Republican State Senator Michele Hoitenga is here to talk about banning guns in the Capitol.

She's got problems with that.

Our lead story is that issue.

And on that note, our panel, we have Craig Mauger, Zoe Clark and Lauren Gibbons sit with us as we get the inside out.

Off the record.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire a full service Strategic Communications Agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to Studio C for another edition of Off the record As the Beat Goes On, guns is the issue in the capital.

And there was a Zoom meeting earlier this week, Private Zoom meeting, about 25 lawmakers who are pro-gun and they're not too happy with the state Capitol Commission.

Here's what's going on.

About 25 members of the House and Senate Second Amendment pro-gun caucus held a private zoom scull session last night, and they concluded that the state capital commission overstepped its authority by proposing a weapons ban in the state capitol building.

The chair of the pro-gun caucus argues the commission was originally established by the legislature to make decisions only about maintaining the Capitol building inside and out.

And the panel was not authorized to render political decisions such as a weapons ban.

The Republicans argue that power rests only with state lawmakers.

The legislature created.

The Capitol Commission.

Put in there exactly what the Capitol Commission was responsible for.

And then we had the attorney general come in and expand that for political purposes.

Seems like the Capitol Commission was hijacked.

The commission has now ordered the installation of passthrough devices to NAB would be gun carriers before they get inside the building.

They'll take a final vote on it later this month.

We don't believe that it is a the right of the state or of the Capitol Commission to do that.

The commission originally decided that lawmakers with concealed weapons permits would also be banned from bringing them on to the House and Senate floor.

But now it appears the commission may vote to lift that restriction.

Nonetheless, Representative Green believes all of these decisions should be made by lawmakers who are elected by the citizens and not some commission appointed by Democrats and the governor who now he alleges are abusing the system.

Doing stuff through a commission stifles.

Debate and takes the.

Voice and will of the.

People right out of the discussion.

So now, because somebody has won an election and a party has won an election, they get to just jam through whatever they want.

But to remove power from the commission, the Republicans need Democratic votes.

And since the Democratic attorney general says the commission has the authority, it's unlikely that Democrats will grant the GOP wishes.

Hence, Mr. Green and colleagues may have to ask the courts to take that power away.

So here we go again.

What do you make of that?

I mean, it's interesting.

I think there's a lot of chess pieces attempted to be moved there.

However, what would keep the legislature from just approving this?

If Representative Green says, hey, the legislature should do this, what would prevent Winnie Brinks, the Senate majority leader, and Joe Tate, the House speaker, from returning in the fall and just approving a measure to ban guns in the Capitol going forward?

If they want to keep that in place into the future, that seems like a smart thing to do for them.

I remember actually the first time I ever visited the Capitol many, many years ago.

It was two a day, right, where folks bring their guns, actually to the Capitol.

And it was then that I first learned that guns were allowed in the Capitol.

But signs were not.

And I think this has been thus you know, what I'm saying is that this has been a decades long conversation at the state capitol.

There, of course, was national news being made even before the January 6th insurrection.

This was April of 2020, in the midst of COVID, when armed gunmen were literally inside of the Capitol looking down on lawmakers.

And it was a scary scene for many.

And I think it's going to continue to be a conversation, as we heard from your setup piece among Phil Green and others.

But to Craig's point, absolutely, the legislature could easily take this up themselves.

His point is he doesn't think this commission has the authority to do what it done did.

If you'll pardon my bad English, respond to.

That.

You know, I think it's interesting because when the Republicans had the majority and people were asking in 2020 during the protests when there were a lot of guns in the Capitol, people are asking the legislature to do something.

And the leadership at that time suggested, oh, well, maybe that's the commission's authority.

And so so this question of who has the authority to do something controversial has gone on for a long time, whether it's the commission, whether it's the legislature.

This this question will probably continue to come up over and over again.

So I think I think perhaps the courts can address it if that's the direction this group chooses to go.

