the hospital, even as she had an extremely violent ex who had demonstrated time and again that he was a major and quite dangerous threat to her.

We will note that PPO in this case sadly, yet again, stands for Paper, Piece Of.

PPOs are a useful step to document a threat against you and get the police to hopefully take the situation more seriously.  They may even cause some Mope who doesn't get that No means No to leave you alone. Then again, they may not. Against someone clearly bent on harming you, they are of extremely limited effectiveness, as is a no-carry zone. 

The prohibition on carrying in a hospital disarmed the victim only in this case, the SOB simply ignored it, along with a host of other applicable laws.

The SOB in question was also a convicted felon with previous convictions for both arson and aggravated stalking and various probation violations. 

So legally he was: 1. Not allowed to even possess the firearm that he used to kill his ex-wife; 2. Not allowed to enter the hospital with it; and, of course, 3.  Not allowed to kill her with it.

On top of that, given the impressive lack of security at the hospital, the SOB did not even need a firearm to murder his ex.  

Import The Third World And All That

Arabs have a tradition of cranking off rounds into the air to celebrate things. 

They combine this with a very Insha'Allah attitude as to where the rounds may end up.

This tradition has serious issues when it meets in modern society, especially when done from a vehicle, on a highway.

The Detroit Free Press: Gunfire from rented Lamborghini during wedding procession in Dearborn leads to arrest

A wedding celebration shifted from festive to dangerous when shots were fired from a purple Lamborghini Huracán on the evening of Sunday, June 1.

The celebration involved a procession of honking vehicles that stretched from Canton to Dearborn.

Dashcam footage captured the moment someone fired a handgun out the passenger-side window of the luxury sports car near Ford and Evergreen roads, prompting an investigation by Dearborn police.

Officers tracked the festivities to a banquet hall in Dearborn Heights, according to Dearborn police. The rented Lamborghini was impounded, and an anonymous tip later led to the arrest of a person of interest now facing a charge of reckless discharge of a firearm.

No matter how happy you are that someone tied the knot, you don't drive down a highway cranking off rounds into the air, flashy car or no.  The article has a heckuva nice picture of the shooter in the Lambo cranking off some rounds.

You're responsible for every round that leaves your firearm. It's not just unacceptable to hoof rounds into the air in traffic (or just about anywhere else for that matter), it is irresponsible and indeed criminal to do so.  So, don't.

Never Lie For Your Client

As an attorney you do not, contrary to what is shown in movies and tv shows, lie on behalf of your client.

Doing so tends to backfire.

Today's story can also be known as The Perjury Case Continues.  To summarize if you don't want to click the link:

1. I represent the widow of the maker of a trust.  She;s the co-trustee along with the daughter of the widow from his first marriage.

2. The other co-trustee is the daughter of the widow (DOW) from the prior marriage.

3. DOW claimed my client had the handgun that now belongs to the trust.  Handgun is a rather nice old Colt .22 target semiauto pistol. DOW provably lied as DOW herself sold it in November.

4.  This doesn't look good for DOW.

So I do a nice letter to DOW's attorney, attaching the transfer form and noting that her client just committed a fraud upon the court and upon my client and this needs to be settled. If it is not, we will notify the court and petition to remove DOW as co-trustee for her fraud and her causing a loss in time and money defending against this false and rather serious claim, not to mention selling the firearms for far below their fair market value.

What does Unpleasant Lawyer reply: 

Perhaps you should reconsider jumping to conclusions.  An “LR” is not a handgun.

 

Unpleasant Lawyer

[Tell me you know nothing about firearms without telling me you know nothing about firearms] I respond:

        Unpleasant Lawyer:

That is a handgun registration form. 

 

 You will note the box marked pistol is checked.  .22LR is indeed a handgun caliber, also a rifle caliber, but in this case it is indeed a pistol and this is confirmed with the store.

 She replies:

It's a rifle

I'm rather amused and bemused at this point that someone can be this obtuse, not to mention unable to read a form the size of an index card printed in English and respond:

I’d bet you $100 it is not, but you'd lose, and lose badly.

 

Here’s a link to pictures of Colt Huntsman pistols for sale:  https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/pistols/colt-pistols-huntsman.c1384_p1_o6.cfm

 

Funny how those pistols match the exact pistol your client picked up at the house, isn't it?

