University of Detroit Mercy Law Review
76 (1998): 67.
Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue.
GO AHEAD, MAKE MY DAY: REVISITING MICHIGAN'S CONCEALED WEAPONS LAW
Beau A. Hill
Copyright © 1998 University of Detroit Mercy School of Law & Beau A. Hill
[S.A. Glock] is an Attorney and "Pharmacy Consultant." For many years he carried a concealed weapons license issued by [the] Concealed Weapons Licensing Board for the County of Macomb, [valid for] two years while licensed as an attorney. The license expired on September 10, 1993. Some time prior to September 10, 1993, [Glock] moved from Macomb County to St. Clair County. [Glock] applied in St. Clair County for a renewal of his license. He . . . was told by the county clerk that he should not spend his money for the renewal application because "nobody gets a CCW permit in St. Clair County. That is just the way it is." [Glock] requested the renewal application nonetheless and paid the fee. He also requested an appointment with the prosecutor. . . . [T]he prosecutor told [Glock] that the county had a policy of not issuing CCW permits, that the county licensing board would hold a hearing for him but that it would be futile, and that others have sued concerning this policy in St. Clair County Circuit Court but have been denied relief.
[Glock] appeared at the hearing November 18, 1993 and presented his reasons for requiring his CCW permit to be renewed and his compliance with applicable law. [Glock] contended that in his work representing criminal defendants and visiting pharmacy clients late at night he is subject to physical danger and therefore must be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
The Board denied [Glock's] application because it determined that [Glock] did not provide compelling reasons for the issuance of a permit. 
The next day, Glock completed and mailed an application for a non-resident concealed weapons permit, along with the twenty-five dollar permit fee, to the Florida State Department, Division of Licensing.  [Page 68]
Glock received his Florida concealed weapons permit a few weeks later. Under Michigan law, persons carrying concealed weapons under the authority of an out- of-state concealed weapons license are exempt from the licensing requirements of Michigan's concealed weapons statute. 
Glock's problem is solved. Or is it?
Michigan law regarding the validity of out-of-state concealed weapons licenses is ambiguous. Under Michigan law, persons who hold valid concealed weapons licenses issued by other states are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons licensing requirements.  The exemption clearly applies to a resident of another state who obtains a valid license to carry a concealed weapon in that state and then comes to Michigan. The question is, whether the exemption also applies to a Michigan resident who obtains a license to carry a concealed weapon from another state and then, on the basis of the out-of-state license, claims an exemption from the licensing requirements of Michigan's concealed weapons laws.
Michigan's concealed weapons laws do not expressly distinguish between a Michigan resident and a non-resident for purposes of the exemption.  In 1994, a Michigan Attorney General Opinion  interpreted [Page 69] the statutory exemption as applying only to non-residents. In ascertaining the legislative intent behind Michigan's concealed weapons licensing statute, the Attorney General noted that absurd consequences would result if a Michigan resident could circumvent Michigan's specific statutory requirements regarding concealed weapons licensing by simply obtaining a concealed weapons license from another state, which may not impose many of the same licensing requirements as Michigan. 
The statutorily created concealed weapons licensing boards consist of two law enforcement representatives and one representative from the local prosecutor's office.  The licensing boards are exclusively authorized by statute to issue concealed weapons licenses.  Licensing boards have generally denied unrestricted concealed weapons permits to the general public.  Therefore, Michigan residents who are eager to obtain an unrestricted concealed weapons permit,  yet well aware of the restrictive nature in which the local licensing boards issue permits,  have attempted to thwart the licensing boards' discretion by exploiting the exemption contained in Michigan's concealed weapons laws. Such residents acquire an unrestricted concealed weapons license from another state, notwithstanding the Attorney [Page 70] General's opinion denying the validity of out-of-state concealed weapons licenses, and then claim an exemption from Michigan's concealed weapons licensing requirements. 
Michigan residents who possess out-of-state concealed weapons licenses, therefore, avoid applying for a Michigan concealed weapons license by claiming an exemption from Michigan's concealed weapons law.  In effect, these Michigan residents have adhered to the letter of Michigan law, while circumventing their local licensing board. Consequently, Michigan residents avoid their local licensing boards' discretion to grant or deny concealed weapons permits by going directly to a "shall-issue" state that has less restrictive laws than Michigan. 
As the concealed weapons debate rages on, proposed legislation that would loosen the restrictions contained in Michigan's concealed weapons laws has eluded a full vote of the people's elected representatives. The first attempt died in the House Judiciary Committee.  Recent legislation  introduced in the House Oversight and Ethics [Page 71] Committee, however, has resurrected the issue.  During the interim between the original and revised legislation, the ambiguity created by Michigan's concealed weapons licensing exemption was discussed in a Michigan Attorney General Opinion  and two Michigan circuit court cases, Wingle v. City of Ecorse  and Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan. 
This article first examines the pros and cons of permissive concealed weapons laws, as well as the experiences encountered by other states that have liberalized their concealed weapons laws. Next, Michigan's own debate regarding concealed weapons laws is discussed. Finally, the article proposes a solution by suggesting that the concealed weapons issue be brought to a conclusion through a full vote of the people's elected representatives, or through a vote of the people themselves by a ballot proposal.
II. Restrictive Versus Permissive Concealed Weapons Laws
Views regarding whether an individual has the right to carry concealed weapons range from those advocating the complete prohibition of all firearms  to those who would impose no regulation whatsoever on the possession or use of firearms.  To the extent that one examines these views in the context of Michigan's current law, they can be categorized into two schools of thought: restrictive  and permissive.  Restrictive gun control advocates generally oppose loose handgun restrictions, favoring tight control over concealed weapons instead. In other words, restrictive gun control advocates may be considered "pro-gun control." Permissive gun control advocates, however, generally encourage the easing of handgun restrictions [Page 72] and are in favor of allowing the general, law-abiding public to carry concealed weapons.
A. Restrictive Concealed Weapons Laws
Those advocating restrictive concealed weapons laws believe that: (1) more guns on the street result in increased gun violence, (2) more guns on the street create a danger of increased domestic violence, (3) more guns on the street pose an increased risk of accidental shootings, and (4) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit restrictive controls on gun ownership. The belief that more guns equal more gun violence  is exemplified by a comparison of two large Pacific Northwest metropolitan cities, Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, Washington.  In Vancouver, concealed weapons are banned  and "self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason to purchase a handgun."  On the other hand, Seattle specifically allows the purchase of handguns for "self-defense in the street or at home."  A recent study of the two cities' homicide rates indicated that:
Virtually all of the increased risk of death from homicide in Seattle was due to a more than fivefold higher rate of homicide by firearms . . . . Handguns, which accounted for roughly 85 percent of the homicides involving firearms in both communities, were 4.8 times more likely to be used in homicides in Seattle than in Vancouver. 
The study concluded that "the rates of homicide in these two largely similar cities suggests that the modest restriction of citizens' access to firearms (especially handguns) is associated with lower rates of homicide [and that] a more restrictive approach to handgun control may decrease national homicide rates."  [Page 73]
The assertion that easier access to guns equates to more, not less, violent crime has also been argued in terms of the deterrent effect of gun control. For example, a study examining criminal patterns exhibited in FBI Homicide Reports concluded that "[i]f some potential killers were deprived of guns, the criminal homicide rate would be reduced."  Similarly, a victimization survey of twenty-six cities concluded that:
A gun control measure that increases the average cost and hassle of a youthful urban male acquiring his first handgun may at least delay acquisition for a year or two--with a noticeable effect on the gun crime rate. A vigorous crackdown on carrying concealed weapons may have a similar beneficial effect.  Pro-gun control advocates also espouse that a "bloody mayhem" is likely to occur if citizens are allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.  According to pro-gun control advocates, shopping centers, highways, and the like, will transform into "OK Corrals" because disputes will have a greater tendency to escalate into shoot-outs. 
Another argument used in support of restrictive gun control laws is that handguns lead to an increased risk of domestic violence. This argument is often used to refute the assertion that handguns are needed for self-defense  by calling attention to the fact that:
Research indicates that many homicides and suicides are committed on impulse and a substantial portion of these events might have been prevented if lethal weapons had not been immediately available . . . . The impulsive nature of homicides is reinforced with the fact that half of the 20,000 [Page 74] homicide victims in the United States each year are killed by persons they knew.  For example, a review of the predominantly urban King County, Washington, medical examiner's case files involving firearm-related deaths indicated that "[g]uns kept in King County homes were involved in the death of friends or acquaintances 12 times as often as in those of strangers."  Of the 743 King County deaths involving firearms that were examined during the six-year review period, "65 deaths occurred in the house where the firearm involved was kept."  Furthermore, 36 of the 743 people dying from gunshot wounds, or fifty-five percent, were residents of the house where the gun was kept.  Noting that over eighty percent of the homicides occurred during arguments or altercations, the authors of the King County study hypothesized that "[e]asy access to firearms may . . . be particularly dangerous in households prone to domestic violence"  because "people tend to reach for the most lethal weapon readily available."  Such findings justifiably raise concerns regarding "whether keeping firearms in the home increases a family's protection or places it in greater danger." 