But I think people have asked the legislature to do something in the past and they've chosen not to.

Well, the feeling was that the commission, which is not elected and doesn't run for reelection, can make this tough decision for us and we can get what we want without going on the record.

Or did I misread what was going on?

I.

How many voters do you think will be casting a ballot based on the security protocols in the state capitol?

I mean, this is an issue that affects on a gun.

They might.

Use it.

I mean, the legislature has also in the past months passed a number of gun reforms that affect every gun owner in the state, not just the people visiting the Capitol compared to those votes, safe storage background checks.

This would probably be a pretty easy vote for the Democrats compared to those.

And that's exactly the point that that we're not talking about this in a vacuum or an isolated incident.

You know, Democrats came to power again for the first time in 40 years in January.

And then in short order after that, of course, the horrific attack at Michigan State University happened.

Guns were not necessarily or gun reform wasn't necessarily sort of on the agenda.

Right.

That six bullet list of the things that lawmakers wanted to take care of.

But they very quickly pivoted.

Right.

And we saw about a red flag laws and we saw some legislation move very quickly in the legislature.

And so to that point, this isn't happening like this is the first time gun rights and gun reform has been brought up among this Democratic legislature right now during this session.

And I think it's also too important to bring up in comparison to those issues when we're talking about the Capitol, specifically what has been proposed and what is happening, those machines and just checking that is pretty standard for capitols around the country, not just capitols, government buildings around the country, especially in the federal buildings.

It's very strict.

I've been to about 15 state capitols around the country and I think Michigan is the least district that I've ever been to personally.

So I think I think as we talk about that and talk about the rights of individuals, we can look to other government buildings to see this isn't really out of the norm.

If Dana Nessel had been in that story, I think the AG's comment is, is there is language in the authorization of the commission to talk about safety of the Capitol.

Now there is a debate as to what is safety.

One person's safety is no guns.

In another person's safety may not be that.

So we have a logistical problem on the language in there.

But I think this is headed for the courts.

If the Republicans aren't going to be able to undo what this commission has done, assuming that they do pass it at the end of the month, I think the courts may be the ultimate arbitrator here.

It could certainly happen.

But I mean, I think, again, to the point of what we're talking about in this broad spectrum, I really want to shout out Rich Shuba, who's done some some really deep polling about where Michiganders are at when it comes to gun safety and gun reforms, even among Republican primary voters or Republican voters.

It shows that some of these basics about gun safety legislation, a Republican voters support.

All right.

We'll pursue this issue more in a little bit with our guest.

But let's talk about what happened in the mayoral races.

Everybody and their uncle in this town was watching Warren and Westland.

How come?

Yeah.

So Representatives Kevin Coleman and Laurie Stone, both Democrats, are both running for mayor in their respective communities.

And the reason that everybody is watching this is because we have a two vote majority, two seats majority in the House and the Senate.

So if both of them for the Democrats.

So if both of them leave to Democrats, that would put the House at a 5454 tie.

Now, that would mostly that would be temporary because they would get a special election filled.

The governor would probably call that very quickly.

It's a pretty Democratic leaning seat in both cases.

But if both of them were to win, that would put House Democrats in a pickle for a little bit because they would need at least one a couple of Republican votes to get through any legislation.

Let me step out and be the dissenting voice on this.

And I've read all the hyperventilating among Democrats in Lansing.

Does this really matter that much?

Does this matter that much?

They're going to lose their majority, which is narrow already.

They basically need the Republicans to do major things already.

They're going to lose this majority in the House for maybe a couple of months.

And then they're going to get it back and they're going to have lame duck in 2020 for anything that they want to get done.

They can get done at the end of 2024.

Can someone explain to me why this matters so much?

Because it's.

Palace intrigue.

That's right there.

On the show longer program.

For you.

I'm questioning all of Lansing on this.

I mean, I think it's political and we're all bored.