 

.22 LR while it stands for Long Rifle is a a rifle and pistol caliber popular as a target shooting round in both handguns and rifles.

 

In this case, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that we are talking about a pistol.

 She responds:

You’re acting like a petty juvenile.

 

In any event, the handgun the widow kept is a completely different gun from anything my clients ever had.  She knows it.

Funny how the story changes, eh? So I respond:

You hate to admit you’re wrong eh?  Juvenile is you refusing to read the form showing it is a pistol and arguing it is a rifle in face of all the evidence including the make and model that it is not.

 

Now you’re trying to claim there is another pistol when that was the only pistol in the house, quit spinning for your client and trying to duck that she has committed perjury on this matter and get this resolved.

She responds

Again, you are behaving like a child and I’m not wasting my time on your bad behavior.  There were two handguns.  If you email me again taking that tone, I am deleting it and will not respond.  You can act like a professional or you can deal with the consequences.

She's lying and lying badly. Also, I daresay she's projecting badly.

Her email is the first time it's mentioned that there were "two handguns" after she finally seems to concede that the handgun is not in fact a rifle.  They have never admitted to the existence of a handgun being in their possession before, ever.

Maybe she was talking with her client while emailing, but I doubt it. It appears she is not just spinning but outright lying on behalf of her client.  Not a good look at all.

Petition to remove her lying client as a co-trustee has been drafted and will be filed imminently.  This is going to get good.

First Charges Under Michigan's New Gun Storage Law Go To A Pre-Exisitng Felon

Passed under the "If it saves just one life fallacy, Michigan's new gun storage  law is there mainly to make law-abiding owners ownership of firearms  more cumbersome.   

 So far, after being publicized loudly and touted as a panacea, it's not doing much to deter bad actors:

The Detroit News: Flint man whose toddler shot herself in face is first person charged under new storage law

Michael Tolbert, 44, faces multiple charges, including first-degree child abuse, a felony violation of Michigan's gun storage law, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and lying to a police officer in a violent crime investigation. He also faces several charges for possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony.

We're all, of course,  totally surprised that a felon in possession of a firearm didn't comply with this new law that required him to safely store the gun he was not even allowed to illegally possess under laws that pre-existed this storage law.  

I'm sure this additional safe storage violation felony charge - in addition to the four other felonies he's facing will be the one that puts him over the top and sets him on the road to reform.

Stupid Criminals: Dumb, Drunk, And Being A Felon in Possession Is No Way To Stay Out Of Jail

At least in the Detroit area, the Feds are actually prosecuting some felons in possession of firearms and charging them with such when they are caught committing a crime with a firearm.

The Detroit Free Press:  Personal trainer pulls AR-15-style rifle on bar customers in Holly: 'He's embarrassed'

Apparently, in this context, embarrassed is an alternate spelling of the word dumbass.

A Michigan man is going back to prison for five years after causing a scare at a local bar: He pointed an AR-15-style rifle at customers, who ran for cover and feared for their lives, prosecutors said.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, 40-year-old Joshua Allgeyer, of Holly, wasn't supposed to have a gun on him the night he terrorized patrons at the Holly Inn Bar. He had prior convictions for armed robbery and home invasion, and did 14 years for those crimes, which means he wasn't supposed to ever own a gun again.

Yep, the felon, who after he pointed the firearm at the bar patrons ran home and then hid the weapon under the cushions in his house, because no one would ever think to look there.

He's a felon in possession of what looks, per the picture in the article,  to be a badly-braced pistol, not a rifle. Be interesting to find out how he came to obtain it.

I'm rather impressed that he was federally charged with being a felon in possession. It's possible his  Nazi tattoos had some bearing on the decision. In any case, prosecuting felons committing criminal acts with a firearm needs to be a regular activity.

On top of the federal conviction, State-level charges from the incident are still pending.

How A Journo Can Tell Me She Doesn't Know WTF She's Talking About, Without Telling Me She Doesn't Know WTF She Is Talking About

The trouble with Leftist Journalists is not so much their ignorance as the tremendous number of things they know that ain't so.  But their ignorance doesn't help, either. 

Let's take this intrepid Washington Post (as rebroadcast in the Detroit News) correspondent, who in the very first sentence of her article shows she has no idea what she is talking about:

Q: Why are Republicans not reading the sentiment of the country and cobbling together a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians?

