The anti-gun train keeps rolling down the tracks in Michigan with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signing a gun-ban measure into law on Tuesday, only a day before Great Lakes State lawmakers debated several anti-gun measures in a House Committee.
The new law signed by Whitmer makes it illegal to possess a firearm at a voting location anywhere in the state—at least for lawful Michiganders.
Whitmer said the law will protect Michigan voters from gun violence when they head to the polls. Of course, it will do no such thing, as mass shooters are notorious for picking places to wreak havoc where gun-haters like Whitmer have disarmed the law-abiding public.
Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, one of the legislation’s authors, was all smiles at the signing. The legislation established yet another location where Michiganders won’t be able to protect themselves and their families from violent crime.
“Today, we are taking action to prevent voter intimidation and gun violence in our state,” Tsernoglou said. “By increasing security measures, such as this legislation, we are ensuring that every Michigander can cast their ballot free from intimidation and that every election worker can perform their duty without fear of violence. I am thrilled to see this legislation signed into law.”
Interestingly, neither Tsernoglou nor Whitmer can cite any instances where a voter carrying a firearm shot people at a polling place or where a concealed carrier used his or her firearm to intimidate someone into voting in a way other than what they had planned. Also, neither announced that more armed police would be posted at polling places, so they haven’t actually “increased security measures.”
The signing came one day before the scheduled debate over four anti-gun measures in the Michigan House Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security. House Bills 6144, 6145 and 6146 require law enforcement agencies to destroy any firearm that has been confiscated or returned during a “gun buy-back.” Such a piece of feel-good legislation simply destroys working firearms that could be resold by police agencies, which are typically on a very tight budget.
House Bill 6134 removes the judge’s discretion to bar an individual who is subject to a protective order from possessing firearms and requires that person to surrender their firearms. The legislation could lead to more confiscations in situations where judges would have deemed it unnecessary for an individual subject to a protective order to give up their firearms.
Lastly, House Bill 6135 mandates the surrender of firearms to law enforcement or an FFL for compliance with the recent expansion of misdemeanor prohibiting categories passed and signed into law last year. According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, this mandate has the potential to create a Fifth Amendment violation against an individual’s right against self-incrimination.
Until Michigan voters start voting locally like they vote nationally they’ll keep getting the leftist/statist state government they voted for. I’m somewhat sympathetic – we have to stay constantly vigilant here in Ohio to keep the “Three Cs” from dominating the rest of the state. And even then we still get squishy goo-goo Rino adjacents like Gov. DeWine.
If pompous democRat Gun Control zealots could do what they really want to Gun Owners there would be signs that say Gun Owner Water Fountains, Gun Owners Served In Back, Gun Owners Need Not Apply, Gun Owners Move To The Back Of The Bus, etc. Instead of showing their true colors sneaky Gun Control zealots concoct sleazy ways to disguise the centuries old Discrimination inherent with Gun Control. Make no mistake about it…Their viewpoint of Gun Owners reeks of the viewpoint Slave Masters had for Blacks picking cotton.
“By increasing security measures … we are ensuring that every Michigander can cast their ballot free from intimidation and that every election worker can perform their duty without fear of violence.”
I just had a thought. Governments justify significant infringements on our rights claiming that their rationale–increasing public security–outweighs rights such as our right to be armed for righteous self-defense. First of all, governments are tacitly admitting that they cannot just ban rights willy-nilly. This was the impetus for governments to claim and courts to uphold the now defunct “interest balancing” nonsense. (Unfortunately governments and courts continue to employ that nonsense even though the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that construct in the recent Bruen decision.) Second, if we can demonstrate that such laws do NOT actually increase public security, that eliminates the government’s underlying rationale and should therefore compel the courts to strike down such laws.
Have we been missing the boat this entire time? Rather than suing to strike down such laws for violating the Second Amendment (which they do of course), should we be suing to strike down such laws because they violate our rights with no benefit to public safety?
Sometimes you have to get your head above water before you can look around. We can only do so much creative and strategic thinking in NY as we pretty much have to fight any and everything wherever we can establish standing. It is often frustrating to see many other states not doing as much but always good to see any efforts and your idea could very well be worth exploring in states that are not as hell bent on suppressing their citizens. But standing could be a limiting factor if past experiences are any indication.
The only “good” news is that those new laws do not apply to people with concealed carry licenses carrying concealed handguns.
Thanks to Democrats controlling all branches and levels of Michigan government, Michigan is circling the proverbial drain. Maybe voters will install Republicans at the next election.
Just south of Michigan I carry legally in Indiana. So-called constitutional carry. My mom came from Michigan & lots of relatives. Their governor is the proverbial wicked witch of the Midwest🙄
Concealed means concealed.
Or not, there’s no legal requirement to conceal, if holding a CPL.
It is easy to pass another feel good gun control law. No so easy is enforcing the laws on the books that already make it illegal to murder, rob and rape.
All hail Gov. wHitler!
This country has a well documented history of voter intimidation at various points, especially after the Civil War where certain armed white clad groups would stand guard at polling stations to discourage blacks from casting votes, just in case pre-election intimidation tactics were not enough. Also, since buying votes with free whiskey or beer was fairly common, gun bans were enacted to attempt to reduce shootings during drunken brawls between persons of opposing parties. The remains of these bans are the laws that prevent politicking within specified distances from polling places, including the display of signs, badges, pins, and the like.
Just a point on this. As a Michigan voter, at least every precinct I know (again my own experience), is located in a public school or church. We are prohibited from carrying in these locations, so I am not sure what this actually impacts. Just more grandstanding i guess?
No, because according to strict and tested interpretation of the law, your CPL is merely neutered against concealed carry in a school building; open carry with a CPL is still legal. The school can only eject you from school functions, not voting.
Early Voting locations may be different from election day precincts; in my town it’s the Library, in others the City Clerk office.
Sounds like I did not read it other than the article. Thanks I will do it. On another note from my perspective only (completely different topic) open carry is not tactically sound in this day and age so I would never consider it which is why that part escaped me
Comments are closed.