HB 6393 Correction Officer allowed to carry in CEZ

[Tallbear]

HB 6393 of 2010 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2010-HB-6393)
Weapons; licensing; weapon-free zones; provide waiver for state corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).

[enigmatical]

Interesting languange.

It didn't say which "Department of Corrections" did it?

Would that mean any state or just the MDOC?

[Pit Bull]

This is good news for me... As a Corrections Officer(State of Michigan), I've tried to get the exemption on my Personal CPL (my Work issued CPL - "Weapons Permit" allows me to carry where I need to while in uniform and on Duty - hospitals, court rooms, etc...). but have been denied by my County because the law doesn't specifically include "Corrections Officers of the Michigan Dept. of Corrections" but covers "Corrections Officers of a County Sheriff's Department"..... and "a Parole/Probation Officer of the Michigan Department of Corrections".... I fall somewhere in the middle of those 2 classifications.

It doesn't make sense to me regarding the differentiation of the 2 - I can carry anywhere I need to go (pistol free zones/ cez's) on Duty, but can't be trusted to do the right thing when off duty?????? Hopefully this will pass. Really, I'd like to see the pistol free zones/cez's eliminated for all of our law abiding Citizens - but won't hold my breath.

Pit Bull

[Hugle]

This is good news for me... As a Corrections Officer(State of Michigan), I've tried to get the exemption on my Personal CPL (my Work issued CPL - "Weapons Permit" allows me to carry where I need to while in uniform and on Duty - hospitals, court rooms, etc...). but have been denied by my County because the law doesn't specifically include "Corrections Officers of the Michigan Dept. of Corrections" but covers "Corrections Officers of a County Sheriff's Department"..... and "a Parole/Probation Officer of the Michigan Department of Corrections".... I fall somewhere in the middle of those 2 classifications.

It doesn't make sense to me regarding the differentiation of the 2 - I can carry anywhere I need to go (pistol free zones/ cez's) on Duty, but can't be trusted to do the right thing when off duty?????? Hopefully this will pass. Really, I'd like to see the pistol free zones/cez's eliminated for all of our law abiding Citizens - but won't hold my breath.

Pit Bull
Should only be for those MDOC Employees who have a Department Issued Weapons Permit, not EVERY MDOC Employee.........

[Pit Bull]

Should only be for those MDOC Employees who have a Department Issued Weapons Permit, not EVERY MDOC Employee.........

That is one way of looking at it. However, If you know how they - Weapons Permits - are issued in the department(I do) ; by "institutional need" per policy. So, they only train a certain number of employees (Officers and Supervisors - Sgt's, Lt's,etc...) per facility on the Handgun (Glock). But, you are as an Officer still required to qualify with - re qualify with at least the Shotgun and the Rifle as a condition of your employment - depending on whether or not you are a e-9 or e-10.

My feeling is that if somehow as an OFFICER you are either overlooked or unneeded to posses a "weapons permit" - to carry a handgun for Duty, have firearms training, and then get your own training and qualify for a Michigan CPL, you should also be allowed the exemption. It is my feeling that those Officers who are working in this environment every day should be afforded the same ability to potentially defend themselves and their loved ones from an attack by a disgruntled ex felon as those of us who have the MDOC issued Weapons permit.

I'm NOT saying the exemptions should be given to the support staff that are not required by policy to utilize firearms - such as Food Service workers, Maintenance employees, Health Care staff etc.... - not that their lives are any less valuable than mine, I'm just saying that those OFFICERS - with direct felon contact and have the firearms training and have their own MI CPL should be included.

Pit Bull

[TheTrainingTeamCPL]

While tis directly effects me, i firmly believe all CPL holders should have the right to carry anywhere.

That being said the more people we can get "exemptions" for the better. Every one is a chip off the bolder. Hopefully we'll get to the point where dang near every one will be exempt and they'll see that the PFZ's are unnecessary and get rid of them all together.