Yep, read that over again.  So much ignorance and smugness to unpack in one short sentence.  

The combination of the smug assumption as to "the sentiment of the country" combined with the pure ignorance of urging Republicans to support "a bill to make automatic weapons of war illegal for civilians" is rather indicative. Not sure she could have fit in another narrative-approved buzz-word about semi-automatic firearms that are lawfully possessed by millions of Americans for legal purposes if she tried.

It's a great way for the journo to let us know she has no clue what she is talking about, and to count her opinion accordingly. The problem is that she influences people who who have infinitely more things they know when it comes to crime, firearms, and firearms law in this country that ain't so.

No, Do Not Pass Go, Let's See If We Can Avoid You Going Directly To Jail

Lots of people for some reason are getting popped in Michigan for carrying handguns in their vehicles without a CPL recently.

Some are athletic stars at universities, who are getting star treatment with their charges dropped from a felony and the disappearing off their record once they finish their easy probation.

Some got a nice reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor due to Black skin privilege, and then went on to shoot up a University, leading to the current gun control push.

Of course, prosecutors are bit more edgy about this as a result.

So just had a potential client call got caught riding dirty after being in a traffic accident while carrying in the car.

-No CPL.

-Not even 21, which creates more issues.

-Loaded handgun in glove compartment.

-Tons of incriminating statements to police which yes, are indeed admissible.

And of course potential client got charged with the 5 year felony for doing so.

At least the firearm had been legally bought and then legally transferred to her, so there's that.

Again folks, if you do not have a Concealed Pistol License do not have a loaded handgun in your vehicle.  Do not pass Go, do not got forth with it in your vehicle (unless, of course, you are a University-level or higher athlete), you are asking to get a felony charge

Indeed, if you are transporting a handgun without a CPL in Michigan have it unloaded, preferably in a locked container, in your trunk. The farther away you are from those ideal circumstances, the potentially more expensive it gets.

Potential client didn't seem to get that PC is gonna have to pay quite a bit of money and a reasonably big retainer to be represented, as felonies get real expensive as there is a lot on the line. Likely won't get hired as a result, and if PC self-represents, they're gonna be toast.

Michigan Dem Legislature To Pro Gun Side: We Won't Let You Speak Against These Bills

During the hearings on the gun control bills the Democrats are pushing (and of which both the "safe storage"  and "universal registration" bills have been signed into law), a curious thing happened.

The Gun banner side in favor of these bad laws was given lots of time to speak.

The Pro-Firearms ownership side that was against these defective and punitive bills?  Not so much. 

 In fact, in most hearings, they were completely blocked from testifying at all, and in the few hearings where they were allowed to speak, they were severely time-limited when those in favor of the bills were not.

Most speakers including those from Great lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry and were not allowed to speak, and even John Lott was limited to minutes for his opposition after they almost shut him out as well, declaring they were "out of time", after giving the antis all the time they wanted.

So both Great Lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry are now suing for this rather obnoxious treatment and probable due process and government free speech violation.

The Detroit News:  Gun groups sue Michigan Legislature over ability to testify on firearms bills

Another Small Catch In The Pistol Brace SBR Amnesty Program: You Can't Trust Your Pistol Brace SBR

There's a bit of an annoying limitation in the free tax stamp and amnesty for the arm-brace program. 

You cannot use the free tax stamp Form 1 program to place the arm-brace pistol into an NFA Trust, unless you have documentary evidence that the NFA Trust owned it before January 13, 2023.  An NFA Trust should not have been owning a non-NFA item so that's the fun with that.

The freebie is for individuals only.  

You can see the reasoning for the limitation, such as it is: 

Since it wasn't an NFA firearm before January 13, 2023, the NFA trust would not have owned it before, so it's not a free transfer to an NFA trust now that it has become by decree an NFA item as the NFA Trust was not the owner at the time, and the freebie is for the actual owners of the pistols.

Now, in addition, another reason is that they really don't like NFA Trusts.  

The Trusts take a lot longer for them to process, as they have to run background checks on all active trustees, and if you didn't have your trust done right, the beneficiaries too. They also have to check with their counsel if the trust is even legally sufficient.