Accidental shooting is another often cited reason for incorporating stricter gun control measures. Fears have been raised that innocent bystanders may potentially become gun shot victims because "would-be tinhorns would shoot first and think later in an attempt to thwart a perceived crime."  Similarly, concerns that relatives and friends in the home may fall victim to accidental shootings have been raised because "[u]nintentional injuries generally occur in the homes of the victims, or of relatives or friends, generally during [Page 75] [childish] play."  Advocates of restrictive gun control assert that "[i]t is reasonable to assume that such play would not be lethal in the absence of firearms."  Further emotion is injected into the accidental shooting scenario by the fact "that the victims of accidental firearms deaths are often children." 
Finally, restrictive gun control advocates argue that the push for more restrictive concealed weapons laws is not hindered by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Case law has limited application of the Second Amendment to the federal government.  Furthermore, restrictive gun control advocates interpret the Second Amendment as granting either (1) a right to the states to establish militias, not an individual right to keep and bear arms,  or (2) an individual right to bear arms that is subject to regulation.  The Michigan Constitution, however, provides that "[e]very person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the [Page 76] state."  On its face, the Michigan Constitution does grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms, thereby prohibiting an outright ban on firearms.  Thus, in Michigan the debate quickly shifts away from the militia issue to a debate regarding the extent to which the state may regulate an individual's right to bear arms.
At a minimum, Michigan residents may lawfully possess handguns.  The main issues regard the capacity in which individuals may possess handguns and the extent to which individuals may possess handguns outside the home. Since 1922, Michigan has recognized "the right of the legislature, under the police power, to regulate the carrying of firearms."  Although the right to own firearms has not been addressed by Michigan jurisprudence,  it has consistently been subject to the admonition that the right to own firearms is not "'construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."'  Rather, "the right to keep and bear arms, like all other rights, is subject to the reasonable exercise of the police power."  Thus, "[t]he existence of the concealed weapons licensing board[s] reflect a state's legitimate interest in limiting public access to weapons suitable for criminal purposes and confirms the notion that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power."  [Page 77]
B. Permissive Concealed Weapons Laws
Those advocating permissive concealed weapons laws cite the need for self- protection, as well as the right to bear arms granted by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the Michigan Constitution, as support for their position.  Permissive gun control advocates stress the importance of being able to defend oneself  by citing individual examples of how lives were saved, or could have been saved, by an ordinary citizen carrying a concealed weapon.  Permissive gun control advocates also urge the need for concealed weapons in light of the inability of the police to defend the public from violent crimes,  as well as the fact that many smaller or weaker persons in society, who may not be physically capable of defending themselves from attack, need a concealed weapon as an equalizer.  The "does no harm" self-defense argument is based on studies that indicate, at a minimum, that permissive concealed [Page 78] weapons laws do not increase the homicide rate.  According to such studies, permissive concealed weapons laws may actually reduce the number of murders because the citizenry is armed. 
"The right to keep and bear arms"  is the battle-cry of those favoring looser gun laws.  While arguments debating the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution are common, arguments debating the right to bear arms under the Michigan Constitution are not. According to Michigan courts, the "right to keep and bear arms" granted by the Michigan Constitution is a limited individual right, which is subject to reasonable regulation.  Hence, the debate in Michigan is not whether individuals have the right to bear arms, but rather, whether the laws regulating an individual's right to bear arms are reasonable. More specifically, the debate turns to whether the drafters of the Michigan Constitution envisioned the right to carry concealed weapons as a necessary part of their scheme of guaranteeing each individual the right to defend himself.  If so, any law restricting an individual's right to defend himself would be unreasonable under the Michigan Constitution. [Page 79]
The argument that the Michigan Constitution contemplates the use of concealed weapons for self-defense is best exemplified by Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga's letter to the Macomb County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board. Mr. Marlinga's letter argues that "it is clear that the Michigan Constitutional Convention which adopted the Constitution of 1963, had the power to adopt Article 1, section 6, whether or not the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment ever existed." 
According to the official comments of the 1963 Constitutional Convention, the wording of Article 1, Section 6, of the Michigan Constitution was taken verbatim from the 1908 Michigan Constitution  except for the insertion of the words "keep and," which were added to bring Section 6 into conformity with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The 1908 provision was taken from Article 18, Section 7, of the Michigan Constitution of 1850 word for word.  Article 18, Section 7, of the Michigan Constitution of 1908 was taken word for word from Article 1, Section 13, of the Michigan Constitution of 1835.  Therefore, the right to bear arms for the purposes of defending oneself, as well as the State, has been a constitutionally protected right ever since the incorporation of the State of Michigan. 
"For interpretation purposes, it is fortunate that the 1963 Constitutional Convention added the words 'keep and."'  The addition of these words indicates that the 1963 delegates actually contemplated the specific language of the 1963 Constitution.  Furthermore, when interpreting a constitution, statute, or other legal document, a presumption [Page 80] arises that the drafters meant to use the words in a way consistent with their everyday plain meaning.  Applying this plain meaning presumption, the phrase "keep and bear arms" could also be stated "keep and carry arms" because the word "bear," as defined in 1963, has the same meaning as the word "carry."  Therefore, the constitutional right to bear arms obviously extends beyond the mere right to possess a firearm in one's home or place of business.
"Although constitutional rights are often said to be subject to reasonable regulation, no regulation can be deemed reasonable if it effectively eliminates part of the protected right."  To give effect to the plain meaning of Article 1, Section 6, of the Michigan Constitution, there must be a right to "carry" arms.  Furthermore, although the right to carry arms may be regulated, the regulation cannot be so pervasive that carrying arms becomes an impossibility for the vast majority of citizens. 
Prosecutor Marlinga's letter clearly illustrates the pro-gun belief that local licensing boards, through their consistent denial of concealed weapons permits, are clearly violating the constitutional right to bear arms granted to the citizens of Michigan. In an effort to circumvent the licensing boards allegedly unconstitutional actions, some pro-gun activists have obtained licenses to carry concealed weapons from "shall-issue" states. The validity of such licenses in Michigan, however, is questionable.
III. Out-Of-State Concealed Weapons Licenses: Valid or Invalid?
Citizens' efforts to circumvent Michigan's concealed weapons laws by obtaining out-of-state concealed weapons licenses were significantly undercut in 1994 when the Attorney General of Michigan concluded that "a Michigan resident may not carry a concealed pistol [Page 81] in Michigan if the resident has only acquired a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state."  In support of his conclusion, the Attorney General cited the absurd consequences that would result if "a Michigan resident could avoid the legislatively imposed requirements for obtaining a concealed pistol license in Michigan by obtaining that type of license in another state without having to meet the Michigan requirements." 
In response to the Attorney General's opinion, Michigan residents holding out-of-state concealed weapons licenses have turned to the judiciary to uphold their right to carry concealed weapons. These judicial efforts, however, have not produced uniform results. In Wingle v. City of Ecorse,  the Third Judicial Circuit for the State of Michigan, adopting the Attorney General's opinion, held that Michigan residents cannot carry concealed weapons based on the authority of out-of-state licenses. Conversely, in Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan,  the Sixth Judicial Circuit for the State of Michigan held that Michigan residents who had obtained concealed weapons licenses from other states were exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons provisions. The debate, however, is far from over. The Michigan Sixth Circuit Court's decision in Urbanik has been stayed pending appeal  and a number of analysts predict that the debate regarding whether out-of-state concealed weapons licenses are valid in Michigan will wind its way through the Michigan courts, to be ultimately decided by the Michigan Supreme Court. 
A. Wingle v. City of Ecorse 
Wingle v. City of Ecorse was the first attempt at judicially validating out-of-state concealed weapons permits. In Wingle, the plaintiffs, declaring their intent to utilize an out-of-state concealed weapons permit to carry concealed weapons in Michigan, filed an action to compel the local police to fingerprint them so that they could apply for a Florida concealed weapons permit.  Judge Rashid, however, recognized that the real issue before the court was not the plaintiffs' right [Page 82] to be fingerprinted, but rather "the validity of the Attorney General's interpretation of Michigan gun laws as they pertained to Michigan residents who acquire Florida concealed weapons permits."  Accordingly, Judge Rashid proceeded to determine whether the Attorney General had correctly interpreted the Michigan concealed weapons laws.  Ultimately, Judge Rashid concluded that the Attorney General's interpretation was correct and issued an opinion from the bench that adopted the Attorney General's opinion in its entirety. 
Wingle is heralded as a vital first step in establishing a concrete rule regarding the validity of out-of-state concealed weapons licenses, extinguishing any ambiguity regarding the scope of the out-of-state exemption contained in Michigan's concealed weapons laws. Because Attorney General opinions lack "the force of law,"  the 1994 Attorney General opinion invalidating out-of-state licenses was not binding upon Michigan concealed weapons licensing boards.  Judge Rashid's order adopting the Attorney General's opinion, however, is law and is binding upon Michigan's concealed weapons licensing boards. Therefore, although Judge Rashid held against the plaintiffs in Wingle, the plaintiffs considered the decision a step in the right direction because, at a minimum, the licensing boards were bound by the decision.
B. Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan 
Two years after Wingle, the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Michigan found that the term "person," as it is used in Michigan's concealed weapons laws, "includes within its meaning all Michigan residents."  Therefore, according to the court, because persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses are exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws,  and the term "persons" includes Michigan residents, Michigan residents who carry out-of- state concealed weapons [Page 83] licenses are also exempt from Michigan's concealed weapons laws. 
In Urbanik, the Attorney General argued that a strict literal interpretation of Michigan's concealed weapons law would totally eliminate the effectiveness of Michigan's "comprehensive statutory scheme of concealed weapons licensing."  According to the Attorney General, residents would have no incentive to apply for concealed weapons licenses from their local licensing boards because residents could easily obtain out-of-state licenses from states that require a moderate fee and "issue on demand . . . without even the appearance of need."  The Attorney General further argued that "the spirit and purpose of a statute must prevail over its strict letter where a strict literal interpretation of the statute would result in absurdities or inconsistencies with other laws." 
The court, however, found the Attorney General's arguments unpersuasive. Instead, the court remarked that "the [c]ourt's duty is not to enact, but to expound the law; not to legislate, but to construe legislation and to apply the law as we find it."  According to the court, it was bound to give effect to the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.  The court held that under the plain and unambiguous language of the concealed weapons statute, persons carrying out-of-state concealed weapons licenses were exempt from Michigan's licensing requirements.  According to the court, this exemption clearly and unambiguously applies to "any person, including a Michigan resident." 
IV. "Shall-issue" Statutory Schemes: The Pro's and Con's
Michigan currently has a "good reason"  concealed weapons law.  Good-reason statutory schemes put the burden on the applicant [Page 84] to show a good reason why he should be granted a permit.  Under Michigan's good reason system, concealed weapons licensing boards, the exclusive grantors of concealed weapons permits, have broad discretion in deciding whether an applicant has sustained his burden of showing a good reason.  The boards are under no obligation to grant permits.
In contrast, a "shall-issue" state, such as Florida,  must issue a concealed weapons permit to any citizen who passes certain minimum statutory requirements.  Applicants need not demonstrate a specific need for a concealed weapon when applying for a concealed weapons permit.  While Florida pioneered this "modern wave of carry reform," many states have followed suit by adopting laws that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection.  Many other states, like Michigan, have considered, or are currently considering, similar laws.  Florida, the first state to implement a shall-issue statutory scheme, has collected the most detailed information regarding the impact of such laws and, therefore, provides the best model for evaluating the possible pitfalls associated with shall-issue statutory schemes. 
Florida's experience has been chronicled by pro-gun advocates as a success story in concealed weapon reform.  Meanwhile, surveys, [Page 85] studies, polls, and statistics regarding the effects of shall-issue statutory schemes have been thrown about, analyzed, recycled, and rehashed.  Fears associated with shall-issue statutory schemes have ranged from firearms accidents  to potential "wild west" shoot-outs escalating from traffic disputes.  Benefits associated with shall- issue statutory schemes have ranged from crime deterrence  to self- defense. 
While these assertions cannot be ignored, the most compelling assertion emanating from an examination of Florida's experience with liberal concealed [Page 86] weapons laws is the assertion that liberal concealed weapons laws "did no harm."  Undoubtedly, one of the biggest reservations associated with adopting liberal concealed weapons laws is that such laws will do more harm than good. If shall-issue concealed weapons laws really do no harm,  those indifferent or uncertain about granting more concealed weapons permits may be persuaded that granting more concealed weapons permits is not a bad idea. 
One national study of shall-issue laws observed that more accidental deaths occurred in states with restrictive gun control laws than in states with permissive gun control laws.  According to the study, of the 1,409 accidental gun deaths reported in 1992, 863 occurred in states with restrictive gun control laws, while only 546 occurred in states with permissive gun control laws.  Another national study of 31 states that have concealed weapons laws indicated that the number of accidental gunshot deaths remained relatively stable after the concealed weapons statutes were passed. 
Highly publicized programs that train citizens in gun use also have a deterrent effect because they increase criminals' awareness of gun ownership among potential victims.  For example, the number of grocery store robberies in Detroit reportedly decreased after a grocer's organization initiated gun clinics for its members.  Similarly, decreases in retail store robberies in Highland Park, Michigan, [Page 87] were attributed to the fact that more merchants were toting guns.  Furthermore, incidents involving defensive gun use by citizens, which are often highly publicized, have heightened awareness of the risks criminals may encounter when confronting an armed victim. 
Opponents of shall-issue gun control laws argue that relaxing concealed weapons laws will lead to an increased number of homicides. A 1994 study of fourteen states with shall-issue concealed weapons laws, however, found no evidence to suggest that those states experienced an increase in murder rates after the shall-issue laws were enacted.  To the contrary, the study suggested that the murder rates may have actually declined after the shall- issue laws were enacted.  For example, Florida's murder rate from 1975 to 1986 was one of the highest in the United States.  After Florida passed its shall-issue concealed weapons law, the state's murder rate declined so rapidly and consistently that by 1991 Floridians were less likely to be murdered than people elsewhere in America. 
Similarly, evidence suggests that carry reform in Georgia, resulting from the Attorney General of Georgia's 1989 reinterpretation of Georgia's existing concealed weapons laws, may have resulted in a reduction in Georgia's murder rates.  The Georgia murder rate reportedly fell "16% during 1989-92, while the rest of the United States experienced a 1.6% increase in murder rates."  The Georgia results, however, may be somewhat misleading because Georgia's murder rates for a number of years prior to the Attorney General's opinion exhibited a rather dramatic and otherwise unpredictable correlation with murder rates throughout the United States.  Therefore, until Georgia gains more experience with its new permissive [Page 88] concealed weapons law, "the most cautious conclusion to be drawn is that the change at least did no harm." 
If other states' reforms are any indication of the evils accompanying permissive gun control laws, states with restrictive gun control laws should be able to shift to permissive gun control laws with little fear that such laws will compromise public safety. In fact, permissive gun control laws have been linked to enhanced public safety.  For example, prior to enacting its permissive concealed weapons laws, Florida was besieged with "predict[ions] that Florida's honest citizens would turn into gunslingers with a vigilante mentality."  Furthermore, following the passage of Florida's permissive concealed weapons law, opponents of the law aggressively scrutinized each crime that could be attributed to the new law.  Eight months later, however, opponents of the law failed to link even one crime to Florida's permissive concealed weapons laws. 
Intense fears regarding the potential consequences associated with enacting a permissive statutory scheme prompted Florida to implement tracking programs that would gather information regarding actual incidents involving concealed weapons permit holders.  Two tracking programs were implemented: a state-wide program and a county-wide program in Miami Dade County.  The programs operated from September 1987, when carry reform was implemented in Florida, to August 1992.  In the fall of 1992, Florida abandoned the programs because incidents involving concealed weapons permit holders were rare. 
Advocates of permissive concealed weapons statutes often justify their position by stating that even though permissive concealed weapons statutes have not appeared to have done any good, they at [Page 89] least have done no harm.  The net effect of this analysis cannot be overstated. There may be accidents, there may be senseless shootings, and there may even be some dangerous individuals who will manage to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon if Michigan changes to a shall-issue concealed weapons licensing scheme. True, some of these events might not happen if the law remains restrictive. If other states' experiences, however, are any indication of the positive impacts associated with shall-issue laws, such as foiled burglaries and robberies, thwarted rapes and assaults,  and general criminal deterrence, the positive impacts will assuredly outweigh any negative impacts associated with permissive concealed weapons schemes.
Those who perceive crime to be a constant and protection from crime to be a matter better left exclusively to the police  interpret the additional accidents and other crimes that may result from shall-issue laws as a menace, no matter how small they may be. According to those opposing shall- issue concealed weapons laws, there is no such thing as "does no harm" because the harm created by liberal concealed weapons laws is omnipotent.
V. "Shall-issue" Debate Mandates Ballot Proposal
Should the decision of whether to loosen concealed weapons restrictions be vested solely in one elected official, the Attorney General, seven elected judges, or 17 of the 110 legislators who just happen to sit on the correct committee? The will of the people can best be served by thorough consideration of the issue and a full vote of all elected representatives or, alternatively, by way of a ballot proposal taking the issue directly to the people themselves.
Had wide-spread mayhem and tragedy resulted from other states' adoption of concealed weapons reform, quashing a vote by the people of Michigan or their elected representatives may have been justified as an exercise in futility. The experiences of shall-issue states, however, have not shown such results,  thereby begging the question: Would the People of Michigan, after being fully apprised of all the facts and experiences of those states that have adopted shall-issue concealed weapons laws, wish to follow in their footsteps? This question can only, and should only, be answered by the people, [Page 90] either directly through a ballot proposal,  or through their elected representatives.  Closure can only be obtained by presenting the issue directly to the people.
Legislation amending Michigan's concealed weapons laws from "good-reason" to "shall-issue" was introduced on April 25, 1995.  Initial revisions were made in response to input from local law enforcement officers.  It appeared obvious from the start, however, that the policy behind the new legislation, stated as "allowing the 'average, law-abiding citizen' access to concealed weapons permits,"  meant different things to pro-gun and pro-gun control advocates. To pro-gun sponsors it meant "shall-issue."  To pro-gun control advocates it meant retaining the law enforcement groups' jurisdiction over issuing permits. 