[OIFvet2ID]

I also hope that this passes. As was posted earlier, I have also felt like I was in a gray "purgatory" between parole and probation and county COs. The sooner all exclusion zones are eliminated the better, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

[dougwg]

While tis directly effects me, i firmly believe all CPL holders should have the right to carry anywhere.

That being said the more people we can get "exemptions" for the better. Every one is a chip off the bolder. Hopefully we'll get to the point where dang near every one will be exempt and they'll see that the PFZ's are unnecessary and get rid of them all together.
That's the plan as of right now.

[Quaamik]

...........................
That being said the more people we can get "exemptions" for the better. Every one is a chip off the bolder. Hopefully we'll get to the point where dang near every one will be exempt and they'll see that the PFZ's are unnecessary and get rid of them all together.

Respectfully, I disagree.

To date all but one of the exempted groups have been goverment employees (the exception being PIs). While it's wonderful that individuals belonging to these groups are now exempted from CEZs, I see no legislative push to reduce the CEZs for the rest of us and I have yet to see any of these groups (organizations representing them, NOT individuals) lobby, push or even openly support reducing CEZs for the rest of us.

I predict that this direction will eventually result in many goveremnt employees having non restricted licenses while only those of certain proffessions outside of goverment employees can ever get a non restricted license. The rest of us will have to accept our "second class" CPLs.

When the shall issue CPL law passed, one of the arguements for it (as opposed to working for something better) was that ALL permit holders would be equal and that those with the most sympathetic arguements for loosening the restrictions (retired LEOs, corrections officers, volunteer police, judges) would all be lobbying with us to reove the CEZs. Instead, all those groups have lobbied to remove the CEZs for them and we have supported it - getting nothing in return.

Enough is enough. After this last fiasco with AB&E and Royal Oak, and the starting of a push to add festivals to the CEZ list, I don't think any more "exemptions" should be supported unless they are for everyone - or they at least come with some reduction in the CEZs for everyone.

[poorman]

How does one find out if this bill has passed??

[Roundballer]

How does one find out if this bill has passed??
If you click on the link in the OP, it will take you to this page:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2010-HB-6393

You will see that the bill was introduced in 08/10 and referred to committee. It has never been brought out for any kind of vote. It died.

[RevDerb]

I would encourage this and any other exemption from CEZ when a bill makes it through committee and reaches a vote exempting clergy, educators, and news stand operators. PFZ's need to be eliminated, period - not just for select individuals. All they do is empower the lawless.

[Cackler]

Does a smart quarterback try and throw a TD pass every play or is it wiser to get a few yards at a time in order to successfully cross the goal line?

Look at it another way, if that quarterback keeps getting first downs, sooner or later it makes a TD that much easier.

Too many people want to throw the bomb and that "hail Mary" pass just doesn't work all that often.

[TheQ]

Does a smart quarterback try and throw a TD pass every play or is it wiser to get a few yards at a time in order to successfully cross the goal line?

Look at it another way, if that quarterback keeps getting first downs, sooner or later it makes a TD that much easier.

Too many people want to throw the bomb and that "hail Mary" pass just doesn't work all that often.

Most of the people posting here disagree with your position. I would have thought a smart man like you would have observed that. Why do you think SB 863 got pulled from hearing? Because I killed it?

Hardly...because the people here agree with me and they did what I asked them to -- MANY of them did.

[Cackler]

Most of the people posting here disagree with your position. I would have thought a smart man like you would have observed that. Why do you think SB 863 got pulled from hearing? Because I killed it?

Hardly...because the people here agree with me and they did what I asked them to -- MANY of them did.

Since when did "most of the people posting here" become any legitimate basis for determining anything but the chest beating capabilities of a certain faction that seems to post alot on this bulletin board?

The fact remains, the majority is often silent on issues. Also, while makes more sense to keep attempting to get those first downs rather than relying on that hail Mary, we mostly see the hail mary's on the play of the week, and seldom do we see the all the effort it takes to keep getting those first downs. Some people are content to serve on the O line while others want to be in the spotlight. Bottom line is, it takes a team effort yet all too often, people on this forum seem to be on opposite sides of the field.

