House Bill 5742 amends Michigan’s penal code section governing firearm-free locations to expand and reorganize the list of places where firearms are prohibited. The bill keeps existing restrictions for places such as banks, houses of worship, courts, theaters, sports arenas, child care facilities, hospitals, liquor-licensed establishments, the state Capitol grounds, large entertainment venues, college dormitories and classrooms, and public libraries. It also adds or clarifies restrictions tied to election administration, including polling places, early voting sites, absent voter ballot drop boxes, clerk offices, and absent voter counting places, generally within 100 feet of entrances during specified election periods.
The bill also revises the penalty structure for violations. Instead of the current civil infraction or misdemeanor framework, the bill creates escalating penalties: a first violation would be a state civil infraction with a fine up to $500, a second violation would be a misdemeanor with a fine up to $1,000, and a third or subsequent violation would be a felony punishable by up to four years in prison and/or a fine up to $5,000. The bill preserves exceptions for peace officers, certain security personnel, licensed concealed pistol carriers, persons with permission from the property owner, and lawful transport or possession in a vehicle.
In practical terms, the bill would broaden and formalize Michigan’s gun-free zones, especially on state-owned or state-leased property and around election-related locations. It would affect firearm owners, concealed pistol license holders, law enforcement, security personnel, state agencies, election administrators, and the public using the covered facilities. The caption indicates the measure is intended to expand gun-free zones to include all buildings owned or leased by the state.
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so the available context does not show direct debate or formal support/opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a public-safety and election-security approach, but it also imposes broader firearm restrictions and tougher penalties that could be controversial among gun-rights advocates and some concealed-carry supporters.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the expanded prohibited locations and the increased criminal penalties for violations, particularly the inclusion of all state-owned or state-leased buildings and election-administration sites. Supporters would likely emphasize safety, orderly government operations, and protection of election workers and voters, while opponents may argue the bill unduly restricts lawful firearm possession and creates additional criminal exposure for otherwise lawful gun owners.
The bill would amend MCL 750.234d in the Michigan penal code to expand firearm-prohibited locations and to replace the current penalty scheme with a tiered enforcement structure. It would directly affect firearm possession rules in specified private and public venues, state buildings, and election-related sites, while preserving exceptions for law enforcement, licensed concealed carry, authorized security, owner permission, and vehicle transport. It would also increase the legal consequences for violations from a single civil infraction/misdemeanor framework to escalating civil, misdemeanor, and felony penalties.
No committee testimony or vote record is available, so there is no documented legislative sentiment in the provided materials. From the bill’s content and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a gun-free-zones expansion focused on public safety and election-site security. At the same time, the broader restrictions and stronger penalties suggest it could draw opposition from gun-rights advocates and others concerned about limits on lawful carry.
The likely points of contention are the expansion of prohibited firearm locations, especially the inclusion of all buildings owned or leased by the state and the election-related 100-foot buffer zones, and the bill’s tougher penalty structure. Supporters would likely argue these changes improve safety in sensitive places and protect election administration, while opponents may object that the bill sweeps too broadly, burdens concealed pistol license holders, and escalates relatively minor violations into serious criminal penalties.