It's the summer here, some political stuff.

We're throwing this out there.

But yes, the.

Story is going.

To change any policy that ultimately comes out of this legislature by the end of 2020.

My reading of the law is correct and I've been wrong before on numerous occasions.

The speaker still maintains control, even if it's.

Just going to I was going to add a little scary to your to your Sunday, which is smartly enough, there were rules that were passed early on that basically said that, you know, that that 54, 54 Democrats will still remain in charge basically of the way that things are operating.

So to Craig's point, this was thought about rules are put in charge.

There will be this period of time.

You know, I think what folks are talking about is, you know, could we see this moment of shared power vis a vis decades ago when there was this bright twilight of Camelot where no, not that is not going to happen.

But I understand where some of the interest of this idea of, like, could the Republicans, could the Democrats come together on big policy happened during this period of time?

I think that is a no.

But it does go back to a time where there was a really interesting relationship among the leadership of Republicans and Democrats and really well and this is what I'm saying.

But I think there is, again, this sort of version of Camelot of could we see this again?

And, you know, I don't want to be a Debbie Downer here, but I don't think we are.

For those that were here.

What they did is every month, the day the gavel switched hands.

Okay.

So at one month, we had Republicans chairing all the committees.

The next month we had the Democrats and they went through.

But it's all it was about the personalities.

And that's what I was going to say.

And there's a great book about shared power that you can go read.

I mean, Danny Lep has talked about it and the period of time that this was.

And so I think when you're when you're hearing folks talk about it, it's it's from folks who sort of lived through that era and saw how it worked.

Post term limits.

We're in a very different and just our our political environment right now.

And I'm talking nationally to not just in Michigan.

I feel like we're in a very different moment.

I think the other thing to look at in terms of impact is the timetable.

So it would be it would be early next year.

Typically, that's when the legislature is pretty slow.

Any way they're looking at the possibility of an early adjournment to make sure the primary date goes into effect in time, like the months that we're talking about.

It's not like budget season, right?

They're not they're not necessarily going to be expected to be passing major policy legislation.

Will they be able to go as fast as they did at the beginning of this year?

No.

If there's a tie.

And then the other thing to mention, too, is that there's not this is not a given.

You know, they say it's.

Because.

They saw off both of them placed second in their respective primaries.

You're saying as Maugers not having anything to write about after the first of the year.

All find something either.

Way of this one.

I feel like we're going to be plenty of longer lines in the near future.

Something you all come up with.

Copy?

Absolutely.

Well, let's call in our guest now from up north who is joining us.

Senator, welcome to go off the record.

It is good to see you.

Hopefully.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Senator.

Welcome to Off the Record.

Let's get let's get right back into this gun issue.

You heard our discussion.

Do you do you believe first that the Capitol Commission has the authority to ban weapons and concealed weapons in the Capitol?

Do they have the authority, yes or no?

No, they do not have the authority All right.

So if you went to the Democrats and said, give us a vote to take away that power from the commission, the Democrats would say no.

Correct.

So somebody had brought up about the other states.

And in my research yesterday, in preparation for this, I looked at the states where guns were banned within their capital and the majority of them are Democratic controlled, obviously.

But I couldn't find a single instance where a commission had set that rule.

Any place where that ban was established was something that was done through the legislative process.

So, Senator, my my follow up question is, if you can't get the Democrats to change the rule, will you go to courts to block this?

I can say that I spoken with an attorney.

I, I don't want to be breaking any laws.

But again, this is a commission rule.

This would not be a law.

And I do believe there will be litigation.

There will be litigation sooner than later.

I hope so.

I hope so.

I, I sent Senator I was in the Senate gallery on April 30th, 2020, when there were people with guns standing, you know, a few feet away from me and others leaning over the balcony, looking down at lawmakers, shouting down at the shouting down at the lawmakers while they held long guns in the Capitol, capitol during a very tense day.

Is that good public policy to allow that to continue to happen?