This rift between pro-gun and pro-gun control advocates is illustrated by the fact that the two groups were attempting to vest concealed weapons licensing power in different state organizations. Pro-gun advocates intended to vest licensing power with the Secretary of State, thereby usurping the power of the local licensing boards.  [Page 91]
Pro-gun control advocates, including local law enforcement officials, intended to maintain the current system of local licensing boards, agreeing only to "consider standardizing the process by which county boards review permit requests."  Pro-gun control advocates clearly intended to block the pro-gun advocates' attempt to extinguish the local licensing boards.
Soon after the legislation was introduced, it was assaulted by a broad coalition of law enforcement groups arguing that permissive gun control laws would lead to more street violence.  The law enforcement coalition also contracted the EPIC-MRA to conduct a poll of Michigan residents' attitudes toward concealed weapons permits.  The coalition's poll indicated that 69% of the Michigan residents polled opposed easing restrictions on CCW permits.  According to reports:
[O]nce members of the Judiciary Committee heard that 69 percent of Michigan residents oppose allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, [some] backed off their potential support, leading one sponsor of the legislation to quip "If it doesn't come out of Judiciary, the only reason that will happen is because of the poll your group backed."  That prophecy eventually came true. 
Subsequent attempts to revive the issue were also initially unsuccessful.  First, in order to keep the "shall-issue" legislation alive, one sponsor made a motion on the House floor to discharge the Judiciary [Page 92] Committee from considering it.  The motion failed by a forty- five to fifty-three margin.  Later, "shall-issue" proponents in the House sought, and initially won passage of, a boilerplate provision in the State Police budget,  which required the State Trooper assigned to any concealed weapons licensing board to vote in favor of granting permits to applicants who met the other requirements such as age, training, criminal and mental history.  The Senate, however, removed the boilerplate language. 
Procedural moves and boilerplate provisions are not effective means of bringing closure to the issue of whether Michigan really wants concealed weapons reform. Nor will polls commissioned by groups from either side of the issue end the debate. Rather, what is needed to bring finality to the issue of concealed weapons reform is due consideration and a recorded vote by members of both chambers of the Michigan Legislature.
The 1998 re-introduction and subsequent approval of concealed weapons legislation in the House Oversight and Ethics Committee aptly illustrates that Michigan residents foster an ongoing interest in concealed weapons reform.  In addition, Wingle v. City of Ecorse  and Urbanik v. Attorney General of Michigan  demonstrate the lengths to which some people will go to exercise what they consider their constitutional right to bear arms.  Unfortunately, Michigan courts will resolve the debate, instead of the people or their elected representatives, unless the concealed weapons issue is fully debated by [Page 93] both chambers and a vote recorded by the full Michigan Legislature. 
The House Judiciary committee, which voted not to report out proposed concealed weapons reform legislation for full debate on the House floor,  is but a small component of the Michigan Legislature.  The House Judiciary Committee is in no way representative of the entire legislative body. Furthermore, rejecting concealed weapons reform on the basis of committee assignments may not hold legislators accountable to the same extent that a full legislative vote would. 
For example, the composition of the 17-member Judiciary Committee will play a significant role in how easy, or hard, it is to get concealed weapons reform legislation passed in the committee. The Judiciary Committee will easily vote down such legislation if the repercussions are slight because the committee members' constituents, or party faithfuls, are opposed to concealed weapons reform legislation.  There are another ninety-three members of the House, however, and thirty-eight members of the Senate, whose allegiances may differ greatly from the seventeen members of the Judiciary Committee. Even within the Judiciary Committee, one member was defeated in his re-election campaign allegedly because he voted against concealed carry reform legislation,  while another member was subjected to a recall petition.  [Page 94]
Concealed weapons reform enjoys enough popular support to justify a debate on the house floor. This is true despite the EPIC-MRA poll that found that 71% of 600 Michigan residents polled opposed H. B. 4720, with 69% of the 600 residents stating that "no one in Michigan should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun."  Given that the poll was funded by the Law Enforcement Coalition, which strongly opposed the concealed weapons reform legislation, it does not represent an adequate basis to justify ignoring evidence to the contrary.  Given the various ways in which poll questions can be framed  and the source of the poll, the poll results are persuasive evidence at most, not conclusive enough to nullify all evidence to the contrary. 
Since its 1998 re-introduction, concealed weapons reform legislation has "made it through its first major hurdle" by gaining the approval of the House Oversight and Ethics Committee.  By denying representatives the opportunity to go on the record with their position regarding concealed weapons reform,  Michigan citizens are [Page 95] denied the opportunity to take their elected representatives to task.  Concealed weapons reform is important and enjoys sufficient popular support to deserve at least one chance to be thoroughly debated on the House floor. After due consideration, the House can then decide whether to initiate concealed weapons reform and eliminate the out-of-state waiver loophole  before the reform legislation is received by the Senate for its consideration. Denial of a complete debate and vote by both chambers of the legislature will ultimately leave the decision in the hands of the courts,  rather than our representative government, thereby allowing the courts, not our representatives, to determine our own future. 
A ballot proposal would also be an effective means of determining the will of the people.  Ballot proposals have been approved by Michigan voters in the past.  A ballot proposal, however, is often a long, difficult, and potentially expensive procedure.  Nonetheless, a [Page 96] ballot proposal would most accurately demonstrate the magnitude of the concealed weapons reform support. Those in favor of concealed weapons reform would have their work cut out for them, trying to inform, educate, and persuade voters. With a ballot proposal, however, the wisdom of the people of Michigan would be determining whether concealed weapons reform is viable. A ballot proposal is certainly more preferable than a stifling debate and vote of the legislature. Furthermore, a ballot proposal may be the only way to truly determine what Michigan citizens want to do with their concealed weapons laws-- close the out-of-state waiver loophole or become a shall-issue state.
A ballot proposal could take a number of forms. For example, the initiative could retain the concealed weapons licensing boards,  transfer duties associated with licensing to a state agency such as the Secretary of State,  or adopt some other scheme. Alternatively, the initiative could simply call for a yes or no vote regarding whether to become a shall-issue state, leaving the details to be ironed out by the legislature.  Any proposal, regardless of its form, should include language foreclosing Michigan residents from carrying concealed weapons under the authority of out-of-state licenses.  Whatever the approach, a ballot proposal would ensure that the will of the people was determined. Best of all, the gun control debate would be settled by the people, not the courts.
Concealed weapons laws in Michigan must be revisited. Action must be taken to settle the debate regarding whether Michigan should be a "shall-issue" or "good-reason" state. Otherwise, the ambiguity of Michigan's law will be resolved by the courts, not the people. [Page 97] Our system of representative self-government dictates that such decisions be made through either a ballot proposal or a full vote of all elected representatives in the legislature.
The importance of concealed weapons reform cannot be overstated. Concealed weapons reform can truly be a matter of life or death. In light of the current debate in Michigan, as well as the experiences demonstrated by so many of Michigan's sister states that have relaxed their concealed weapons laws, the people of the State of Michigan are entitled to a vote on whether Michigan should relax its concealed weapons requirements. Michigan citizens should also determine whether to amend the law to expressly eliminate the out-of-state license waiver. Both a full legislative vote and a ballot proposal would solve the current concealed weapons reform dilemma and exercise the will of the people.
Gun control advocates would prefer to maintain the status quo because revisiting Michigan's concealed weapons laws could result in the easing of current restrictions. Gun control opponents, however, have little to lose: revisiting Michigan's concealed weapons laws would certainly "make their day."
. Pencak v. Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd., 872 F. Supp. 410, 411- 12 (E.D. Mich. 1994).
. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment at 13, Urbanik v. Attorney Gen. of Mich., No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997). For a discussion of Florida's concealed weapons statute, see Floridians Getting Ready to Carry Hidden Guns Under New Statute, Atlanta J. & Const., Sept. 20, 1987, at A26, available in 1987 WL 5315710.
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 28.432a, 750.227, .231a (West 1996).
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.432a (West 1996) (stating that Michigan's concealed weapons license requirement does not apply to "[a] person licensed to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state"); Id. § 750.231a (stating that Michigan's prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol without a license does not apply to "a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by another state").
. See generally Rachelle Renfro Green, Offenses Against Public Order and Safety: Provide for Specific Means of Carrying Concealed Weapons; Permit Holder of Valid License to Have Handgun in Any Location Within Motor Vehicle; Permit Persons Legally Entitled to Carry Handguns in Other States to Carry Handguns in Georgia, 13 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 123, 125 (1996) (discussing Georgia's concealed weapons statute, which provides that "a person licensed to carry a handgun in another state is authorized to carry a handgun in Georgia, as long as that person complies with Georgia laws in the carrying of the handgun and is not a resident of Georgia"); Bruce I. McDaniel, Application of Statute or Regulation Dealing with Registration or Carrying of Weapons to Transient Nonresident, 68 A.L.R.3d 1253 (1976) (collecting and analyzing cases in which courts discuss whether state statutes or local ordinances regulating the registration or carrying of weapons apply to transient nonresidents).
. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. 6798 (opining that a Michigan resident "may not carry a concealed pistol in Michigan if the resident has only acquired a license to carry a concealed pistol from another state").
. See id.
. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.426 (West 1996).
. See, e.g., Pencak v. Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd., 872 F. Supp. 410, 411-12 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (recognizing plaintiff's argument that "'nobody gets a CCW permit in St. Clair County. That is just the way it is."'); Gun permits go to those with ties to legal system, Grand Rapids Press, Dec. 11, 1995, at C3, available in 1995 WL 10680712 ("In a two-year period the Kalamazoo County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board has granted about 60 unrestricted concealed weapons permits, mostly to retired police officers, probation officers and circuit judges.").
. See, e.g., Lawmakers Getting Edgy Over Inaction on Concealed Weapons, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Sept. 25, 1995; Law Enforcement Takes Aim at Concealed Weapons Bill, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Sept. 12, 1995. A restricted permit would limit a permit holder to carrying a concealed weapon only in accordance with the restrictions on the face of the permit, such as to and from work, to and from the shooting range, for hunting and trapping, for business and security guard use, etc. An unrestricted permit would not subject the holder to any express limitations. The holder could carry a concealed weapon anywhere not prohibited by law. Id.
. See Law Enforcement Takes Aim at Concealed Weapons Bill, supra note 11. A 1994 state police survey of 14 counties revealed that:
[O]f 12,253 applications filed, 10,994 were approved, 719 were denied and 540 were denied because the applicant failed to appear before the board. of [sic] those issued, 2,220 were non-restricted (333 of those to the general public) and 8,774 were restricted (3,021 for hunting and target shooting, 3,555 for business and security guard use).
. See 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. 6798. According to Attorney General Frank Kelley, Michigan residents "who go to Florida for easy-to-get licenses to carry concealed pistols are wasting their time" because "Florida permits, which can be obtained by mail, are worthless in Michigan." Id. See also Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment at 13, Urbanik v. Attorney Gen. of Mich., No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997) (stating that Florida's scheme of issuing concealed weapons licenses to people who winter in Florida started in response to Florida's much publicized highway assassination problems and amounts to nothing more than a money making scheme because the licenses are very expensive and must be renewed each year). But see Eric Freedman, Kelley shoots down Florida gun permits, Det. News, May 17, 1994, at B3 (quoting State Representative David Jaye, who has encouraged Michigan residents to obtain concealed weapons licenses from Florida by mail, as stating that "Kelley gave a huge advantage to violent criminals by taking away the right of law-abiding men and women to protect themselves with concealed weapons").
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 28.432a, 750.231a.
. Non-restrictive, non-needs based statutes, or so-called "shall- issue" or "right to carry" statutes, generally do not require an applicant to demonstrate a specific need for a concealed weapons permit, unlike Michigan's concealed weapons statute. In the absence of certain factors, such as a felony record or mental incapacity, applicants are presumed fit to carry a concealed weapon. The burden is on the state to show good cause why a permit should not be granted. To the contrary, restrictive, needs-based statutes, such as Michigan's, place the burden on the applicant to demonstrate a specific need for a concealed weapons permit. For a discussion of such statutes, see William F. Lane, Public Endangerment or Personal Liberty? North Carolina Enacts a Liberalized Concealed Handgun Statue, 74 N.C. L. Rev. 2214, 2215 (1996); Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel, "Shall-Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 679, 680 (1995).
. See Court Reforms Begin Moving, C.C.W. Trapped, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Dec. 6, 1995 (stating that the House Judiciary Committee fell two votes short of reporting House Bill 4720, which would have established a "shall-issue" program for Michigan).
. H.R. 5551-5557, 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 1998).
. See Hearing on Concealed Weapons Opens Before House Panel, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Mar. 23, 1998.
. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. 6798.
. No. 94-414735 AZ (Mich. 3rd Cir. Ct. 1994).
. No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997).
. See, e.g., Gary Kleck, Point Blank 9-12 (1991) (recounting noted gun control proponents who advocate a complete ban on all firearms); Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control 5 (Pac. Res. Inst. for Pub. Pol'y 1990) (calling a ban on guns a myth, but acknowledging that the myth is a reality "insofar as it represents the goal of anti-gun crusaders who deny that gun owners have any legitimate interests").
. See, e.g., Marvin H. Morse, Terror in the Pocket: Carrying Concealed, 43 Fed. Law. 2 (1996) ("In Vermont, no one requires a license/permit to carry a concealed weapon."); Denise Griffin, State Carrying Concealed Weapons Laws, Nat'l Conf. of State Legis. (July 13, 1995) (reporting that, out of all of the United States, "Vermont is the only state that does not require a license or permit to carry a concealed weapon").
. For a discussion of restrictive concealed weapons laws, see infra Part II.A.
. For a discussion of permissive concealed weapons laws, see infra Part II.B.
. See, e.g., Harold S. Herd, A Re-examination of the Firearms Regulation Debate and its Consequences, 36 Washburn L.J. 196, 233 (1997) ("'It can surprise no one that high rates of gun violence are connected with high rates of handgun ownership."').
. See John Henry Sloan et al., Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities, 319 New Eng. J. Med. 1256 (Nov. 10, 1988), reprinted in The Gun Control Debate: You Decide 195 (Lee Nisbet ed., 1990) [hereinafter Gun Control Debate]; see also Jerome P. Kassirer, Gun Control Would Reduce Crime, in Gun Control 25 (Charles P. Cozic et al. eds., 1992) ("[T]here was a statistically significant, sustained decline in gun- related homicides and suicides in the District of Columbia after a law was adopted that banned the circulation, purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of handguns.").
. Sloan, supra note 27, at 196.
. Id. at 199.
. Id. at 204; see also Kassirer, supra note 27, at 28 (asserting that the "efficacy of restrictive laws in influencing deaths from firearms seems established").
. Philip J. Cook, The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns, 455 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci., May 1981, at 63-79, reprinted in Gun Control Debate, supra note 27, at 138.
. Id. at 145. In his article, Mr. Cook asserts that "it is not unreasonable to suggest that a moderate, vigorously enforced program for regulating the sale and use of guns would save a substantial number of lives." Id. at 146. But see Gary Kleck, The Relationship Between Gun Ownership Levels and Rates of Violence in the United States, in Gun Control Debate, supra note 27, at 123. Mr. Kleck asserts that "[t]he general level of gun ownership in our society has no direct effect on the homicide rate ...." Id. at 127.
. Ray Archer, Think Again About Concealed Guns, Ft. Lauderdale Fla. Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 30, 1996, at 22A.
. Id. See also, Morse, supra note 23, at 2 (relating an incident occurring after a minor traffic accident in Dallas where one driver responded to the other driver's punch with a fatal gunshot).
. See Yeager et al., How Well Does The Handgun Protect You and Your Family?, in Gun Control Debate, supra note 27, at 213. According to Mr. Yeager, "[A] gun in the home is far more likely to lead to the death or injury of a family member or friend than to the death of an intruder." Id. at 217.
. Carol D. Foster et al., Gun Control--Restricting Rights Or Protecting People? 61 (Carol D. Foster et al. eds., 1993).
. Arthur L. Kellerman & Donald T. Reay, Gun Ownership is Not an Effective Means of Self-Defense, reprinted in Gun Control, supra note 27, at 171. "Even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household 18 times more often than in the death of a stranger." Id. at 173.
. Id. "Residents were most often shot by a relative or family member (11 cases), their spouse (9 cases), a roommate (6 cases), or themselves (7 cases)." Id.
. Id. at 174.
. Id. at 175; but see Don B. Kates, Jr., The Law-Abiding Gun Owner as Domestic and Acquaintance Murderer, in Gun Control Debate, supra note 27, at 270-71 (asserting that murderers are "atypical, highly aberrant individuals whose spectacular indifference to human life...is evidenced by life histories of substance abuse...felony, and attacks on relatives and acquaintances").
. Archer, supra note 35.
. Katherine Kaufer Christoffel, Pediatric Firearm Injuries: Time to Target a Growing Problem, 21 Pediatric Annals 7 (1992), reprinted in Gun Control, supra note 27, at 182, 185 ("The weapons involved [in these injuries] are generally handguns.").
. Id. See also Yeager et al., supra note 37, at 217 ("[M]ost children were injured while playing with guns acquired for protection of the home.").
. Yeager et al., supra note 37, at 217; see also Foster et al., supra note 38, at 60 ("In 1989, firearms accounted for approximately 2 percent of all accidental deaths among all ages. For young children, an estimated 4,500 deaths, and between 13,500 and 22,500 injuries occur annually); but see Kleck, supra note 22, at 304 ("Gun accidents...involve a rare and atypical subset of the population, as both shooters and victims. They rarely involve children. Instead, the accidents most commonly involve adolescents and young adults.").
. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. Const. amend. II.
. See Pencak v. Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd., 872 F. Supp. 410, 413 (E.D. Mich. 1994) ("[T]he Second Amendment does not apply to the states."); see also Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) ("The [S]econd [A] mendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this...means no more than that it shall not be infringed by [C]ongress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
. See Sarah Brady, The Second Amendment: What It Really Means, San Francisco Barrister, Dec. 1989, reprinted in Gun Control, supra note 27, at 83, 84 ("[T]he 2nd Amendment guarantees a state's right to maintain a militia--not an individual's right to own a handgun."); see also Pencak, 872 F. Supp. at 413 ("The Second Amendment...does not provide Plaintiff with a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon. An individual has 'no private right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment ...."') (quoting U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)).
