S.B. 0525 CPL renewal

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 6/28/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[Tallbear]

This bill will clarify the time frame for renewal AND set the length of the renewed license. No more 4 year and two month license.

[zigziggityzoo]

So this changes the law so that a renewal license takes effect on the date of your expired license.

[DEVIL DOG]

So how do you get the 3 hrs. of training? I remember when I took the CPL class, there was a lady taking it over for renewal. But that was a full day class.

[who dat]

So how do you get the 3 hrs. of training? I remember when I took the CPL class, there was a lady taking it over for renewal. But that was a full day class.
On your own...there is no need for formal training or a new certificate.

[Roundballer]

So how do you get the 3 hrs. of training? I remember when I took the CPL class, there was a lady taking it over for renewal. But that was a full day class.
The law says that "the applicant shall certify", that just means that the applicant makes a statement that it is the case. The requirement is to spend "at least 3 hours' review of the training". No additional or repetition of class training is required.

(8 ) (7) The educational requirements under section 5b(7)(c) for an applicant who is applying for a renewal of a license under this act are waived except that the applicant shall certify that he or she has completed at least 3 hours' review of the training described under section 5b(7)(c) and has had at least 1 hour of firing range time in the 6 months immediately preceding the subsequent application.

The last time they tried to make a similar change, the question of the NICS check exemption from the BATFE might be in jeopardy. Would the same hold true here? I don't have any real problem with it, I just want to know the ramifications of changes in the law.

[Tallbear]

The law says that "the applicant shall certify", that just means that the applicant makes a statement that it is the case. The requirement is to spend "at least 3 hours' review of the training". No additional or repetition of class training is required.


The last time they tried to make a similar change, the question of the NICS check exemption from the BATFE might be in jeopardy. Would the same hold true here? I don't have any real problem with it, I just want to know the ramifications of changes in the law.

What you quoted is not part of the change/update. Only items lined out and bold are the changes.

[45/70fan]

The finger print tax needs to be dropped once the initial electronic finger prints have been obtained.

[Dave Edwards]

This bill will clarify the time frame for renewal AND set the length of the renewed license. No more 4 year and two month license.


It says "IF
10 THE CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD APPROVES THE RENEWAL, THE
11 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RENEWAL LICENSE IS THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF
12 THE CURRENT LICENSE OR THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE RENEWAL,
13 WHICHEVER IS LATER, AND THE DATE OF EXPIRATION IS THE APPLICANT'S
14 DATE OF BIRTH WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN 4 YEARS OR MORE THAN 5 YEARS
15 FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE."

The way that I read it is that if they don't approve it before it expires, its duration would be 4 years + the remaining months until the applicant's birthday, effective on the date that it's approved. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[Leader]

Snip....................


The last time they tried to make a similar change, the question of the NICS check exemption from the BATFE might be in jeopardy. Would the same hold true here? I don't have any real problem with it, I just want to know the ramifications of changes in the law.

Same question just asked another way....


It was my understanding that the background check could not be over 5 years old if the CPL was to allow pistol purchases without a PP.
Under this bill, it could be as much as 5 Yrs & 6 Mos. Will this require us to get a purchase permit for pistol purchases ?

BTW.. I hope it passes, I've lost over a year on my licenses already.

[sse]

I want who dat to look at dat bill...

[Tallbear]

It says "IF
10 THE CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD APPROVES THE RENEWAL, THE
11 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RENEWAL LICENSE IS THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF
12 THE CURRENT LICENSE OR THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE RENEWAL,
13 WHICHEVER IS LATER, AND THE DATE OF EXPIRATION IS THE APPLICANT'S
14 DATE OF BIRTH WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN 4 YEARS OR MORE THAN 5 YEARS
15 FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE."

The way that I read it is that if they don't approve it before it expires, its duration would be 4 years + the remaining months until the applicant's birthday, effective on the date that it's approved. Maybe I'm missing something here.

If you wait too longer after your CPL expires then, yes, it will be four yrears and "some" months. Renew in a timely manner and you get the full five years.

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 9/7/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 9/20/2011 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH AMENDMENT(S)

[fegPA63]

The finger print tax needs to be dropped once the initial electronic finger prints have been obtained.

no kiddin I think its ridiculous those Govt jerks charged me $15 for some ink fingerprints, all their trying to do is get their hands even DEEPER into your pockets:fur3:

[45/70fan]

no kiddin I think its ridiculous those Govt jerks charged me $15 for some ink fingerprints, all their trying to do is get their hands even DEEPER into your pockets:fur3:

I've breached the subject up with Sen Green and Rep Damrow both said they would get it into pending legislation.