You'd be surprised with the garbage a do-it-yourselfer who, instead of paying a attorney who knows how to do these rather specialized trusts, cobbles a trust together based on things they saw on the Internet can do.  As you would expect, the results aren't pretty.

On top of that, the trust owners keep screwing the legally proper trusts up by doing stuff with them without consulting their lawyer (such as adding trustees willy-nilly and keeping the same person as a successor trustee when they are an active trustee, and other fun and games). Many headaches ensue.

In short, I think they're tired of having to process NFA Trusts and the shenanigans involved in them and want individual Form 1s as they are easier to get processed.  

In short, if you want to put your arm-brace pistol into a NFA Trust you either have to do the freebie to yourself first and then do a $200 Form 1 transfer to your trust later.  

The other option is you should disassemble the firearm, do a standard paid-for Form 1 naming your Trust as the Maker, and then reassemble only (and probably out a real stock on it at that point because, why not?) when the approval is completed and you get your approved tax stamp.

Do Braced Pistols Form 1'd As SBRs Under The Amnesty Require Engraving/Marking?

It's a good question.

As you should know by now, if you have an Arm-Braced pistol, you have until May 31, 2023 to get them on a free Form 1 or you have to make them no longer an Arm-Braced pistol.

If you don't want the amnesty registration, you can by May 31, 2023 undo them by disassembly; placing a 16" or larger barrel on them; or otherwise bringing them into compliance. Or if you want to reach into your wallet, disassemble them now, then pay $200 and then after approval of a standard Form 1 reassemble them and make them an SBR.

Note that just taking the brace off an AR type pistol may not get you into compliance as if you can still shoulder the buffer tube, ATFE is taking the position that it is still an SBR and that will be consequential for you and not in a good way.

So, assuming you go the free tax stamp route on your braced pistol that is now Determined-To-Be-An-SBR-After-Prior-Determinations-Declared-It-Was-Not, do you need to have it engraved with your name and city/state as if you were doing a typical Form 1?

From the Form 1 Section K(7) that you will fill out under this program you would think so, as here's the stated requirement on the form: 

(7) Markings: The maker is required to mark the firearm with the Maker’s name, City and State as shown in item 3b. All markings are to be in compliance with 27 CFR §§ 478.92 and 479.102. Do not alter or modify the serial number of an existing firearm. Enter the existing serial number, or if a new firearm, one you create. The Maker may not duplicate any serial number placed by the Maker on any other firearm.

That would seem that you do have to mark the firearm doesn't it?

But wait, there's more.

There's an ATFE guidance that is contrary to this instruction on the form and is in the final regulation as well:

Once the firearm is registered, am I required to mark the firearm since I manufactured a short-barreled rifle (SBR)?

If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered by May 31, 2023, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm.  The maker’s marking exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule.  If the firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1.

So, per this ruling, you do not need to engrave the amnesty-registered arms-braced pistols now declared to be SBRs so long as you didn't make the receiver yourself from an 80% lower or such.  Certainly another reason to utilize the program. 

I can sorta see the reasoning:  

You as the possessor of an arm-braced pistol did not actually manufacture them as an SBR, you manufactured them as a pistol that is now only later determined to be an SBR. Thus, you wouldn't need to engrave it as when you made it, it was not an SBR, so you had not manufactured an SBR.

Clear as mud, isn't it? Part of the confusion is they are using the normal Form 1 as part of this program rather than a specially made Form 1 for this amnesty and thus the contradiction between the form and the regulation for the arm brace amnesty program.

Let's Talk About The Michigan Dem's New Firearms Registration Scheme

Because you can't take away people's guns if you don't know where they are.

Michigan currently has a de facto, if not de jure, handgun registration system, even if it has a lot of exemptions and some pedantic types like to call it a sales transaction tracking system.  Functionally whatever you wish to call it, it has a Michigan State Police database for most (but not all) handguns in the state.

We will note said database, for all its years of existence, has not been known to have actually been used to solve a crime committed with a handgun. 

I do know that it was used at least once to prove a handgun recovered at a crime scene was not a police throw-down.  The criminal with felony history pointed said gun at police, police then took appropriate action and criminal assumed room temperature. The criminals estate's civil attorney claimed gun was planted by police, but in reality it was illegally given to the felon by a friend - who was not prosecuted for doing so  -- and nothing further came of it.

