Carrying firearms on the grounds of Michigan's Capitol Building and in the building itself has been common through the years. Along with public carry for self defense, a number of legislators carry on the House and Senate floor and gun groups have held events at the Capitol annually over the past decade. It has been a widely accepted practice until the past spring when a few COVID-19 protestors, dressed in tactical gear, attracted international media attention by carrying long guns outside the Michigan House chamber. The clamor raised calls for guns to be banned at Michigan's Capitol Building similar to an existing ban on signs attached to sticks.
The Michigan State Capitol Commission consists of six individuals; four appointed by the Republican controlled Legislature and two by Governor Whitmer. The Commission manages and maintains the Michigan State Capitol Building and its grounds. Despite a letter from Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Commission initially argued that it had no authority to ban firearms. However, an independent legal review conducted last month for the Commission supported its authority to limit guns.
The Michigan Capitol Commission met last week and considered four choices:
1. The Commission could ban all firearms at the Capitol. This would require five employees operating metals detectors and X-Ray machines at two entrances to enforce. The total cost could be as much as $1.3 million. Given the state's enormous $3 billion deficit for next year, it appears fiscally unlikely.
2. The Commission could ban firearms only in the House and Senate galleries. However, this option would require approval of the Republican House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader who are unlikely to support such a measure as it would alienate pro-gun conservative voters.
3. The Commission could ban only long guns either just in the Capitol Building itself or also on the Capitol grounds. As long guns are difficult to conceal, it would be enforced by existing Capitol security including the Michigan State Police. A long gun ban is a real possibility. However, Democrats have not supported a limited ban.
4. Finally, the Commission could maintain the status quo by not enacting any ban. At present, the status quo appears to be the most likely course of action for at least the mid-term future. If the Commission decides against any type of ban, we can expect to see anti-gun politicians continue to raise the issue during the fall general election.
