H.B. 4435 Another PFZ exemption

[Tallbear]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 2/2/2012 referred to second reading

[CrimDoc]

Sigh ...

Because we just want to keep making "special people" who don't have to follow the same rules as normal citizens ... because THEY have a right to be safe ... unlike the rest of us ... what a great idea (heavy sarcasm).

[appliancebrad]

We've not removed a single Pistol Free Zone since 2002. Time to rethink strategy on the issue.

There simply isn't support in the Legislature to remove them all. Gun owners can't get together and concentrate on one or two to remove. So we need a different plan.

While neither I or SAFR support any more members of the law enforcement or legal community being given the exemption, perhaps it's time we talk about a broader group of people being added to the exemption list.

I had a conversation with a legislative aid a few months back regarding how the firearms community would accept a two tiered system of permits. That is keep what we have right now but add a couple of addition requirements to gain access to the No Carry Zones. His thoughts were a couple years with your current permit and perhaps an additional 10 hours of documented training. While I don't support the idea, it's a place to start a discussion.

[KeithD]

People need to face reality. The chances of us getting a bill passed to get rid of PFZ all together has almost no chance. Period.

While yes I agree that we all should have a right, each exemption class is a chip off the boulder. But if People wantto have an all or nothing mentality, whatever.

[TheQ]

Here's the way I look at it. The more exemptions we add, the less people that there will be around to lobby once we want to get rid of the PFZs for good. Do you think the special classes will lobby for the rest of us once they have their cake?

Doubtful.


Let's remove one PFZ for all gun carriers. I'd support that. More special classes? I don't think so....

I'd be open to talking about a two-tiered system -- but that won't help people from out of state.

The political will IS there to remove all PFZs. Our efforts these past few days are producing fruit, I'm told. The Republicans control the House, Senate, and Governor -- if it's not now, when will it be?

Have you placed your calls yet (https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150540993921234)? Why not?

I plan to place mine around 2:30 on Tuesday -- as I sit in front of the committee to testify.

[shurhouse]

We've not removed a single Pistol Free Zone since 2002. Time to rethink strategy on the issue.

There simply isn't support in the Legislature to remove them all.


The political will IS there to remove all PFZs. Our efforts these past few days are producing fruit, I'm told.


Ok, which is it?

[Cackler]

Ok, which is it?

My money is on Brad.

[TheQ]

My money is on Brad.

I bet that's what you said when "Shall Issue" came up after the turn of the century, too.

[TheQ]

I want a special CPL exemption for Active/Former Lobbyist (hey, I'm one -- it's a dangerous job (or at least I'll say so if I can get the exemption)) as well as active/former legislatures and their staff.

Think we can get it?

What's the harm, adding more exemptions can only help us, right?

Won't you support that?

</sarcasm>

[Cackler]

I bet that's what you said when "Shall Issue" came up after the turn of the century, too.

Well, from the looks of things, you'd be wrong about that too.

[appliancebrad]

We had the votes for Shall Issue and then lost them for a couple years.
The Governor does not want a Bill removing the CEZ's on his desk. And MSP doesn't support removing them. The Governor historically won't sign a gun bill unless MSP is a best neutral on it.

We can waste time and legislative capital on trying to do remove them all for another 10 years or we can chip away at them

One strategy is to unify the firearms community behind one or two places or to get an exemption for a broad class of people, not just thoses in the legal system.

[TheQ]

We had the votes for Shall Issue and then lost them for a couple years.
The Governor does not want a Bill removing the CEZ's on his desk. And MSP doesn't support removing them. The Governor historically won't sign a gun bill unless MSP is a best neutral on it.

We can waste time and legislative capital on trying to do remove them all for another 10 years or we can chip away at them

One strategy is to unify the firearms community behind one or two places or to get an exemption for a broad class of people, not just thoses in the legal system.


You are right, the MSP doesn't support removing them. That being said, they don't oppose removing them either. As MOC's head lobbyist, I have spoken to the MSPs lobbyists -- they tell me the MSP plans to remain neutral on SB 58.

Their exact words were along the lines of "We got egg all over our faces by predicting shall issue would be a big problem a decade ago. It turns out there wasn't a bunch of blood in the street after all. That being said SB 58 is a legislative policy issue, as such the MSP would remain neutral on eliminating CC PFZs."

They told me this in early November, 2011 outside the Committee hearing conference room in the Farnum Building.

I'd be curious to know where you heard otherwise and when from who.

MOC would support Removing certain places from the PFZ list so long as they are removed for all CPL holders. We will not abide any more "special classes" of "special/trusted people".