[TheQ]

Bottom line is, it takes a team effort yet all too often, people on this forum seem to be on opposite sides of the field.

Yes -- you could come over to our side of the field. Equality and Equal Protection over here makes the grass greener and have deeper roots.

[Cackler]

Yes -- you could come over to our side of the field. Equality and Equal Protection over here makes the grass greener and have deeper roots.


That just it, not all football fans want to be on one side of the field or the other much less be limited by the image that supporting just one team might convey.

And, most of us have heard the old "grass is greener" line more than a time or two.

[SADAacp]

Does a smart quarterback try and throw a TD pass every play or is it wiser to get a few yards at a time in order to successfully cross the goal line?

Look at it another way, if that quarterback keeps getting first downs, sooner or later it makes a TD that much easier.

Too many people want to throw the bomb and that "hail Mary" pass just doesn't work all that often.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do think your football analogy will only work with football. The "baby steps" method of doing things, IMO, will not work with our legislature in this regard. Do you honestly believe at some point in time by exempting folks, one group at a time (baby steps), our legislature will throw their hands in the air and just exempt everyone with a CPL? If all CO's will be exempt, then who's next on the list? EMT's and Paramedics? Firemen, paid and volunteer? Door Greeters at Wally World?

[TheQ]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do think your football analogy will only work with football. The "baby steps" method of doing things, IMO, will not work with our legislature in this regard. Do you honestly believe at some point in time by exempting folks, one group at a time (baby steps), our legislature will throw their hands in the air and just exempt everyone with a CPL? If all CO's will be exempt, then who's next on the list? EMT's and Paramedics? Firemen, paid and volunteer? Door Greeters at Wally World?

Our stance is as someone becomes "special" and gets exempt -- they become less likely (their lobbyist) to help the "rest of us". I fight against the special classes and tell their lobbyist to go lobby for SB-58/HB 4009 instead.

This is NOT the time for babysteps. We have a Republican House, Senate, and Governor. If now isn't the time to go all the way, when will be? When one of the houses or governorship is taken over by a Democrat. Elections are coming up in November -- think the Republicans will keep the house forever?

NOW is the time to act and GO ALL THE WAY!

QkMVscR5YOo

[fbuckner]

It is now or never. This whole notion of creating yet another class of citizen is appauling. Other than in the big house where would it benifit the general public to single out CO's to be the next generation of people who can carry anywhere. Bottom line is anyone who has a CPL or those law abiding non-CPL holders should be able to carry anywhere.

[SADAacp]

It is now or never. This whole notion of creating yet another class of citizen is appauling. Other than in the big house where would it benifit the general public to single out CO's to be the next generation of people who can carry anywhere. Bottom line is anyone who has a CPL or those law abiding non-CPL holders should be able to carry anywhere.

:yeahthat:

[Cackler]

Do you honestly believe at some point in time by exempting folks, one group at a time (baby steps), our legislature will throw their hands in the air and just exempt everyone with a CPL?


Nope but, it is easier to kick a 20 yard field goal than it is a 60 yarder.

To only view this as a matter of "special classes" is lacking in a complete analysis of other relevant factors which might be impediments to the removal of all PFZ's.

[TheQ]

To only view this as a matter of "special classes" is lacking in a complete analysis of other relevant factors which might be impediments to the removal of all PFZ's.

Join the MOC BoD and become one of my bosses. Until then, your opinion won't effect our position much. ;)

But you're welcome to your opinion.

[Cackler]

Join the MOC BoD and become one of my bosses. Until then, your opinion won't effect our position much. ;)

But you're welcome to your opinion.


I am more careful about my associations than I used to be.

Thank you though, I am sure that there are people that would really tell you where to go.:whistle:

[DanM]

The fact remains, the majority is often silent on issues.

