There's a bill awaiting the govenor's signature in Michigan that would make that state a true "shall issue" state for concealed weapons permits. (It's already supposed to be, but county gun boards, which the bill eliminates, can be tougher than the state). The bill is controversial for more than the usual "guns are evil" reasons:
LANSING — Advocates for victims of domestic violence are among those opposed to a bill awaiting the signature of Gov. Rick Snyder that would eliminate county gun boards and make Michigan a true "shall-issue" state for concealed weapons permits.
Among the controversial provisions of Senate Bill 789 is one that says concealed weapons permits must be issued, even to persons subject to personal protection orders for domestic violence or stalking, provided they would otherwise be eligible for a permit and a ban on obtaining a gun is not a condition of their personal protection orders.
As I understand the argument of the bill's backers, just having a PPO against you doesn't make you a criminal, so why should your rights be taken away? If the judge issuing the PPO doesnt think you should have a gun, he should put that in the order and then you won't be issued a carry permit.
I dunno. That sounds thin to me. I'm more inclined to the opinion that a PPO is a pretty strong indicator of potential violence and letting people with them carry might not be the greatest idea ever. Or am I falling for the gun-control "demand an inch here then go for a mile later" ploy?