. See Warren E. Burger, The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee the Right to Own a Gun, in Gun Control, supra note 27, at 99. According to Justice Burger, "[L]aws relating to 'concealed weapons' are common." Id. at 100. "That we may be 'over-regulated' in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and 'concealed weapons."' Id.
. Mich. Const. art. I, § 6.
. See People v. Brown, 235 N.W. 245, 246 (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the [Michigan] Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to 'every person' to bear arms for the 'defense of himself' as well as of the State."); see also Bay County Concealed Weapons Licensing Bd. v. Gasta, 293 N.W.2d 707, 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980) ("The existence of the Concealed Weapons Licensing Board...confirms the notion that the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power.") (citations omitted).
. Brown, 235 N.W. at 246-47. In Brown, the Michigan Supreme Court stated that the police power of the state may lawfully regulate and restrict private possession of weapons "whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law." Id. at 247. According to the court:
The power is, of course, subject to the limitation that its exercise be reasonable, and it cannot constitutionally result in the prohibition of the possession of those arms which...are proper and legitimate to be kept upon private premises for the protection of person and property.
. People v. Zerillo, 189 N.W. 927, 928 (Mich. 1922).
. Id. (quoting Colo. Const. art. II, § 13).
. People v. McFadden, 188 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
. Gasta, 293 N.W.2d at 708.
. See U.S. Const. amend. II.; Mich. Const. art. I, § 6; see also Pencak, 872 F. Supp. at 412 (plaintiff asserted that denial of concealed weapons license application violated Second Amendment's right to bear arms); People v. Smelter, 437 N.W.2d 341 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (defendant argued that trial court erred in not allowing jury instruction regarding constitutional right to bear arms).
. See John R. Lott & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. Legal Stud. 1, 4 (1997) ("Stories of individuals using guns to defend themselves has helped motivate 31 states to adopt laws requiring authorities to issue, without discretion, concealed- weapons permits to qualified applicants.").
. See Wayne Lapierre, Guns, Crime, And Freedom 39 (1994). Recounting the case in which George Hennard savagely murdered twenty law-abiding citizens, including Suzanna Gratia's parents, Mr. Lapierre hypothesizes that "[i]f Suzanna Gratia had carried her pistol in her purse...her parents might be alive today." Id. Mr. Lapierre also noted, however, that if Suzanna Gratia had carried her pistol in her purse, "she would probably have been prosecuted by the Texas police for unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm." Id.
. See Kates, supra note 22, at 10. Kates argues that:
For decades anti-gun officials in Washington, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and New York have admonished the citizenry that they don't need guns for self-defense because the police will defend them. This advice is mendacious: when those cities are sued for failure to provide police protection, those same officials...invoke (the) fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.
. Id. at 12. Addressing the inability of small, weak individuals to protect themselves, Kates notes that:
[A] gun is of far more use to the victim than her attacker. Having a gun is not necessary to attack a victim who is unarmed, alone, small, [and] frail, [but] in the hands of a weak and unskilled assailant a gun can be used [and] the mere display of a gun communicates a highly effective threat.
Id. (footnotes omitted).
. See Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 747 (indicating that permissive concealed weapons laws are "sometimes associated with saving lives," and where permissive concealed weapons laws have not appeared to save lives, they have at least done no harm); see also Lott & Mustard, supra note 62, at 64 ("Allowing citizens...to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes ...."); but see Katherine Gazella, Studies Differ on Gun Law's Impact on Crime, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 9, 1996, at 3A ("[M]ore and more people who possess handguns through state permits are convicted of crimes.").
. See supra note 66 and authorities cited therein.
. This battle-cry is derived from the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. II.
. See, e.g., Herd, supra note 26 (stating that the Second Amendment remains the cornerstone of the argument that individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms despite legal precedent denying such constitutional rights); Alan M. Gottlieb, Limits on Gun Ownership May Result in Tyranny, 10 N. Ky. L. Rev. 113 (1982), reprinted in Gun Control, supra note 27, at 123-24 (stating that the language of the Second Amendment evidences the drafter's intent to guarantee individuals a right to bear arms that could be effectively enforced); Lapierre, supra note 63, at 20 (asserting that the right to keep and bear arms was designed partly to protect the right to defend oneself, a "prime natural right" according to our forefathers).
. Compare Zerillo, 189 N.W. at 929 (stating that although the Legislature has the power to regulate the carrying and use of firearms, the Legislature does not have the power to designate mere possession of a firearm a crime because the Michigan Constitution grants the people a right to bear arms, which limits the Legislature's power to enact any law completely denying the right), with Brown, 235 N.W. at 246 (stating that the State has the police power "to reasonably regulate" the right to bear arms) and Smelter, 437 N.W.2d at 342 (explaining that the state's right to regulate weapons permits states to establish "conditions under which weapons may be possessed," as well as prohibitions on "weapons whose customary employment by individuals is to violate the law").
. See supra note 70 and authorities cited therein.
. Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, Macomb County Prosecuting Attorney, to Members of the Macomb County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board 2 (Sept. 27, 1995) (explaining Marlinga's rationale for voting in favor of general concealed weapons permits granted for the purpose of personal protection) (on file with the University of Detroit Mercy Law Review).
. See Mich. Const. of 1908, art. II, § 5.
. See Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 2-3. Compare Mich. Const. of 1963, art. III, § 6 ("Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."), with Mich. Const. of 1908, art. II, § 5 ("Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."). Commentary to the Michigan Constitution of 1963, Article I, Section 6, states: "No change from Sec. 5, Article II, of the present  constitution, except for the insertion of the words "keep and" which brings the section into conformity with a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the right to "keep" as well as "bear" arms is recognized." Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 2-3.
. Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 2-3; see also Mich. Const. of 1850, art. XVIII, § 7.
. Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 2-3; see also Mich. Const. of 1835, art. I, § 13.
. Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 2.
. Id. See also Tiger Stadium Fan Club, Inc. v. Governor, 553 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
. Id. at 3. The word "bear" had the same meaning in 1963 as it does today. Webster's New World Dictionary specifically defines the word "bear" as meaning "to carry." Webster's New World Dictionary 54 (pocket-size ed. 1984). Analogously, Webster's New World Dictionary specifically defines the word "carry" as meaning "to bear." Id. at 96. Therefore, the words "bear" and "carry" may be used interchangeably.
. Letter from Carl J. Marlinga, supra note 72, at 3.
. Id. In his letter to the Macomb County Concealed Weapons Licensing Board, Prosecutor Marlinga states that Michigan's concealed weapons laws must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the Michigan Constitution. According to Prosecutor Marlinga: "This necessarily means that general permits must be available for self-defense purposes, if the applicant meets the statutory requirements and is a suitable person to be licensed." Id.
. 1994 Op. Att'y Gen. 6798.
. No. 94-414735 AZ (Mich. 3rd Cir. Ct. 1994).
. No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997).
. See, e.g., Court Backs Kelley On Weapons Permits, Det. News, Apr. 30, 1997, at D3; Court of Appeals Issues Stay on Oakland Court's C.C.W. Ruling, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Apr. 29, 1997 [hereinafter Court of Appeals Issues Stay].
. See Court of Appeals Issues Stay, supra note 89 (guessing that final adjudication of the issue will occur in the Michigan Supreme Court).
. No. 94-414735 AZ (Mich. 3rd Cir. Ct. 1994).
. See Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition at 2, Urbanik (No. 96-522773-CZ) (recounting facts of Wingle v. City of Ecorse in attempt to establish res judicata).
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.432a (West 1996).
. See Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Disposition at 2-3, Urbanik (No. 96-522773-CZ) (discussing Wingle v. City of Ecorse).
. Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen., 370 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985) (citing Traverse City Sch. Dist. v. Attorney Gen., 185 N.W.2d 9, 17 n.2 (Mich. 1971)).
. Although Attorney General opinions have been held to be binding upon state agencies and officers, Michigan's concealed weapons licensing boards are not considered state agencies and, therefore, are not bound by such opinions. See Hanselman v. Killeen, 351 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 1984) (holding that the Wayne County Concealed Weapon Licensing Board is not a state agency).
. No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997).
. Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Disposition and Declaratory Relief at 2, Urbanik (No. 96-522773-CZ).
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 28.432a, 750.231a.
. Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Disposition and Declaratory Relief at 2, Urbanik (No. 96-522773-CZ).
. Brief in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Disposition at 4, Urbanik (No. 96-522773-CZ).
. Id. at 3.
. Id. at 4.
. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment at 21, Urbanik (No. 96- 522773-CZ) (citing Autio v. Proksch, 141 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. 1966)).
. Transcript of Motion for Summary Judgment at 21, Urbanik (No. 96- 522773-CZ).
. Id. at 22.
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.426a (West 1996). Id. "Good- reason" statutes generally require that an applicant demonstrate some type of need, as well as a lack of a felony record or record of mental incapacity. Id. The burden is on the applicant to show good cause why a permit should be granted. Id. The task of determining good cause rests solely with the concealed weapons licensing board. Id.