[Tallbear]

Judiciary, Rep. John Walsh, Chair

Date: 02/02/2012

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 521 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 5050 (Walsh) Law enforcement; investigations; providing false information to peace officer conducting criminal investigation; prohibit, and provide penalties.

HB 5051 (Walsh) Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for crime of providing false information to a peace officer conducting a criminal investigation; enact.

HB 4859 (Agema) Torts; liability; personal injury or property damage caused by propane gas equipment or appliances; provide protection from liability.

SB 92 (Bieda) Probate; powers of attorney; written acknowledgment of responsibilities by agent appointed under a power of attorney; require.

HB 4435 (Johnson) Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers.

SB 525 (Hansen) Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify.

To view text of legislation go to
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=Bills

[sse]

Looks good...

[Leader]

SB 525 sounds good, I just wish it would have been enacted before I got screwed TWICE.

As for HB 5050, I really don't like that one. Way too much leeway for a cop to put a citizen in a trick bag.
Now if that said Law Enforcement couldn't lie to citizens, I would be for it.
Add some real penalties and it would be even better.

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 2/2/2012 referred to second reading

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 2/9/2012 placed on third reading

[SeeTee]

I guess I just don't understand, the way I read it, you will never get the full 5 years from birthday to birthday no matter how you try to time it, with the unpredictable nature of the clerk’s office.

It is not giong to be like a DL that is good from birthday to birthday.

[TheQ]

This bill would make it so your new CPL takes effect the day after your old one expired -- thus guaranteeing you get a full 5 years out of it.

Right now, your new CPL may get issued before your old one expires, thus you'd get less than 5 years out of your new CPL (as it expires 5 years after issuance).

[SeeTee]

OK great, thank you for clarifying the issue, that is what I thought the bill was going to do.

Maybe I just didn't read the correct version of the bill or understand the legalese of it.

[45/70fan]

Why isn't the finger print fee being dropped once the electronic finger prints have been taken? We are going to be charged a second time for something that isn't being provided nor necessary.

[TheQ]

Why isn't the finger print fee being dropped once the electronic finger prints have been taken? We are going to be charged a second time for something that isn't being provided nor necessary.

If it's an improvement over the status quo (that benefits everyone) and this is, I'll support it. The only exception to that is those damn 28.425o exemptions.

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 2/14/2012 returned to Senate

[TheQ]

Excellent, this is a bill that will benefit us all.

[TheQ]

WEAPONS LICENSES (Hansen) Modifies renewal procedure for weapons license. Am. Sec. 5l, 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l), as amended by 2008 PA 406.
spacer

ENROLLED in Senate (2/15/2012) Immediate effect; earlier returned from House

Off to the Governor's desk...

[Tallbear]

SB 0525 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0525)
Weapons; licensing; licensing renewal procedure; modify. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).
Last Action: 2/22/2012 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 2/21/2012 @ 1:16 PM

[zigziggityzoo]

Excellent. Once this gets signed, you can apply for renewal 6 months before yours expires, and guarantee yourself a full 5 years.

What's more, they MUST issue or deny within 60 days, or else you automatically get an extension. No more BS about fingerprints or waiting on federal background checks. 60 days from application, period.

Love it.

[Leader]

GREAT but too late for me.
I lost out twice while waiting for people to realize this was happening.

Be really nice to get a full 5 years NEXT time.

[kdogg]

General question about renewals. Is there a time period you have to wait for to renew? CAN you renew 6 months ahead of time?

Unfortunately, I moved from Paw Paw (Van Buren County) where getting a CPL is absolutely trouble free. I dropped off my paperwork and got my prints on like February 20-somthing and had my permit IN MY HAND on March 23rd.

I've now moved to Kent (Wyoming) and I hear horror stories dealing with them I want to get mine in early enough to I don't get screwed around. Is this bill going to help me with any of that?

[TheQ]

General question about renewals. Is there a time period you have to wait for to renew? CAN you renew 6 months ahead of time?

Yes, as soon as the Governor signs this bill. -- IMMEDIATE EFFECT!

Unfortunately, I moved from Paw Paw (Van Buren County) where getting a CPL is absolutely trouble free. I dropped off my paperwork and got my prints on like February 20-somthing and had my permit IN MY HAND on March 23rd.