Now the Dems want to eliminate a lot of those exemptions and add all firearms to the scheme. This is obviously going to cost a lot of money to implement and maintain, and it causes issues with how you normally buy firearms in Michigan -- which inconvenience to law-abiding folks is a feature for the Democrats, not a bug.

You will need a permit to purchase a long gun unless certain exemptions apply including a weird one that is hard to prove - that you had a NICS check done within 5 days before your current purchase - good luck proving and documenting that unless perhaps you go to the same dealer who remembrs you doing so.

There are some bugs in the law that I'm not going to discuss yet, as they appear to be sloppy oversights that favor gun owners a bit,  and we will see if the Democrats figure out the errors their bill has in it or if it gets passed into law as-is.

A new and interesting change is now if you purchase or are given a handgun as a gift it is  the seller /gift giver must be the one mailing in the firearm transfer record, not the buyer.  be interesitng to see who gets tripped up on that one after doing the opposite for decades.

The cost estimated to change the current pistol database to now handle all firearms is reportedly $200,000 which is ridiculously on the low side, not to mention ongoing costs of input over time and database management. For example, the cost of Canada's all-encompassing gun registry database and converting it from handguns only to include long guns  cost over $2 Billion dollars in costs and Canada has 36 million people with fewer gun owners per capita than Michigan.  Michigan has 10.12 Million people so even if ownership was the same, that's a heckuva lot more than $200k.  Think instead hundreds of millions to get the database updated and "working".

Again, this would not have stopped the MSU killings because the killer bought the revolver used from an FFL at a gun shop and passed the existing federal background check.  He passed it because the woke Ingham County prosecutor failed to nail him for a felony in the name of equity.  Said firearm actually was indeed already in the current registrations / sales transaction tracking system.

So no, this registration law isn't intended to be used against criminals, it's intended to be used against you and make you a criminal if you don't follow the proposed new and rather convoluted rules (so convoluted the Democrats don't seem to understand them themselves), and to make it easier to seize your firearms when they deem fit.

Yet another law that is almost undoubtedly going to get forced through.

Let's Talk About The Michigan Dem's Tricky Proposed Firearms "Safe Storage" Bill

This bill basically amends current law to require firearms to be inaccessible to minors, with heavy penalties if not followed to the letter.

The bill  basically criminalizes anyone leaving a firearm unattended for any length of time and not locked up if the owner knows or should know a minor is present and could potentially obtain the firearm.  It also applies to someone visiting a residence where a minor may be present.  

Note it does not have to be your minor, it can be anyone's minor that ends up sending you to the clink.

Per the law, the firearm has to be in a locked box or container that is specifically designed for storing firearms, or unloaded with some kind of locking device that is designed for firearms.  

So per the phrasing of this law, if you store your firearms in a secure room with a lock on the door, that will not count.  You arguably could also be prosecuted for locking your guns in a safe that is not specifically a gun safe if something happens.  That's really awesome.

If you're visiting a place with a minor and leave a firearm there unattended for any reason that is also subject to the law.  The only way out of that would be to not only leave it in your vehicle but have it in a locked box or unloaded and locked with some sort of locking device. 

So yes, there's some definite traps in this law for the normal law-abiding gun owner that might think locking their guns up in a room with a lock on the door or in a locked cabinet or even in a lock-box that was not specifically designed for firearms would be acceptable.

Penalties include a misdemeanor if a minor obtains the firearm and then either

(i) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place. Or (ii) Possesses or exhibits the firearm in the presence of another person in a careless, reckless, or threatening manner.'

Now, if the minor commits a crime where someone including the minor gets hurt then it is a felony. If the minor kills someone or themselves it's a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for improper storage.

Rather draconian penalties and imposition of responsibility for the crimes of another there. Sadly, the Democrats seem to not desire any such law in regards to cars or other dangerous items. Funny, that.

Hilariously, the Department of Health and Human services is supposed to provide "Lethal counseling literature" to FFLs under this bill.  Note the appropriation for this  literature is what will prevent this law from being overturned by a referendum.

It is unknown as to whether this literature will actually counsel people on how to be lethal, but I have my doubts.   Much more likely is it will pay for anti-firearms ownership propaganda at taxpayer expense. One wonders what "lethal counseling literature" has to do with preventing minors from stealing a firearm and using it illegally, but there we are.