. See id. The board is granted exclusive authority to determine whether an applicant has a proper reason for a concealed weapons permit. Id.
. Id. The application for a license must state each reason for the necessity or desirability of carrying a pistol concealed on the person. Id.
. Id. The board responsible for issuing concealed weapons licenses has broad and exclusive discretion in granting permits and may deny anyone that they decide does not have a proper reason to carry a concealed weapon. Id.
. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.06 (West 1997). For a general discussion regarding liberalized concealed weapons statutes see Lane, supra note 15, at 2215, and Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 680.
. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.06. Under Florida's liberalized concealed weapons statute, an applicant must: (1) be at least twenty-one years of age, (2) have no physical disability that would impede the safe handling of a firearm, (3) have no felony conviction, no drug conviction or alcohol problems within the previous three years, (4) complete a firearms safety course, and (5) have not been committed to a mental hospital within the previous five years. Id.
. Id. See also Lane, supra note 15, at 2215; Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 680; Marion P. Hammer, Florida... Proving Right to Carry Laws Work!, Am. Hunter, Apr. 1995, at 43.
. Clayton & Kopel, supra note 15, at 680-90 (1995); see also Griffin, supra note 23 (outlining each state's current concealed weapons laws).
. See, e.g., Morse, supra note 23, at 2 (stating that laws to weaken current CCW statutes in several states were defeated in legislative committee, on the floor, or in conference committee).
. Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 690.
. See, e.g., Lapierre, supra note 63, at 34 ("The [concealed weapons] legislation went into effect on October 1, 1987, and the blood and gore predictions were soon disproved."); Hammer, supra note 115, at 43 ("[A]nti-gun predictions of disaster have been proven unfounded.").
. See, e.g., Archer, supra note 35. A recent study indicated that violent-crime rates either declined or slowed in states that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns. Id. According to the study, data collected from urban counties "showed a substantial reduction in homicides and other violent crimes after concealed-carry restrictions had been lifted." Id. See also Studies Differ on Gun Law's Impact on Crime, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 9, 1996, at 3A ("A national study has found that concealed weapons laws reduce violent crimes, while a report on Florida's laws shows that a growing number of people licensed to carry concealed weapons are committing crimes.").
. See, e.g., Lott & Mustard, supra note 62, at 32 (addressing the fear that shall-issue statutory schemes will cause an increase in accidental shooting deaths); Hammer, supra note 115, at 43 (stating that according to Florida's licensing director John Russi, "not one licensee has injured himself or another person or been involved in a firearms mishap as a result of insufficient training").
. Compare Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 747 ("Concealed carry reform does not turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into hot-tempered murderous psychopaths.") and Hammer, supra note 115, at 52 ("'People aren't shooting each other in traffic disputes or at ballgames."'), with Morse, supra note 23, at 2 (chronicling a minor traffic accident in Dallas, Texas, that escalated from an argument, beyond physical violence, to a fatal gun shot).
. Results from a survey of imprisoned criminals that had reported committing violent crimes revealed that 42% of the criminals had encountered a victim that was armed. Kleck, supra note 22, at 132-33. Of the 42% that had encountered armed victims, 38% reported that they were successfully scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by the victim. Id. Furthermore, 43% reported that they had, at some time, been deterred from committing crimes because they knew, or believed, that the victim was carrying a gun. Id.
. See, e.g., Advocates Back Bill Easing Concealed Weapons Rules: A Proposed Bill Would Force Gun Boards to Prove Why an Applicant for a Concealed Weapons Permit Should be Denied, Grand Rapids Press, Dec. 5, 1995, at A15 (quoting Laingburg's Police Chief, Lon Cripps). Chief Cripps stated:
I see no reason citizens should not be able to protect themselves and their families as do police officers who may carry weapons when off duty. I'm not able to protect everybody. We typically are called after the fact. Self- protection is up to you. I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen carrying a gun.
. See Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 747 (indicating that although liberalized concealed weapons laws had not appeared to have done any good, they, at a minimum, caused no harm either).
. For a discussion regarding the debate over whether shall-issue laws really do no harm, see Weapons Subcommittee Preparing for Vote, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Dec. 4, 1995, reporting that in "only one of five major metropolitan areas where 'shall-issue' laws have been implemented are firearm homicides down." The report, however, also states that Alan Lowe "got no answers to his request for a study that proves that homicide rates go up when concealed weapons are easier to get." Id.
. But see, e.g., Most Oppose Changes in Concealed Gun Law, Poll Shows Law Enforcement Officials, Armed with the Data, Press Their Point at the Capitol, Grand Rapids Press, Sept. 13, 1995, at B3. Of a survey of 600 state residents, 71% of the residents opposed permissive gun control laws, while 69% of the residents believed that no one should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun in Michigan. Id. See also Law Enforcement Takes Aim at Concealed Weapons Bill, supra note 11 (reporting that an August EPIC-MRA poll showed that 69% of Michigan residents opposed easing restrictions on CCW permits).
. Lott & Mustard, supra note 62, at 15-16.
. Gazella, supra note 66. The studies cited by Ms. Gazella also indicated that allowing people to carry concealed weapons actually deterred violent crimes such as murder and rape. Id.
. Kleck, supra note 22, at 134.
. Id. at 135.
. Id. In New York, subway robberies decreased a reported 43% the month of the Bernhard Goetz incident and a reported 19% in the following two months. Id. A portion of the reported declines in subway robberies after the Goetz incident, however, may be attributed to the fact that the New York City transit police increased its manpower after the incident. Id. See also Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 709 (reporting that murder rate declines seem to be most dramatic the year after concealed weapons laws are adopted, suggesting that publicity regarding the laws discouraged criminals); Lott & Mustard, supra note 62, at 4 (stating that a criminal's expected costs for committing many types of crimes increase because criminals are unable to tell whether a victim is carrying a concealed weapon).
. Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 709.
. Id. at 689-709.
. Id. at 696.
. See id.
. Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 680.
. Hammer, supra note 115, at 43.
. Id. After Florida's permissive concealed weapons laws were enacted, Police Chief William Liquori encouraged police officers throughout Florida "to document each crime that could be tied to the new law." Id. When asked eight months later how many crimes had been linked to the permissive concealed weapons laws, Chief Liquori replied, "We don't have any." Id.
. Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 692.
. Id. at 692-93. See also Archer, supra note 35, at 22A (reporting that only 5 of Florida's 315,000 concealed weapons permits had been revoked because a permit holder had committed a gun-related offense); but see Gazella, supra note 66 (reporting that a smaller Violence Police Center study indicated that a growing number of Floridians licensed to carry concealed weapons were committing gun-related crimes).
. Cramer & Kopel, supra note 15, at 747.
. See Kleck, supra note 22, at 126 (reporting that rape victims who used armed resistance were more successful at thwarting the rapist's efforts than victims who used other means of resistance).
. See Kates, supra note 22, at 19. "For decades, anti-gun officials in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and Washington, D.C., have admonished the citizenry that they don't need guns for self-defense because the police will protect them." Id.
. For a discussion regarding the experiences of shall-issue states see supra Part IV.
. See Mich. Const. art. II, § 9. The Michigan Constitution provides for the people "to propose laws and to enact and reject laws, called the initiative" through "petitions signed by...not less than eight percent...of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election." Id.
. Ensuring that the will of the people is pursued by their elected representatives can only be performed by making the representatives "go on the record" with their position. Then, and only then, can the citizens of Michigan hold their elected officials accountable for their actions. Otherwise, elected representatives may cave in the face of opposition and fail to carry out the will of the people. See, e.g., Concealed Weapons Bills Move to Judiciary, Mich. Rep.(Gongwer News Serv.), Dec. 5, 1995 (outlining threats made by pro-gun advocates to "raise money against any legislator who votes against the bill in committee or on the House floor"); Petition Language Approved for Fitzgerald's Recall, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Feb. 16, 1996 (reporting that a pro- gun group had attempted to remove Representative Frank Fitzgerald from his seat in the 71st District after Fitzgerald led an effort to stymie permissive concealed weapons law reform in Michigan); Court Reforms Begin Moving, C.C.W. Trapped, supra note 16 (reporting that pro-gun supporters had threatened monetary opposition in the next election against legislators who had failed to report a "shall-issue" bill).
. H.R. 4720, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 1995).
. Cropsey Says Climate is Heating Up to Concealed Weapons Law, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Sept. 5, 1995.
. Id. House Bill 4720 provides that "[t]he Secretary of State shall promptly issue a license to an individual to carry a concealed weapon in this state." H.R. 4720. The bill dramatically reduces the power, control, and discretion of local law enforcement agencies, providing that "[i]f the Secretary of State issues a license to an applicant over the objections of [local law enforcement agencies]," those agencies may appeal the decision to the appeals board. Id.
. See Cropsey Says Climate is Heating Up to Concealed Weapons Law, supra note 158.
. Law Enforcement Takes Aim at Concealed Weapons Bill, supra note 11.
. Changes in Weapons Bills Don't Satisfy Police Group, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Sept. 19, 1995.
. Law Enforcement Takes Aim at Concealed Weapons Bill, supra note 11.
. Changes in Weapons Bills Don't Satisfy Police Group, supra note 165.