I've now moved to Kent (Wyoming) and I hear horror stories dealing with them I want to get mine in early enough to I don't get screwed around. Is this bill going to help me with any of that?

This bill should help all CPL holders in Michigan.

[who dat]

General question about renewals. Is there a time period you have to wait for to renew? CAN you renew 6 months ahead of time?

Unfortunately, I moved from Paw Paw (Van Buren County) where getting a CPL is absolutely trouble free. I dropped off my paperwork and got my prints on like February 20-somthing and had my permit IN MY HAND on March 23rd.

I've now moved to Kent (Wyoming) and I hear horror stories dealing with them I want to get mine in early enough to I don't get screwed around. Is this bill going to help me with any of that?
At this point there is no time restriction on renewals. The MSP has their computer program set to accept up to a year in advance, but if you wanted to do it 4 years in advance, you can.

[XDM 40 cal]

Cool... About time something get Fixed..:salute:

[donald150]

At this point there is no time restriction on renewals. The MSP has their computer program set to accept up to a year in advance, but if you wanted to do it 4 years in advance, you can.

I would, if it added 5 years to my current license.:upto:

[gijoecam]

Same question just asked another way....


It was my understanding that the background check could not be over 5 years old if the CPL was to allow pistol purchases without a PP.
Under this bill, it could be as much as 5 Yrs & 6 Mos. Will this require us to get a purchase permit for pistol purchases ?


Still waiting for an answer on this one...???

If this passes, how will they resolve the discrepancey between the date of the background check and the federal requirements? Will CPL-holders again be required to get a PP to make a purchase?

Please address this in the legislation so we do not end up with conflicts between our state laws and federal requirements.

[Roundballer]

Looks like a done deal......Except for the recording in the "journals".


2/29/2012 Expected in
SJ 20 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR 2/28/2012 @ 3:10 PM
2/29/2012 Expected in
SJ 20 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE 2/28/2012 @ 4:29 PM
2/29/2012 Expected in
SJ 20 ASSIGNED PA 0032'12 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

2011-SB-0525 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-SB-0525)

[gijoecam]

Looks like a done deal......Except for the recording in the "journals".



2011-SB-0525 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-SB-0525)

Greeeeat... Just what we needed: more legislation pushed through to make things 'better' without thoroughly researching the impact it may have on other aspects of the permit.

So what happens when the BATF gets wind of this change and says, "since we require the background check be done in the last 5 years, you can no longer use a Michigan cpl in lieu of a proper background check and purchase permit???" We all know the BATF won't limit it to just the last x months of the license, or any specific date for that matter.

Ridiculous...

[Roundballer]

Greeeeat... Just what we needed: more legislation pushed through to make things 'better' without thoroughly researching the impact it may have on other aspects of the permit.

So what happens when the BATF gets wind of this change and says, "since we require the background check be done in the last 5 years, you can no longer use a Michigan cpl in lieu of a proper background check and purchase permit???" We all know the BATF won't limit it to just the last x months of the license, or any specific date for that matter.

Ridiculous...
The BATFE has no control over the PP or the use of a CPL in place of a PP. Those are strictly Michigan laws, and haven't changed.

The only thing that the BATFE can say is that they will require a NICS check for everyone. I don't like it, but it is what it is. Most of the Big Box stores did it anyway, and a lot of the smaller shops did too. We don't know what may happen, the BATFE may be just as good with a 66 month old check as they were with a 60 month old check. Or they may do something in the middle and say that the CPL is no good in the last 6 months before it expires. Or maybe they will realize that the length of time between checks will not really change that much. It will still be 5 years (give or take a little) between renewal periods.

If the BATFE comes out with something that we don't like, we can put a bug in both the State as well as the Fed Reps and Senators ears, and start a "grass roots" movement to get the BATFE in line. Change the laws!

[Bronson]

...and a lot of the smaller shops did too.

The last time I transfered a fiream through a local shop the guy working said his boss requires a NICS check for any CPL holder whose license expires in the next year.

Bronson

[TheQ]

Greeeeat... Just what we needed: more legislation pushed through to make things 'better' without thoroughly researching the impact it may have on other aspects of the permit.

So what happens when the BATF gets wind of this change and says, "since we require the background check be done in the last 5 years, you can no longer use a Michigan cpl in lieu of a proper background check and purchase permit???" We all know the BATF won't limit it to just the last x months of the license, or any specific date for that matter.

Ridiculous...


As many others have pointed out, most gun stores do a NICS check anyhow.