So Let's Talk About Michigan Dem's Horrendous Yet Likely To Be Pushed Through Red Flag Law

If you search for the proposed Red Flag Law on Michigan's Legislature site, you won't find it.

That's because its cutely known as the "Extreme Risk Protection Order Act".

Here's the proposed law for your reading enjoyment.  It's tied to a lot of other bills that themselves change other areas of Michigan law to harmonize them with the ERPO.

In short it is bad.  How bad?  Read on.

We're gonna call the person who is the subject of the ERPO the Subject for the sake of brevity. The law provides that a whole lot of people can apply for an order to take a Subject's firearms if they allege the Subject may be a harm to the Subject or others.

This includes: 

(i) A parent.

(ii) A son or daughter.

(iii) A sibling.

(iv) A grandparent.

(v) A grandchild.

(vi) An uncle or aunt.

(vii) A first cousin.

(viii) A police officer/Sheriff/Corrections officer/Federal LEO

(ix) A Mental health professional 

Oh, and for absolutely no chance of false claims being made it also includes:

(a) The spouse of the defendant.

(b) A former spouse of the defendant.

(c) An individual who has a child in common with the defendant.

(d) An individual who has or has had a dating relationship with the defendant.

(e) An individual who resides or has resided in the same household with the defendant.

In short, your former roomate, your ex-roomate. or your ex, no matter how long ago it was that they became your ex doesn't like you, they can mess up your life by filling for one of the ERPOs.  If you had a dating relationship 20 years ago and haven;t seen them since, this law qualifies that person to file such a petition.

The order is issued under the very low civil evidentiary standard of a preponderance of the evidence, not the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case in a criminal prosecution.

Amazingly, one of the elements a court can  use to consider in deciding to enter the ERPO is if the Subject has purchased a firearm or ammunition within 180 days before the filing.  Since the ERPO is about removing firearms that's a tad tautological and it's ridiculous that simply buying a firearm can be considered a factor in whether the Subject has to surrender their firearms.  Michigan anti-gunners rejoice.

Even better, the order can and indeed will be issued without notice to the Subject of the order.

The Subject gets all of 24 hours after being served with the order to surrender all their firearms. No chance to contest it at this stage.

Within 10 days of being served with the ERPO the court would hold a compliance hearing where the Subject of the ERPO has to affirm they have surrendered any firearms they own. This again isn't an opportunity to contest the ERPO.

To contest it, the Subject, on their own, and they better hire an attorney at their own expense, gets to file a motion that the order should be rescinded. The burden of proof is on the Subject, not the state nor the person making the accusation that led to the ERPO.  The Subject of the order has to prove, again by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not a threat.

Nicely reversing the standard that the prosecution must prove the subject is a  threat and instead it is on the subject to prove they are not. Kafka would be proud.

As Yoda might say: Turning American jurisprudence on its head this law does, hmmm.

Why would the Subject need an attorney?  

Because under this law you get One, yes just ONE chance at overturning the ERPO (you also get 1 additional shot at overturning it if/when the ERPO is extended). 

If you lose the first one, all subsequent motions the Subject may file the court can summarily dismiss without a hearing. So you better do a perfect job the first time, and likely means you better come to court with an attorney and already have paid for and been evaluated and cleared by a mental health professional.

Again, the burden is on the Subject, not the state.

That's pretty damn nuts right there. Actual due process went right out the window. Oh, and there's no provision for anyone to pay the Subject's attorney's fees if they win and the order is found to be without basis. The process damn well can be the punishment here.

Oh, and even better, the ERPO doesn't have to be filed in the County where the Subject resides. It can be filed where the person making the allegation resides, so the Subject may potentially have to travel across the state to contest it.

Violation of an ERPO by not divesting of all firearms by a Subject starts off as contempt of court and on a further or ongoing violation turns into a 5-year felony.

Oh, and what if you live with a Subject who gets one of these ERPO's? Well, under the law, you would be ordered under penalty of contempt of court to make sure the Subject cannot gain access to any of your firearms.

