Michigan House Bill HB4148

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/28/23
• Refer: 2/28/23
• Report Pass: 4/12/23
• Engrossed: 4/13/23
• Refer: 4/19/23
• Report Pass: 4/19/23
• Enrolled: 4/26/23
• Chaptered: 5/23/23
• Passed: 5/23/23

Caption

Criminal procedure: sentencing guidelines; guidelines for offenses under the extreme risk protection order act; enact. Amends 1927 PA 175 (MCL 760.1 - 777.69) by adding sec. 15e to ch. XVII. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0083'23

Impact

The amendment introduces clear definitions and penalties for violations of extreme risk protection orders, which include knowingly providing firearms to individuals restrained under such orders, as well as penalties for making false statements in complaints. The inclusion of specific classes and categories in sentencing allows for a structured approach to handling these cases, aligning with efforts to improve judicial consistency and responsiveness in matters of public safety.

Summary

House Bill 4148 aims to amend the 1927 PA 175, which relates to criminal procedure in Michigan, by adding new sentencing guidelines specifically for offenses under the extreme risk protection order act. The bill includes provisions that categorize various offenses associated with extreme risk protection orders and establishes maximum penalties. The proposed changes reflect a legislative intent to enhance public safety and regulate the use of firearms in contexts where individuals may pose a risk to themselves or others.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 4148 is supportive among advocates for gun control and public safety, who view it as a necessary step towards reducing gun violence and enhancing community protection. However, there is contention from various groups who feel that increased regulation may infringe on individual rights or the Second Amendment. The discussions leading up to the bill's passage highlighted differing perspectives on balancing public safety with personal freedoms.

Contention

Some notable points of contention include debates over the interpretation of individual rights concerning firearm ownership and the effectiveness of extreme risk protection orders in preventing violence. Critics argue that such laws could lead to unjust penalties and misuse of orders, while supporters assert that the bill is an essential tool in protecting vulnerable individuals from potential harm. The tension between advocating for community safety and ensuring personal freedoms will continue to be a focal point in the discourse surrounding this legislation.