It's the attitude that is reflected here that has many legislators fed up with helping gun owners. They feel they can't win. And yes -- I know many that do read this forum.

[gijoecam]

As many others have pointed out, most gun stores do a NICS check anyhow.

It's the attitude that is reflected here that has many legislators fed up with helping gun owners. They feel they can't win. And yes -- I know many that do read this forum.

So what is your point? It's attitudes like yours that create laws with conflicts such as this in the first place... "Oh, there is a conflict between the law we're trying to pass and a federal requirement? Oh, well. We'll figure something out some other time. For now, we, your politician overlords, seem this as necessary and right. The conflict resolution is somebody else's problem, but at least WE did something." Bills are signed into law merely for the sake of passing laws, and in cases like this one, without so much as considering the ramifications on other aspects of the privileges afforded by the CPL.

When someone raises a concern, any concern, it seemingly gets ignored or glossed over. That's the attitude that has gun owners fed up with legislators.

This isn't attitude, this is a concerned citizen being blown off after attempting to point out a flaw in the new law where it conflicts with current BATF policy... What's so wrong about that?? I thought this was an open discussion forum for discussion of issues just like this one, no? If there is a better place for it, I'd be happy to move the discussion there.

As for the whole 'most stores call NICS anyways,' that is a whole 'nother discussion that has been beaten to death on this and other forums. The bottom line is that store policy is not law, and no store policy covers ftf private sales. Laws like this one do, and can potentially have a significant impact on those sales.

[Leader]

So what is your point? It's attitudes like yours that create laws with conflicts such as this in the first place... "Oh, there is a conflict between the law we're trying to pass and a federal requirement? Oh, well. We'll figure something out some other time. For now, we, your politician overlords, seem this as necessary and right. The conflict resolution is somebody else's problem, but at least WE did something." Bills are signed into law merely for the sake of passing laws, and in cases like this one, without so much as considering the ramifications on other aspects of the privileges afforded by the CPL.

When someone raises a concern, any concern, it seemingly gets ignored or glossed over. That's the attitude that has gun owners fed up with legislators.

This isn't attitude, this is a concerned citizen being blown off after attempting to point out a flaw in the new law where it conflicts with current BATF policy... What's so wrong about that?? I thought this was an open discussion forum for discussion of issues just like this one, no? If there is a better place for it, I'd be happy to move the discussion there.

As for the whole 'most stores call NICS anyways,' that is a whole 'nother discussion that has been beaten to death on this and other forums. The bottom line is that store policy is not law, and no store policy covers ftf private sales. Laws like this one do, and can potentially have a significant impact on those sales.

Actually I don't see this as a problem.
If MI allows the CPL to be used in lieu of a purchase permit then that will do for private sales. MI can also still allow the CPL to negate the purchase permit for FFL sales, just maybe not the NICS check.
FFL's can still call in a NICS check and that will satisfy the Feds. It only takes a few MIn in most cases & will leave us the same as most states that don't require a "Purchase Permit" of any kind for gun sales.
This bill is a step forward in all respects. We just need to work on elimination of the purchase permits, CPL's, and PFZ's now.
At the Fed level, we can work on elimination of background checks of any kind and the right to carry in any and all states in any manner we chose .
It's up to us now.

[zigziggityzoo]

So what is your point? It's attitudes like yours that create laws with conflicts such as this in the first place... "Oh, there is a conflict between the law we're trying to pass and a federal requirement? Oh, well. We'll figure something out some other time. For now, we, your politician overlords, seem this as necessary and right. The conflict resolution is somebody else's problem, but at least WE did something." Bills are signed into law merely for the sake of passing laws, and in cases like this one, without so much as considering the ramifications on other aspects of the privileges afforded by the CPL.

When someone raises a concern, any concern, it seemingly gets ignored or glossed over. That's the attitude that has gun owners fed up with legislators.

This isn't attitude, this is a concerned citizen being blown off after attempting to point out a flaw in the new law where it conflicts with current BATF policy... What's so wrong about that?? I thought this was an open discussion forum for discussion of issues just like this one, no? If there is a better place for it, I'd be happy to move the discussion there.

As for the whole 'most stores call NICS anyways,' that is a whole 'nother discussion that has been beaten to death on this and other forums. The bottom line is that store policy is not law, and no store policy covers ftf private sales. Laws like this one do, and can potentially have a significant impact on those sales.

NICS checks take mere minutes.

I would give up the CPL NICS waiver that we have now if we got 10-year or lifetime licenses like other states provide.

