Weapons: other; definition of self-defense spray; expand to allow to be dispensed through a cartridge or projectile. Amends sec. 224d of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224d).
Summary
HB5388 amends Michigan’s penal code section governing “self-defense spray or foam devices.” The bill expands the statutory definition of a lawful self-defense spray device to include certain formulations of pepper spray, tear gas-type spray, and related chemical deterrents, including devices that dispense orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS), oleoresin capsicum (OC), chlorobenzylidene malononitrile (CN), nonenamide, and versions containing ultraviolet dye. It also preserves the existing framework that generally makes it a misdemeanor to use such spray against another person, while recognizing exceptions for lawful self-defense and for certain trained law-enforcement personnel.
The bill keeps in place the prohibition on selling self-defense spray or foam devices to minors and the sentence-enhancement provision for using or threatening to use such a device during the commission of another crime. It also clarifies that reasonable use of specified spray devices is permitted when a person would otherwise be justified in using physical force to protect a person or property, and it allows trained county sheriff or police personnel to use approved devices in the course of duty. The bill takes effect 90 days after enactment.
Impact
HB5388 would amend MCL 750.224d in the Michigan Penal Code, changing the legal definition of a self-defense spray or foam device and thereby affecting what products may be treated as lawful defensive sprays under state law. The measure would continue to regulate possession, sale, and use of these devices, while preserving criminal penalties for misuse and for sales to minors. It would also affect law-enforcement agencies, retailers, and individuals who carry personal-defense spray by clarifying which chemical formulations and delivery methods fall within the statute.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported in committee, as it was reported with recommendation without amendment by a 7-3 vote. No committee transcript is provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public arguments, but the vote pattern suggests majority support with some dissent. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a targeted weapons-law update rather than a highly controversial overhaul.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the expanded definition of self-defense spray or foam device, including which chemical agents and delivery mechanisms should be permitted under state law. Opponents may be concerned that broadening the definition could make more potent or less conventional spray devices easier to possess or use, while supporters likely view the change as a clarification that aligns the law with common self-defense products and law-enforcement practice. The retained criminal penalties, minor-sale ban, and sentence-enhancement provisions suggest the bill tries to balance expanded lawful use with continued restrictions on misuse.
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).
Relates to allowing the possession and sale of electronic dart guns and electronic stun guns for self-defense; adds such weapons in the definition of obstructing governmental administration by means of a self-defense spray device.