I mean, all of this about how the policy is enacted.

Fair enough.

Is it good public policy for the state of Michigan to allow people with guns to stand above lawmakers shouting down at them while holding the weapons?

Okay.

So to be fair, at that point when that took place, the Capitol Commission did ban open carry Michigan's and open carry state.

And so they made that decision at that time to ban open carry.

Did I agree with it?

No, but I accepted it because I knew that I still had the ability for self-protection through concealed carry.

So you're not going to see images of long guns.

You won't see those images happening again.

They've already taken that step to ban.

Senator, policy wise, is it appropriate whether someone is literally carrying it where you can see it or concealed carry, which, as you mentioned, is legal in this politically heightened violent environment in which we find ourselves to have these kind of weapons at the state capitol.

Even more so called certified people.

They've taken training.

They've had background checks.

And I would argue, I feel like I need protection more than ever.

And legislation having to do with CPLs and changing open carry.

I've done a lot of Second Amendment legislation.

I don't know in particular which one you're referring to.

Well, I guess what I'm referring to is, do you believe that open carry should just be legal throughout the state and that you shouldn't need a concealed weapons permit?

Yes, I do believe in constitutional carry.

We already have that in the state right now.

Back to my question then.

Should people be able to just openly carry guns at the state capitol?

I do support open carry.

The commission has already made the decision.

They're not allowing it inside the Capitol.

So that's done.

I don't have a problem with that because I'm allowed my self-protection through my concealed carry permit.

I would also like to ask how it makes sense that we have construction workers coming in and out of the Capitol with hammers and saws and all these tools that if I come into the Capitol with any of those things, I'm going to be stopped.

I have a background check.

Do they have a background check?

How am I to protect myself within the Capitol and to go further?

You're not only taking away my self-protection inside the Capitol building, but when I go to a parking garage or go to my office, my God, we had legislators had their cars stolen right out of the parking garage while we were in session voting.

So I'm not feeling real safe in Lansing these days.

Are you asking about how you can protect yourself?

I mean, they're people who haven't been to the Capitol, may not know this, but there is armed security that taxpayers pay to be there all the time when you all are there to protect you in the gallery, on the floor.

No, I mean, this is the protection that is funded by the taxpayers for all of the lawmakers.

And we can't forget that that is something that occurs as well within.

How would you explain the cars that are being stolen right next door to us while we're in session?

Where are they for that?

I mean, there's several cars that have been stolen.

I've been chased down the street by homeless people.

And so when I'm walking in downtown Lansing from the Capitol to my office to I'm there late at night quite often to a very empty parking garage.

There is no security around.

I have photos of it.

I video it.

There is not security there.

So I have had my bags run through a metal detector in Texas, Georgia, many other states.

But I also get my bag run through a metal detector in Lansing.

Government buildings and court buildings around Michigan.

And my question would be, if if you're planning on going after the Capitol Commission through litigation to to question whether someone has the authority to ban guns in a government building, would you then also go after the cities and courts and other government entities around the state that have already chosen to have some firearm restrictions?

I guess the difference is I have a choice whether I'm going into those places or not.

If I need to do business, I can do it online.

I can do it by mail.

I can do it over the phone.

I have to be in the Capitol to vote to represent my people.

So, quite frankly, I don't see how they're going to have a real hard time presenting an argument where they can stop me from coming in to do my constitutional duty of voting for someone.

If someone has a court date that they have to be in person for, I guess it would they then they are.

Are you fine with them.

Checking their gun at the door?

I haven't been presented with that.

I haven't had to deal with that.

I'm just saying for me at the Capitol to do my job, I should not have to leave my self-protection behind.

I feel safe when I travel with that.

And I feel safe because I am trained to protect myself and I don't have to count on law enforcement or someone else to be there.

I wouldn't have to wait during a time of.

My gosh.

Michigan has one of the highest rates of violence against women in the whole nation.