Hell, I'd give up the NICS check waiver if they made CPLs cost a more reasonable fee, like $25, like many other states have.

[Jerbear1098]

NICS checks take mere minutes.

I would give up the CPL NICS waiver that we have now if we got 10-year or lifetime licenses like other states provide.

Hell, I'd give up the NICS check waiver if they made CPLs cost a more reasonable fee, like $25, like many other states have.


:yeahthat:

[Cackler]

So what is your point? It's attitudes like yours that create laws with conflicts such as this in the first place... "Oh, there is a conflict between the law we're trying to pass and a federal requirement? Oh, well. We'll figure something out some other time. For now, we, your politician overlords, seem this as necessary and right. The conflict resolution is somebody else's problem, but at least WE did something." Bills are signed into law merely for the sake of passing laws, and in cases like this one, without so much as considering the ramifications on other aspects of the privileges afforded by the CPL.

When someone raises a concern, any concern, it seemingly gets ignored or glossed over. That's the attitude that has gun owners fed up with legislators.

This isn't attitude, this is a concerned citizen being blown off after attempting to point out a flaw in the new law where it conflicts with current BATF policy... What's so wrong about that?? I thought this was an open discussion forum for discussion of issues just like this one, no? If there is a better place for it, I'd be happy to move the discussion there.

As for the whole 'most stores call NICS anyways,' that is a whole 'nother discussion that has been beaten to death on this and other forums. The bottom line is that store policy is not law, and no store policy covers ftf private sales. Laws like this one do, and can potentially have a significant impact on those sales.

While I happen to agree with others that this is a reasonable trade off, I REALLY agree with your points about expression of viewpoints on an interactive forum. Unfortunately, if when doing so you opinion happens to conflict with a certain group, be prepared to hang on as you continue to promote discussion on a discussion bulletin board.

[gijoecam]

... be prepared to hang on as you continue to promote discussion on a discussion bulletin board.

LOL! WHAT was I THINKING!??! Discussing things on a discussion board... The nerve!?! :P

This discussion has raised a couple of questions I need some clarification on. I'm searching for citations, but the handbook is immense, so please correct me if I'm wrong. (and please cite the applicable regs if you could)

Here's the little bit I've found so far...




(t) (1) Beginning on the date that is 30
days after the Attorney General notifies
licensees under section 103(d) of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
that the national instant criminal background
check system is established, a
licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
or licensed dealer shall not transfer a
firearm to any other person who is not
licensed under this chapter, unless—

(A) before the completion of the
transfer, the licensee contacts the
national instant criminal background
check system established under section
103 of that Act;

(B) (i) the system provides the licensee
with a unique identification
number; or

(ii) 3 business days (meaning a
day on which State offices are open)
have elapsed since the licensee contacted
the system, and the system
has not notified the licensee that the
receipt of a firearm by such other
person would violate subsection (g)
or (n) of this section; and

(C) the transferor has verified the
identity of the transferee by examining
a valid identification document
(as defined in section 1028(d) of this
title) of the transferee containing a
photograph of the transferee.

(2) If receipt of a firearm would not
violate section 922 (g) or (n) or State
law, the system shall—

(A) assign a unique identification
number to the transfer;

(B) provide the licensee with the
number; and

(C) destroy all records of the system
with respect to the call (other
than the identifying number and the
date the number was assigned) and
all records of the system relating to
the person or the transfer.
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
firearm transfer between a licensee and
another person if—
(A) (i) such other person has presented
to the licensee a permit that—
(I) allows such other person to
possess or acquire a firearm; and
(II) was issued not more than
5 years earlier by the State in
which the transfer is to take place;
and
14
(ii) the law of the State provides
that such a permit is to be issued
only after an authorized government
official has verified that the
information available to such official
does not indicate that possession
of a firearm by such other
person would be in violation of law;
(B) the Attorney General has approved
the transfer under section
5812 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954; or

(C) on application of the transferor,
the Attorney General has certified
that compliance with paragraph
(1)(A) is impracticable because—

(i) the ratio of the number of law
enforcement officers of the State in
which the transfer is to occur to the
number of square miles of land
area of the State does not exceed
0.0025;

(ii) the business premises of the
licensee at which the transfer is to
occur are extremely remote in relation
to the chief law enforcement
officer (as defined in subsection
(s)(8)); and

(iii) there is an absence of telecommunications
facilities in the
geographical area in which the
business premises are located.

