Weapons: concealed; concealed pistols in certain state buildings; prohibit. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
House Bill 5748 would amend Michigan’s concealed pistol law to add several state government buildings to the list of places where a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol may not carry. Specifically, the bill would prohibit concealed pistols in the Michigan State Capitol Building, the Anderson House Office Building, and the Binsfeld Senate Office Building. The bill also makes a related technical change clarifying that the parking areas of listed locations are not part of the prohibited “premises.”
The bill preserves existing exceptions in the concealed weapons statute for certain categories of licensees and public safety personnel, including retired law enforcement officers, security personnel under contract, private investigators, corrections officers with approved training, state police officers, judges, court officers, peace officers, and others. It also continues the existing penalty structure for violations, which can range from a civil infraction to a misdemeanor or felony for repeat offenses, with mandatory suspension or revocation of the concealed pistol license.
In practical terms, the bill would expand the state’s gun-free zones to include key legislative office and capitol facilities, affecting concealed pistol license holders and exempt individuals who are otherwise allowed to carry in many public places. It would not change the broader concealed carry framework, but it would tighten restrictions in specific state-owned buildings associated with the Legislature.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or partisan sentiment in the available record. Based on the bill’s subject matter and caption, the measure appears to reflect a public-safety and security-focused approach to firearms regulation in sensitive government buildings, while retaining the statute’s existing carve-outs for certain trained or authorized personnel.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between firearm restrictions in government buildings and the rights of concealed pistol license holders, especially because the bill targets legislative facilities rather than general public spaces. Any disagreement would likely center on whether these buildings should be treated as sensitive locations warranting a prohibition, and whether the existing exceptions are appropriately broad.
HB5748 would amend MCL 28.425o, Michigan’s concealed pistol location restrictions, to add the State Capitol Building, the Anderson House Office Building, and the Binsfeld Senate Office Building to the list of places where concealed pistols are prohibited. It would leave the statute’s existing exceptions and penalties in place, while clarifying that parking areas are not included in the prohibited premises. The bill would primarily affect concealed pistol license holders and exempt individuals entering those state legislative buildings, while preserving access for specified law enforcement, security, judicial, and corrections-related personnel.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so the bill’s reception cannot be measured directly from the available materials. The bill’s caption and text suggest a generally security-oriented purpose, and the proposal appears consistent with a cautious approach to firearms in sensitive government facilities. At the same time, because it restricts lawful concealed carry in state buildings, it would likely draw concern from gun-rights advocates or license holders who oppose expanding gun-free zones.
The likely contention is whether the Michigan Capitol complex and legislative office buildings should be designated as no-carry locations for concealed pistol license holders. Supporters would likely emphasize security, orderly access, and the sensitivity of legislative workplaces, while opponents may argue that licensed carriers should not be barred from state government buildings or that the restriction is unnecessary given existing security measures. Another possible point of debate is the breadth of the statute’s exceptions for certain categories of armed personnel, though the bill does not alter those carve-outs.