Senate Bill 850 would amend Michigan’s concealed pistol law to expand the list of places where a person licensed to carry a concealed pistol, or otherwise exempt from licensure, may not carry a concealed or visible pistol. The bill adds or clarifies restrictions for a range of locations including schools and school property, child care facilities, sports arenas and stadiums, bars and taverns, places of worship, large entertainment facilities, hospitals, college and university dormitories and classrooms, state-owned or state-leased buildings, the grounds of the State Capitol, financial institutions, theaters, public libraries, and courts. It also continues the existing prohibition on carrying electro-muscular disruption devices in those same locations.
The bill makes several technical and definitional changes, including clarifying that “premises” does not include parking areas, and requiring the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to develop a sign that licensed establishments may post to indicate concealed weapons are prohibited. It also preserves exceptions for certain categories of license holders and public safety personnel, such as retired police and law enforcement officers, security personnel hired by the property owner, private investigators, corrections officers with approved training, certain state police officers, sheriff’s posse members, auxiliary or reserve officers, parole/probation/corrections officers with permits, judges, court officers, and peace officers.
In terms of state law, the bill would amend Section 5o of the Michigan concealed pistol licensing act, MCL 28.425o, and would broaden the state’s weapon-free zones by specifically including all buildings owned or leased by the state. It would also reinforce criminal and civil penalties for violations: a first violation is a state civil infraction with a possible fine and six-month license suspension, a second violation is a misdemeanor with a higher fine and license revocation, and a third or subsequent violation is a felony with possible imprisonment, a fine, and revocation.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context does not show formal debate or a vote history. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and gun-restriction bill, with its main policy thrust being the expansion and clarification of gun-free zones in state-controlled and other sensitive locations. The absence of recorded legislative discussion means no specific supporter or opponent arguments are documented here, but the structure of the bill suggests likely interest from both gun-safety advocates and concealed-carry rights supporters, especially regarding the breadth of the new restrictions and the inclusion of all state-owned or leased buildings.
This bill would amend Michigan’s concealed pistol statute, Section 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o), to expand prohibited carry locations and clarify enforcement. It would affect concealed pistol license holders, exempt individuals, property owners/operators of listed facilities, and certain public safety and security personnel. The bill would also require the Liquor Control Commission to provide a standardized no-concealed-weapons sign for liquor-licensed establishments and would maintain escalating civil and criminal penalties for violations.
No committee transcripts or vote records are available, so there is no documented legislative debate or roll-call sentiment in the provided materials. From the bill’s content and caption, the measure appears to have been introduced in a public-safety-oriented posture, emphasizing weapon-free zones and restrictions in sensitive locations. The lack of recorded opposition or support in the supplied context prevents a definitive assessment of legislative sentiment beyond that general framing.
The most likely points of contention are the expansion of gun-free zones to include all buildings owned or leased by the state, as well as the continued restrictions in places such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, libraries, theaters, and entertainment venues. Another likely issue is the breadth of the exceptions for law enforcement, corrections, security, and other licensed personnel, which may be viewed either as necessary operational carve-outs or as inconsistencies in the restrictions. Because no transcripts are provided, no specific legislator, witness, or stakeholder positions are documented.