So the way I read it, a background check is a federal requirement, not a state requirement. Reading through the Michigan laws, the purchase permit is a state requirement. Because the Michigan CPL complies with section 3, an NICS call is unnecessary if the purchaser has a current Michigan CPL, correct?

Now, here's where my confusion lies: In a face-to-face purchase, is there no background check involved? Say the purchaser does NOT have a CPL... When the purchaser obtains a purchase permit, is there a background check involved? There has to be, otherwise how would the issuing agency know whether or not the applicant is elgible to purchase a firearm? It's not a call to NICS, but I suspect there is a records check involved to see if there is anything that disqualifies the applicant from owning a pistol, right? As best I can figure, the federal government isn't involved at all in a face-to-face sale within the state, correct? (If so, then that's where my confusion lied... I *thought* the fed was involved in ftf purchases as a part of the purchase permit issuance, but it appears I could be wrong, no?)

So as best I can understand it, with the new law as-written, our (new 5-year) CPL can still be used in conjunction with an RI-60 as far as the state is concerned for a ftf private sale, right?

But it still comes back to the federal issue... If I'm reading everything correctly, the only thing the CPL currently does on a new-gun sale from a dealer is eliminates the need for a NICS call, right? So the new (5-year) CPL may no longer qualify for the NICS exception because the background check may not be less than 5 years old, correct?

It's all starting to blur together... Sorry if it seems long-winded... Just trying to make sure I am as clear on the issue and process as I thought I was...

[sse]

Not that I'm buying guns all the time, but aside from a private sale, has any CPL holder actually had a seller say to them they'll forgo a NICS?

[zigziggityzoo]

The FEDERAL Law basically states that your CPL is valid for NICS exception for a period of 5 years after the background check.

What's that mean? That means that as an FFL, THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR CPL and verify that it's less than 5 years old, and if they are suspicious, then they do the NICS check.

The onus is on the FFL dealer to verify the purchaser is either NICS check or check-exempt.

Since MICHIGAN STATE LAW requires the CPL to be approved within 2 months, and valid for up to 5 years, the CPL, while valid, is ALWAYS qualifying for the NICS exemption, because it's never good for more than 5 years.

[who dat]

(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
firearm transfer between a licensee and
another person if—
(A) (i) such other person has presented
to the licensee a permit that—
(I) allows such other person to
possess or acquire a firearm; and
(II) was issued not more than
5 years earlier by the State in
which the transfer is to take place;This says the license issuance must be 5 years or less, not a NICS check. What am I missing?

[gijoecam]

This says the license issuance must be 5 years or less, not a NICS check. What am I missing?

You could be on to something... Good question... I was missing that too.

Can the permit be post-dated to be issued in the future? i.e. can they send me a permit today, March 1st that has been issued or has an 'issued date' on it of May 1st? Yeah, I know we're splitting hairs now, but if they send it to me today, but it doesn't go into effect until May 1st, when has it been issued? As far as the BATF is concerned, the issue date could be the issue. (Wow! Does that sound like I'm arguing in a circle or what? LOL!)

I think you could be right... In which case I've learned a few things today, and haven't even finished my coffee yet. :)

[Cackler]

Not that I'm buying guns all the time, but aside from a private sale, has any CPL holder actually had a seller say to them they'll forgo a NICS?

Never say it per se but, I have had more than one not mention anything about standing by waiting for the check. If they did it, I certainly wasn't aware of it occurring.

[Divegeek]

Originally Posted by sse
Not that I'm buying guns all the time, but aside from a private sale, has any CPL holder actually had a seller say to them they'll forgo a NICS?

Last time I bought a pistol at Cabela's they didn't run a NICS check because I had a CPL.

[who dat]

Not that I'm buying guns all the time, but aside from a private sale, has any CPL holder actually had a seller say to them they'll forgo a NICS?Since having a CPL, I have only been through a NICS check at Dunhams.

Other dealer sales have been by authority of my CPL.

[gryphon]

Last pistol I purchased at Guns Galore they ran a check on me.

[gryphon]

Greeeeat... Just what we needed: more legislation pushed through to make things 'better' without thoroughly researching the impact it may have on other aspects
Would you be against constitutional carry on the basis we would now be subject to NICS verification every time we purchased a pistol?

[TheQ]

Would you be against constitutional carry on the basis we would now be subject to NICS verification every time we purchased a pistol?

The Constitutional Carry we'd promote would still have an optional 5 year CPL for Reciprocity reasons and NICS.