There is at least a penalty for filing a false ERPO, but it has a higher standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence.  Instead it has to be shown that the petitioner "knowingly and intentionally" filed a false petition.  I don't expect a lot of prosecutions under that standard. Even if that is shown, it is a criminal conviction and the Subject does not personally get recompensed for the ordeal. Plus the first time they make a false filling, it's only a misdemeanor and a $500 fine - which is rather light for falsely putting someone through this process - an may be worth it to people with a grudge. Only if you keep filling false petitions does it become a felony.

I will note that if there really was an extreme risk there are already multiple ways the person can be interdicted with due process - involuntary mental health holds; Personal Protection Orders; or even - dare I suggest - prosecution for actual crimes the person may be doing.   This law instead kicks it up to 11 and dumps due process by the roadside, while leaving multiple opportunities for mischief.

Again, an ERPO law would not have stopped the MSU killings. No one tried to stop the killer in question from having firearms even as they knew he had paranoid schizophrenia.  He was never involuntarily committed., never charged for discharging a firearm inside cituy limits, and there's no record of anyone actually seeking to have him dealt with and being unable to do so. Now, had the Ingham County prosecutor not dropped the felony charge against him that may have done it. but she likely did not do so for woke reasons, so here we area.

This law flips the burden of proof on its head, creates a huge list of people who can file it who may have their own axes to grind in the matter, and really messes with the concept of due process.

This is a bad law, and it's going to go through.

Michigan Dems Push Punitive Gun Control At The Capitol

The Detroit News: House Speaker bans employees from carrying firearms on House property

Clearly, the Democrat legislators do not trust their own employees.

We will note that there's been no violent firearm crime committed on the grounds of the capitol by an employee with a CPL  (Democrat or Republican) since, as far as anyone can tell, ever.

Simply being punitive towards gun owners, because they can.

This also leaves these employees nice and vulnerable when departing the capitol late at night and going to their cars.

They're also trying to have a policy prohibiting concealed carry at the capitol for non-employees.

On top of that legislation to ban carrying in any government owned or leased building has been introduced by the Dems, thus placing more obstacles on where law-abiding people may carry.  

After all, if the government leases even an office in a building, it would render the entire building off-limits.

Michigan Democrat's Punitive Gun Control Measures

At this point, they're doing it simply because they can. 

After all, having the House, Senate and Governor's mansion, along with the State Supreme Court, there's not a lot to stop them from pushing gun control for the sheer joy of pushing it and vindictively getting one over on gun owners who tend not to vote for them.

For impressive punitive-ness, they've introduced legislation to require a 14, yes 14, really, a 14-day waiting period before buying a firearm. 

There's no exception if you already own a firearm, which completely gets rid of their ridiculous claimed justification that 14 days will let a potential buyer bent on mayhem "cool down" and reconsider before doing anything criminal with the firearm. which is nonsense in and of itself. 

There's never been any actual data that this mythical cooling off period, whether 2 days, 3 days, or 14 days, does anything at all.

This proposed bill makes it illegal to transfer the firearm until 14 days after the date of sale for the firearm.  

Say goodbye to buying firearms at gunshows.   Private transactions will also get strange as you're going to have to meet the seller twice, after waiting 2 weeks after you paid them, to pickup your firearm. 

In short this is stupid, without any rational basis, and simply a Democrat being punitive because she can.

This week, I will get to the big three bills being forced through right now - the "safe storage bill", the "red flag" bill and the "registration bill".

Again, none of these things would have stopped the MSU killings, and they damn well know none of it would have, but the MSU killings are being used as an excuse to push this nonsense through.

Apparently The MSU Killer Was Indeed Mentally Ill

And yet, as usual,  no one did anything.

Per the a-hole's uncle, he apparently was a paranoid schizophenzic. (hat tip Eaton Rapids Joe).  Interestingly neither the Detroit News nor the Detroit Free Press chose to report this, instead both giving a feature-length article to the MSU professor where said a-hole shot at the students and killed some. Said professor's emotive screed thus pushing for gun control, who pushes in a manner that shows he has no clue what current laws are, and  that he would not use a gun to defend his students if he had the opportunity (which is his choice, but still).

The Daily Mail:  MSU gunman's uncle says he was 'paranoid schizophrenic' who should have been locked up over 2019 felony gun charge instead of being freed to kill three

Interesting that it's a UK paper discussing this, and the only media outlet  so far pointing out that had he been convicted of the felony instead of the misdemeanor charge from his illegal concealed carry in a vehicle, he would not have been able to legally purchase the firearms he used that night.  No Michigan paper in Detorit nor in Lansing is pointing this out - it would make the woke Ingham County prosecutor whose policy likely helped cause this look bad.

