New Legislative Director & SB59 Reintroduction

[Barrettone]

Does this mean you have to take the class again every 5 years?

NO

What does this mean?

There will be NO pre-emption, it's OFF THE TABLE/OUT OF THE BILL...it is a good thing.

Carry on...

[DP425]

Carry on...

So are you saying you won't allow pre-emption to be gutted? In other words, the the state still holds the authority on everything firearms related and no one else can make their own laws? I just want to be clear as glass on this!

[Leader]

Ok... So....
Once you get the exemption you have it as long as you keep your CPL ?

By preemption is out,you mean it will stay as it is, NO discussion about cutting or modifying in any way?

[Barrettone]

Ok... So....
Once you get the exemption you have it as long as you keep your CPL ?

By preemption is out,you mean it will stay as it is, NO discussion about cutting or modifying in any way?

Correct

[xmanhockey7]

I have heard that it will be reintroduced with no changes and passed. Snyder just didn't want to sign it because of the Sandy Hook shooting. I don't know this for sure. Someone I know said that's what their rep said. Take this with a grain of salt.

[Tallbear]

Another "all or nothing" bill??

How sad...................They didn't learn anything from the failure of SB 059.

Well Folks,

Yesterday, I attended a meeting with Senator Mike Green and a couple other congressional people/aides. MCRGO, MOC, and the NRA were also in attendence. This is what it is likely (after much group discussion) to be resubmitted:

1) MSP to handle the issuance of CPL's as the new licensing authority (No longer the Sheriff) for $90.

2) County to handle fingerprinting at a locked-in rate of $15. It will not be required for renewals.

3) County Clerks to still process the applications.

4) All PFZ's to allow carry with "enhanced training" (PPOTH), EXCEPT SCHOOLS. They will have the ability to "opt-in" if they so choose, at the discretions of the school administrators.

5) Sheriffs can still deputize people to carry in schools if they so choose.

6) Pre-emption is out.

7) Eliminating OC in PFZ's may be on the table as a bargaining chip, but it will not be offered up in the beginning when the bill is presented.


It is our belief, that, after a period of time with a good track record of concealed carry in the participating districts, that we will be able to revisit the idea of having ALL SCHOOLS open to concealed carry. The "enhanced carry" endorsement will expire at the same time as your CPL expires...after your 5th birthday.

It is planned to introduce this legislation in the Senate as soon as the spring session begins, and to have it in the House after the summer recess. Now I understand that this is not perfect in any way, but this is what we think can get passed. We need to work in increments. There is a chance that some of this could change once we "take the Govenors temerature" on this, but early indications are that this is palatable to him.

Now, don't start flaming me because you think this is not sweeping enough. Like they say, there are two things you don't want to see: How sausage and politics/laws are made. I want more too, but this is what we can get in the here and now. OK, that said, what are your comments? I am listening, but I may not be able to respond to each comment.

[JJ1989]

Well Folks,

1) MSP to handle the issuance of CPL's as the new licensing authority (No longer the Sheriff) for $90.

2) County to handle fingerprinting at a locked-in rate of $15. It will not be required for renewals.

3) County Clerks to still process the applications.

4) All PFZ's to allow carry with "enhanced training" (PPOTH), EXCEPT SCHOOLS. They will have the ability to "opt-in" if they so choose, at the discretions of the school administrators.

5) Sheriffs can still deputize people to carry in schools if they so choose.

7) Eliminating OC in PFZ's may be on the table as a bargaining chip, but it will not be offered up in the beginning when the bill is presented.

1,2,3) So you submit application to clerk, clerk takes fingerprints for initial application and does all the paper work and sends it to MSP, MSP reviews the paperwork/prints/LEIN/NICS and then MSP sends it via mail to you with a tracking number? Prepaid tracking numbers issued at clerk's office upon submittal of initial paperwork? I just want to be clear that MSP isn't going to take over the job of calling people to come before them in order to be harassed under no real legal authority. Sounds better than having a gun board to potentially harass people.

Note: I really don't like the idea of any individual or group being in charge of a "shall-issue" system that also takes political stances on issues, especially when they're a part of the executive branch where their job is merely to enforce. It just down right violates the entire intent of having three branches for them to offer legislative opinions or state official stances.

4) All PFZ's to allow carry with "enhanced training" (PPOTH), EXCEPT SCHOOLS. They will have the ability to "opt-in" if they so choose, at the discretions of the school administrators.

I just want to ensure that the language is worded so that "concealed carry" with "enhanced training" is used, not just "carry". If the word "carry" was used then later a lawyer might argue that schools have the opportunity to "opt-in" to allow carrying, which if they don't it might have ramifications for the current legal status of being able to OC with a CPL in a classroom.

5) Is there some kind of statewide protocol that could be set in place to allow them to do it if they so choose? Even if you can't tell them they have to deputize anyone, if you at least force them to set up a program that would allow them to I think it would make them much more likely to consider it.

7) See my issues with 4, this is NOT an option. Even though no one has sued any of the schools into compliance with current state law it is still legal to OC in a PFZ. Show me some peer reviewed credible unbiased anti gun studies and I'll be the first in line to condemn guns. As it stands, there are none (I've searched hard through the databases that the college pays for), John Lott has conducted peer reviewed studies over some 30 years and at least 14 others have copied or done similar studies on gun laws and crime. The consensus of every credibly study is that more gun laws generally equal more crime, ESPECIALLY PFZ's. I'm sorry but I don't want to take away that option or likely more of us will end up like that girl just abducted and raped from CMU, or the one raped a few months ago just outside Lansing Community College, or God knows what else - we need to move toward carry in schools..not away from it. I don't want a Sandy Hook here..no sir, and I'm not an ignorant fear monger like every uninformed anti-gun individual who can't think based off of logic or is too ignorant to care.


Note: Take it to the courts first, sue a school into compliance with state law and have the student's for concealed carry population start carrying openly...THEN try to pass allowing CC in any PFZ. I bet he wont veto it then, you wont need number 7, just the thought that the scary guns will more likely be hidden will get him to sign it.

[Leader]

Another "all or nothing" bill??

How sad...................They didn't learn anything from the failure of SB 059.

This should be broken into at least two separate bills. 1, 2, & 3 Deal with issuing CPL's and should be in one bill.
The rest deal with an entirely different subject, PFZ's. Those should have a bill of their own. (as should registration which wasn't mentioned).

[luckless]

Am I the only one uncomfortable with the idea that MSP will be in charge of CPLs?

[emt232004]

This should be broken into at least two separate bills. 1, 2, & 3 Deal with issuing CPL's and should be in one bill.
The rest deal with an entirely different subject, PFZ's. Those should have a bill of their own. (as should registration which wasn't mentioned).

I agree and who keeps suggesting it is a great idea to bargin with oc? Giving up one right for another should not be done especially when many other options have been brought up within this post. To reintroduce it as it was or close to when it was killed is just lazy and a bad choice.