. See Court Reforms Begin Moving, C.C.W. Trapped, supra note 16. According to the news service report:
Despite strong pressure from interest groups pushing to protect what they argue is the right to carry concealed weapons and despite some amendments from both the subcommittee that oversaw the bills and the committee to further restrict permit issuance, the committee came up two votes short of reporting H.B. 4720 which establishes a "shall-issue" program for the state.
. See, e.g., State Police, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), May 28, 1996 (reporting that language of House Bill 5593, which was designed to make it easier to get concealed weapons, was stricken from the bill); Concealed Weapons, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Dec. 7, 1995 (reporting that motion to discharge bill failed on 45-53 vote).
. See Concealed Weapons, supra note 169. One of the bill's opponents complained that the discharge procedure was "unprecedented." Id.
. H.R. 5593, 88th Leg., 1996 Reg. Sess. (Mich. 1996). Boilerplate language found in a state agency's appropriation act exists so that the legislature may offer certain direction to that agency on how the legislature wishes certain government resources to be spent.
. See Measure Relaxing Concealed Weapons Laws Get Tacked Onto Budget Bill, Grand Rapids Press, Mar. 22, 1996, at A7. Under House Bill 5593, "an applicant would be guaranteed at least one favorable vote from the three-member county gun board as long as he or she has not been convicted of a felony or assaultive misdemeanor; is over 20 years old; has 12 hours of handgun training; and passes a fingerprint check." Id. See also H.R. 5593.
. See State Police, supra note 169.
. See H.R. 5551-5557, 89th Leg. Sess., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 1998); see also House Panel Approves Concealed Weapons Package, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), June 24, 1998 (reporting approval of the new legislation by 9-7 vote).
. No. 94-414735 AZ (Mich. 3rd Cir. Ct. 1994).
. No. 96-522773-CZ (Mich. 6th Cir. Ct. 1997).
. See supra notes 68-84 and accompanying text for a discussion of the constitutional right to bear arms.
. See House Panel Approves Concealed Weapons Package, supra note 175. The fact that the House Oversight and Ethics Committee approved concealed weapons reform legislation just two years after the House Judiciary Committee voted against concealed weapons reform legislation illustrates that it would be untenable to resolve the issue of concealed weapons reform without resorting to a full vote by both chambers of the Michigan Legislature. Id.
. Court Reforms Begin Moving, C.C.W. Trapped, supra note 16.
. The entire Michigan House of Representatives consists of 110 members. Mich. Const. art IV, § 3. Only 17 members sit on the House Judiciary Committee. See Changes in Weapons Bills Don't Satisfy Police Group, supra note 165.
. See Measure Relaxing Concealed Weapons Laws Get Tacked Onto Budget Bill, supra note 173. The fact that legislators voted in favor of boilerplate language making it easier to get a concealed weapons license in Michigan is indicative of how representatives may be able to vote without being held accountable for their actions. Id. Although the amendment containing the boilerplate language originally failed on a 53-42 vote, three votes short of the majority needed to pass the 110 member chamber, Representative Alan Cropsey offered the same amendment only minutes later, changing one word so he could legitimately resubmit the amendment. Id. The measure passed 57-45. Id.
. See Lawmakers Getting Edgy Over Inaction on Concealed Weapons, supra note 11 (reporting that, according to one of the sponsors of House Bill 4720, although they were short of the requisite votes in committee, they would not have been short of votes if the two members of the GOP leadership on the committee had voted for it).
. Letter from Michael J. Hoban, Executive Director, Brass Roots, to Michigan Legislators (on file with University of Detroit Mercy Law Review). After Representative Jim Ryan voted against "shall-issue" legislation in committee, the pro-gun organization sent $10,806 to his opponent and initiated television ads and literature against him. Id. Furthermore, in 1994, Representative Jim Ryan won by a slim margin with Brass Roots supporting him in the election. Id. In 1996, however, he lost by the same slim margin with Brass Roots opposing him in the election. Id.
. See Petition Language Approved For Fitzgerald's Recall, supra note 156 (reporting that one representative was subjected to a petition drive to force a recall vote of the representative after he voted against concealed weapons reform legislation).
. Most Oppose Changes In Concealed Gun Law, Poll Shows Law Enforcement Officials, Armed With The Data, Press Their Point At The Capitol, supra note 127.
. See Changes in Weapons Bills Don't Satisfy Police Group, supra note 165 ("The Coalition contracted with EPIC-MRA to conduct the poll...[H]ad the Michigan United Conservation Club or the National Rifle Association sponsored a poll, the figures would have been discounted by the media as 'biased."').
. See Most Oppose Changes In Concealed Gun Law, Poll Shows Law Enforcement Officials, Armed With The Data, Press Their Point At The Capitol, supra note 127 ("'They should have asked, if a 125-pound woman is being stalked by a serial rapist, and the police can't do anything, should she be allowed to carry a gun?"').
. See, e.g., Court Reforms Begin Moving, C.C.W. Trapped, supra note 16. After the concealed weapons reform legislation was voted down by the Judiciary Committee, supporters of the legislation flooded their representatives' offices with telephone calls threatening to support the opposition in the next election. Id. See also Weapons Subcommittee Preparing for Vote, supra note 126 ("The subcommittee Monday saw a long parade of witnesses who said the current process violates the constitutional right to bear arms and the rights of citizens to protect themselves. But an equally long parade of witnesses decried the bill as a public safety hazard."); State Gun Rally Draws Sparse Crowd, Det. News, Aug. 20, 1995, at B1 ("[A] show of support for the right to bear arms, attracted fewer than 1,000 people on a hot, humid Saturday afternoon. Last fall's debut rally drew 10,000 to the east lawn of the State Capitol.").
. House Panel Approves Concealed Weapons Package, supra note 175.
. See 89th Legislature Has a Record to Run on Now, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), July 6, 1998. As the House broke for summer recess, a number of issues, from tax cuts to concealed weapons reform legislation, were left unresolved. Id.
. See Lawmakers Getting Edgy Over Inaction on Concealed Weapons, supra note 11. One sponsor of the concealed weapons reform legislation believes that "Republican leadership does not want the 'core' issues like concealed weapons to get to the House floor because 'they don't want to put the marginal Republicans on the line."' Id.
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 28.432a, 750.231a (West 1996).
. See Court of Appeals Issues Stay on Oakland Court's C.C.W. Ruling, supra note 89. The court of appeals, or maybe the supreme court, will ultimately decide whether the Oakland County Circuit Court correctly interpreted the out-of-state waiver ambiguity, in effect deciding whether Michigan residents with out-of-state permits may lawfully carry concealed weapons in Michigan.
. See, e.g., Lane, supra note 15 (suggesting that North Carolina's concealed weapons law's lopsided political victory evidenced the fact that North Carolina citizens had deliberately chosen their own future).
. Mich. Const. art. II, § 9. The Michigan Constitution provides that the people of the state reserve the power to propose, enact, and reject laws through a ballot proposal called the initiative. Id. Similar to the legislative power to pass laws, the initiative first requires that petitions be circulated and signed by registered voters supporting the ballot proposal. Id. The number of signatures must total at least eight percent of the number of votes cast for all gubernatorial candidates in the previous election. Id. If not enacted by the legislature within 40 days of receipt, the proposed law is included on the ballot of the next general election for voter approval or rejection. Id. If approved by a majority of the votes cast, the ballot initiative takes effect 10 days after the vote is officially declared. Id. The ballot initiative is not subject to the veto power of the governor and cannot be amended or repealed without the support of three-fourths of the members of both chambers of the legislature. Id.
. See, e.g., Mary Elizabeth Lowe, Note, No Deposit, No Return: Michigan Soft Drink Ass'n v. Department of Treasury, 12 T.M. Cooley L. Rev. 687, 701 (1995) ("Michigan's original bottle deposit law...was enacted in 1976 through a voter initiation."); Chippewas to Challenge Casino Law; Preferences Under Attack, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Feb. 25, 1997 ("Proposal E... allowed three casinos to be established in Detroit.").
. See Casino Petitions to be Filed Next Week, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), May 24, 1996. The Detroit Casino initiative required 247,127 valid signatures from registered voters. Id. According to reports, the cost of obtaining 275,000 signatures was a little more than $1 a signature. Id. When asked whether the campaign would be willing to spend as much as $5 million to win the issue, a campaign representative replied: "Whatever it takes." Id. See also Detroit Casino Petition Drive for Initiated Law Begins, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), Apr. 19, 1996 (predicting that it may cost more than $5 million to carry the casino ballot proposal through to victory).
. See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 28.426 (West 1996).
. See H.R. 4720, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 1995).
. See Gaming Board Readies Agents for Casino Regulations, Mich. Rep. (Gongwer News Serv.), June 13, 1997. Proposal E was passed by a yes/no initiative, leaving the question of how the casinos would be regulated to the lawmakers. Id.
. See, e.g., Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 28.432a, 750.231a (West 1996). These sections set forth a waiver of Michigan's "good cause" concealed weapons statutory requirement for those possessing a valid out of state concealed weapons permit. Id. The law does not distinguish between a Michigan resident and an out of state resident. Ballot proposal language could amend these two sections to distinguish between a Michigan resident and a non- Michigan resident or, alternatively, eliminate the waiver entirely.