No word if said a-hole was given meds, taking his meds, off his meds, or what not or if the family ever sought to get him actual help.

Why Is The Ingham County Prosecutor's Office Dancing Around The Plea Deal In The Case Of The MSU Killer?

Because the please deal was part of the then -serving Ingham County Prosecutor's non-prosecution policy for "racial justice":

Fox 47 News: Ingham County prosecutor receives support and backlash for policies meant to ease racial disparities

Ingham County Prosecutor Carol Siemon said, when she was elected in 2016, one of her main goals was to reduce systemic racial bias and racial disparities from law enforcement, but not everyone supports the policies she's put in place to do that.

“I was raised here in Lansing, in a diverse community,” Siemon said. “I’ve always had an interest in civil rights, all aspects of civil rights. As a woman, I’ve been a feminist all my life. LGBTQ Rights, racial disproportionality, immigrants rights. So, when I was elected as prosecutor, my goal was to try and create a more criminal and equitable legal system.”
. . .

In the past month, Siemon has pushed out two policies meant to decrease the number of Black people behind bars.

One of the policies was not pushing felony firearms charges, nor offenses arising from traffic stops - for equity and racial justice, of course.

That worked out really well, didn't it?

More Facts On MSU Murder Confirms Democrats Current Gun Control Proposals Would Not Have Prevented The Incident

Lots more curious information is coming out about the a-hole in question who killed 3 and wounded 5 MSU students.

The Detroit News: MSU shooter Anthony McRae's past shows warning signs

 State officials Tuesday identified 43-year-old [a-hole], who had a history of mental health issues and was charged with multiple gun-related crimes in 2019, as the believed gunman who killed three people and wounded five others at Michigan State University.

Interesting for if he had a "history of mental health issues"  they apparently were both never properly dealt with, nor did he get classified as a harm to himself or others and the info apparently never went anywhere - or if he was, somebody dropped the ball big time.    It will be interesitng to see if they deign to inform us what those mental health issues were.

But wait, there's more!

[a-hole], whom neighbors in Lansing described as a "hell-raiser" who practiced target shooting out his back door, also had a recent history with firearms. And his father, Michael McRae, 66, told The Detroit News that he had encouraged his son to get rid of his guns.

Let's stop right there.

He "practiced target shooting out his back door" in  the City of Lansing.

Lansing has an ordinance, 696.01 prohibiting the discharge of firearms in public, the violation of which is a misdemeanor. There is no record he was ever charged with this, even though apparently police did show up at his house as a result.

Was he doing some of this target shooting while on probation for his misdemeanor?  

If so, that would have violated his probation terms that he could not posses a weapons, and likely would have then been locked up on the high misdemeanor conviction.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor is trying to deflect from their failings in crafting a  plea deal (which to be fair, they do tend to do a lot in this situation, especially for in the current BLM age for BLM-type defendants) that reduced the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor, and thus allowing him to purchase a firearm, complete with passing a background check for same (we will note he would not be eligible for a CPL due to his conviction until 2027).

Ingham County Prosecutor John Dewane, who was appointed to his position in December, argued that, even if McRae had been convicted on the original charge, he likely would have avoided jail or prison time because sentencing guidelines for the two charges are similar and would have resulted in a recommendation against incarceration.

This is called a lie by omission on the part of the Ingham County Prosecutor's Office.

A felony conviction, even with the same terms of probation and no jail, would have prevented him from legally purchasing the firearm from the pawn shop (assuming NICS worked and the record was correctly entered).

Again, even with this information, none of the laws proposed by Whitmer and the Democrats would have prevented this act, yet they will still persist in pushing forward with laws they do know, or at the very least should know, would not have prevented this incident at all.

Meanwhile we have an ongoing mental health crisis in both this state and country, made much worse by the Covid lockdowns, and lack of mental health funding and facilities is contributing to this cycle of a-holes (assuming this a-hole really had mental issues) committing crimes. 

Whitmer and the Democrats, if they really wanted to prevent future murders, would quit this grandstanding on gun control measures they know will be ineffective.  Instead, they should do something effective and increase mental health funding and police/security funding for schools.