And I would argue that I feel like self-protection for women is a women's rights issue.

And we're at a time where things are very, very scary, especially for lawmakers.

Senator, so this is.

Sorry, Senator, you.

You carry a weapon?

Yes.

Have you ever had to use it?

No, ma'am.

So it sounds like what you're talking about is in your mind, there's there's a very dark, scary world out there, is what it sounds like you're saying.

And that you'd prefer to go online and do documents than simply go into a building that's already safe and secure.

I'm curious about where this point of view comes from for you that that again, it it seems like that anyone would need to carry a gun in this world in 2023 in order to be safe.

Where does that point of view come from?

Did something happen to you?

Is there what is the history of that for you?

Well, as you have to do is watch the news.

Wasn't it just this month, a woman in Lansing, not too far from where my apartment was, was shot and her baby was stolen, and then the baby turned up dead.

So all you have to do is watch the news studies.

That show that folks who watch too much commercial television actually have a mis purported idea of how dangerous the world is.

So what you're saying is, just from your news viewership, you have concerns about the safety of the world.

Again, I don't ever typically feel unsafe because I do carry.

So I don't experience those feelings of I'm scared walking down the street and I don't want to have to experience that.

So I travel alone.

I travel a lot of miles in my district.

And so I feel very secure knowing I have self-protection.

So I'm not quite sure where you're getting at.

What the the commission looks like it's going to walk back the ban and allow you folks to carry your concealed weapons on the House floor.

And I assume you would be you would be copacetic with that, correct?

I would.

I won't complain.

I'll be very pleased if they turn the turn their decision around to allow us to carry.

We're also a duty to informs state.

So if I get pulled over by the police for speeding, I have to inform them that I'm carrying.

I have to show my people.

I don't mind doing that to enter the Capitol if that makes others feel more secure about who's entering with a firearm.

I don't have a problem doing that, but I do have a little bit of an issue where legislators get special treatment and the people I serve will not be able to have self-protection and show their CPL.

So I do have a little bit of concern with that.

All right.

But the question is, let's assume that they don't walk it back.

And on opening day, when you try to walk into the Capitol with your weapon, what's going to happen?

That's why I've hired a lawyer.

I don't know what's going to happen.

Why did you hire a lawyer?

Because I respect the law.

I respect the rule of law.

I respect my colleagues.

I don't want to embarrass anybody.

And I also don't want to go to jail.

I don't know what they're capable of doing, what they try to arrest us.

We don't know what's going to happen.

Well, Senator, what do you say?

I mean, we're kind of looking at this from one side of the coin.

This debate and question and answer we're doing on the other side.

The Capitol is a teaching place for children from all across the state.

Field trips happen to the capital.

What do you say to to those people who are frightened to send their kids to a capitol where there are open protests with firearms happening, where they are concerned about, you know, someone in the gallery just sitting there with a weapon, maybe they're concerned about a lawmaker having a weapon on the floor while their kid goes there to see their government in action.

What do you say to those parents?

Do they have any rights in any of this to still feel safe in the Capitol?

Great question.

And I'm glad you asked that, because actually one of the commissioners said that they want kids to come to the Capitol and feel as secure here in the Capitol as they do at school.

I am not aware of any shootings at the Capitol and the history of Michigan.

I'm not aware of any.

If there is.

You can correct me, but we've had two school shootings just in the last two years.

So I would argue our capitol is safe and safer than it is schools.

Senator, on the litigation issue, would you be a plaintiff in this case?

Would you be one of the people that would would sign off on it?

I would absolutely.

If it comes down to that.

I don't want to go that route, but I am going to fight for my rights.

Senator, will you call me when you decide to do that, please?

I will.

Senator, thanks for joining us on our program.

Good to see you.

Have a safe weekend.

And also our thanks to our panel next week on off the record in this chair, former state senator David Jaye.

See you then.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

For more off the record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of off the record.