We need to show full support on this one

[Rob]

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/billintroduced/house/pdf/2004-HIB-5548.pdf

(HOUSE BILL No. 5548
February 17, 2004, Introduced by Reps. Sheen, Milosch, DeRoche, Moolenaar, Emmons,
Brown, DeRossett, Newell, Palsrok, Hune, LaJoy, Hoogendyk, Gillard, Pappageorge,
Voorhees, LaSata, Acciavatti, Ruth Johnson, Rocca, Shackleton, Meyer, Drolet, Caul,
Nofs, Middaugh, Woronchak, Pumford, Hager, Mortimer, Robertson, Huizenga, Kooiman,
Shulman, Stahl, Ward, Tabor, Stakoe, Pastor, Casperson, Taub, Bradstreet, Caswell, Nitz,
Hummel, Palmer, Brandenburg, Bisbee, Wenke, Sheltrown, Byrum, O'Neil, Plakas, Farrah,
Adamini, Amos and Richardville and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled
"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain
circumstances; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain
state and local agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against
individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a
concealed pistol; to make appropriations; to prescribe certain
conditions for the appropriations; and to repeal all acts and
parts of acts inconsistent with this act,"
by amending section 5l (MCL 28.425l), as amended by 2002 PA 719.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
1 Sec. 5l. (1) A license to carry a concealed pistol issued
2 before July 1, 2003 is valid for 3 years and a license to carry a
3 concealed pistol issued on or after July 1, 2003 is valid for 5
4 years. A Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), a
5 renewal of a license under section 5b shall be issued in the same
1 manner as an original license issued under section 5b.
2 (2) The educational requirements under section 5b(7)(c) are
3 waived for an applicant who is a retired police officer or
4 retired law enforcement officer.
5 (3) The educational requirements under section 5b(7)(c) for
6 an applicant who is applying for a renewal of a license under
7 this act are waived except that the applicant shall certify that
8 he or she has completed at least 3 hours' review of the training
9 described under section 5b(7)(c) and has had at least 1 hour of
10 firing range time in the 6 months immediately preceding the
11 subsequent application.
12 (4) The fingerprinting requirements under section 5b are
13 waived for an applicant who is applying for a renewal of a
14 license under this act.

[Jim Simmons]

Expect LEO resistance on this one. Fingerprints are necessary to verify whether a licensee has been arrested, charged or convicted, especially under a different name, especially in a different state. The FBI requires prints for the purpose of their background check.

[Rob]

Expect LEO resistance on this one. Fingerprints are necessary to verify whether a licensee has been arrested, charged or convicted, especially under a different name, especially in a different state. The FBI requires prints for the purpose of their background check.

Why should they have a issue, this is for renewals only! Only issue they may have IMO is the lose of the income from printing... They already have your prints on file

[Dan]

Thanks for posting this since it got by me.

My rep's cosponsored it already so no worries here.

[Ken Cooper]

Only issue they may have IMO is the lose of the income from printing... They already have your prints on file

They will still receive the income with this bill as the bill does not mention a reduction in the cost of a renewal. I suspect if we can get this bill passed, then passing a reduction in a CPL renewal should be easier.

[sprink]

With Gilda Jacobs and Sandie Levin on my team, I only call on them for the giggle factor.

[Ken P]

Only issue they may have IMO is the lose of the income from printing... They already have your prints on file

They will still receive the income with this bill as the bill does not mention a reduction in the cost of a renewal. I suspect if we can get this bill passed, then passing a reduction in a CPL renewal should be easier.

I think Rob's alluding to the cop shop losing the $15 printing fee for the renewals.

No renewal...no $15 fee.

The $105 still gets paid and distributed according to the law

[CS40]

I am all for not having to refingerprint on renewals, they are already on file. It would save the government and the applicants a boat load of time.

This is similiar to what many other states already do, including Florida who has no fingerprinting for resident renewals but does require fingerprinting for non-resident renewals.