So, then, the best and only indicator of how folks generally split on an issue is comparing the relative numbers of those who aren't silent.

If 9 out of 10 are vocal on one side and 1 out of 10 are vocal on another, that ratio is pretty much the same in the split of opinion of the silent ones, not counting the large amount who are silent because they have no opinion either way.

[Tallbear]

I hope everyone realizes this bill ( as all bills submitted before Jan.1, 2011) died and is no longer valid.

[Cackler]

I hope everyone realizes this bill ( as all bills submitted before Jan.1, 2011) died and is no longer valid.


Sure, but readers are still finding out how rabid certain factions of gun owners really are.

[TheQ]

Sure, but readers are still finding out how rabid certain factions of gun owners really are.

:poke: :poke:

Better rabid than lethargic.

[Cackler]

:poke: :poke:

Better rabid than lethargic.

So you say:laugh:

Most will agree which needs to get put down before it hurts anybody.

[DanM]

So you say

Most will agree which needs to get put down before it hurts anybody.

History proves that the lethargic do not escape being put down as well, after the rabid are and the gun rights are gone.

So, again, is it better to be rabid or lethargic?

[Cackler]

History proves that the lethargic do not escape being put down as well, after the rabid are and the gun rights are gone.

So, again, is it better to be rabid or lethargic?

Ask me that again when the rabid are the first to go.


You two appear to be missing the point. EVERYBODY would probably concur that the rabid need to be put down. Not everybody would come close to reaching a consensus on the lethargic. Point is, I don't want to be identified as rabid or associate with those that are if I can help it. Normal people tend to distance themselves from something that is viewed as rabid. I'd consider myself normal, well sort of anyway.:laughing:

[mechredd]

I wish they would have passed this back when I was a CO.

[Quaamik]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I do think your football analogy will only work with football. The "baby steps" method of doing things, IMO, will not work with our legislature in this regard. Do you honestly believe at some point in time by exempting folks, one group at a time (baby steps), our legislature will throw their hands in the air and just exempt everyone with a CPL? If all CO's will be exempt, then who's next on the list? EMT's and Paramedics? Firemen, paid and volunteer? Door Greeters at Wally World?

I agree.

Each "special class" that is exempted makes the arguement to exempt the general population weaker. At some point there become so many special classes that there are realativly few willing to fight for a general exemption. It also reaches a point where politicians begin to doubt the validity of claims any particulare person brings up about a need to protect themselves unless they are in one of the "special classes".

We saw it years ago. When there were general (unrestricted), home - bank & business, and hunting & target permits the requirements to get a general became so tight that only former LEOs and the politicly connected could get them. It was viewed that anyone who wasn't in business and routienly carrying a lot of money had no "need" to carry.

Now we are swinging in the direction that no one other than LEOs or those in businesses related to law enforcement have any "need" to carry in the CEZs that were created. Since 2001 we have seen proposals and heard arguements to exempt former LEOs, Judges and former Judges, PIs, Prosecutors, and Corrections Officers. In each case the arguement is that this will bring us closer to eliminating CEZs. But what actual movement has their been to eliminate CEZs? We eliminated parking lots for "some" CEZs (churches, casinos and schools are all still either somewhat restricted or grey areas).

It's time to push for removing some or all of the CEZs for everyone. No more "special exemptions". No more hymning and hawing about how their isn't political support for it. There wasn't political support for shall issue until the issue was pushed. There will never be political support for removing CEZs until the issues is pushed for everyone. Even constituional carry needs to take a back seat to removing the CEZs (what good is constitutional carry if there is a list of places you can't carry?).

[TheQ]

Want to eliminate the CEZ for 2,500+? MOC will support it

Want to eliminate the CEZ for bars? MOC will support it

Want to eliminate the CEZ for Sports Stadiums? MOC will support it

Want to Eliminate the CEZ's for School and Daycares? MOC will support it

Want to add an exemption for your favorite cause? respectfully....screw you -- what makes you more special than the rest of us?