Weapons: other; exceptions to use of portable device or weapon directing electrical current, impulse, wave, or beam; modify. Amends sec. 224a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224a).
HB4843 amends Michigan’s penal code section governing portable devices or weapons that direct electrical current, impulse, wave, or beam, commonly understood to include stun guns, Tasers, and similar electronic control devices. The bill keeps the general prohibition on selling, offering for sale, or possessing such devices, but expands and clarifies the list of people and circumstances under which possession and use are allowed. Those exceptions include peace officers and certain corrections, probation, court, bail, private investigator, aviation, and private security personnel, as well as licensed concealed pistol holders who complete required training.
The bill also distinguishes between two types of devices: those using electro-muscular disruption technology and those using conducted electrical energy technology. It allows authorized dealers, manufacturers, and importers to handle and transfer electro-muscular disruption devices to authorized users, and it requires sellers to verify a buyer’s identity and concealed pistol license and provide training at the time of sale. The bill further limits use of these devices to circumstances that would justify lawful use of physical force, including de-escalation, self-defense, stopping an assault, or overcoming unlawful resistance.
HB4843 would amend MCL 750.224a in the Michigan penal code by broadening statutory exceptions to the state’s ban on portable electrical weapons and by creating more detailed definitions, training requirements, and sale restrictions. It would affect law enforcement, corrections personnel, private security workers, licensed concealed pistol holders, and dealers or manufacturers of electronic control devices. The bill also adds criminal penalties for unlawful possession, improper sale practices, and misuse of the devices, while preserving the underlying felony offense for prohibited possession or sale.
The available voting history suggests the bill had substantial support, though not unanimous. It was reported from committee 9-0 and later passed the House on third reading 86-15 with immediate effect, indicating broad bipartisan acceptance of the bill’s approach to regulating and expanding lawful access to electronic control devices. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was generally viewed favorably as a clarification and modernization of existing weapons law.
The main points of contention likely center on whether to expand access to stun guns and Tasers beyond law enforcement to licensed concealed pistol holders and certain private security personnel, and whether the training and licensing safeguards are sufficient. Supporters appear to favor clearer exemptions and regulated lawful use, while opponents may be concerned about broader civilian possession, workplace use by private security, and the risk of misuse or escalation. The bill’s detailed verification, training, and use-limit provisions appear designed to address those concerns.