[xmanhockey7]

Let's keep all the PFZs but lets exempt anyone who is lawfully carrying a firearm.

[durus5995]

Ok, which is it?

I am putting my money on what Q says.

I think the problem is gun owners are to busy stabbing each other in the back to mass together and get **** done. However, I think that is partially changing as indicated by the movement on the issue the last few days and it should be interesting to see what happens after Monday.

I think the "chipping away" method would be the best course of action if we did not have the complete removal bills sitting in committees in both the Senate and house.

[TheQ]

I think the "chipping away" method would be the best course of action if we did not have the complete removal bills sitting in committees in both the Senate and house.

I also would be more inclined to support (or at least be nuetral on) SB 863 (introduced 2 months ago) if SB 58 hasn't been sitting in and rotting away in the same committee (as SB 863) for over one year!

[KeithD]

dont get me wrong, i support either method. but your arguement about the special classes not fighting just doesnt hold water.

The people in lansing and that are making the phone calls are mostly the same people every time, every issue.

Ive made my calls, and have been in close contact with my reps. I talk to them all the time on firearms issues. and some throughout the state that have questions on certain firearms related.

and Brad has done more and been involved deeper than most around here. when he talks about politics in lansing...i listen. All other stuff i ignore though ;)

[TheQ]

Ive made my calls, and have been in close contact with my reps. I talk to them all the time on firearms issues.

It's good you've made calls. Have you called Senators Jones, Shuitmaker, and Rocca recently?

[shurhouse]

One strategy is to unify the firearms community behind one or two places or to get an exemption for a broad class of people, not just thoses in the legal system.

Instead of working to create a second level of permit holder, what's your thoughts on tackling one or two of the PFZ/CEZ's locations, which would benefit everyone.

[TheQ]

Some people need to watch Green Lantern. Will (Green) always wins over Fear (Yellow) in the end.

Collective Will-power and nothing less will make SB 58 pass.

Fear not.

[appliancebrad]

Instead of working to create a second level of permit holder, what's your thoughts on tackling one or two of the PFZ/CEZ's locations, which would benefit everyone.

That was SAFR's strategy for several years. We felt that home daycares (6 or less children, traditionaly in a private home) and the arbitrary 2500 seat rule would be the easiest.

The problem is that we need to get ALL the gun groups on the same page, pick 2 on the list and work together to remove them. Getting ALL or even a majority of the gun groups in the same room to talk has seemed to be an impossibility. I remain open and available whenever, if ever the rest of the organizations want to come together.

[appliancebrad]

dont get me wrong, i support either method. but your arguement about the special classes not fighting just doesnt hold water.

Sure we lose small groups of advocates but the groups exempted so far never have really been strongly, overwhelmingly on our side anyway. Nor are they huge in numbers. We need a broad group, one that admission to is available to most anyone. We've got a couple ideas on this. The concept of a two tier system is being floated as well however I'm not backing it. I think there are better methods.


. All other stuff i ignore though ;)
Yea, you've seen me shoot and you've seen me roll. I'm much better at politics than I am at the first two :)

[45/70fan]

The concept of a two tier system is being floated as well however I'm not backing it. I think there are better methods.



Nor am I Brad, the two tier system has a lot of flaws the major one being the added expense.

[TheQ]

I remain open and available whenever, if ever the rest of the organizations want to come together.

This is one of my goals. To make a legislative council with the gun groups where we could get together, draft legislation together and all be on the same page when it gets introduced so we can all stand behind it and shut up.


Would you be the SAFR contact for such a venture?

I would be the initial MOC contact.

[appliancebrad]

Would you be the SAFR contact for such a venture?

I would be the initial MOC contact.

That would be me. Shoot me an e-mail.

[luckless]

It has been a long, long time since any legislation passed that expanded my ability to own or use a firearm. I can't be the only one tired of being asked to support extra gun privileges for one government employee or another. We need legislation that actually is a benefit to all Michiganders!

[TheQ]

It has been a long, long time since any legislation passed that expanded my ability to own or use a firearm. I can't be the only one tired of being asked to support extra gun privileges for one government employee or another. We need legislation that actually is a benefit to all Michiganders!

+1

Not everyone here agrees with you, but it appears most do.

[Quaamik]

It has been a long, long time since any legislation passed that expanded my ability to own or use a firearm. I can't be the only one tired of being asked to support extra gun privileges for one government employee or another. We need legislation that actually is a benefit to all Michiganders!

+2

At this point we don't even have to eliminate a CEZ to gain ground on where we can carry. Examples:

The 2500 seat limit: This has been interperted to apply to theaters (where less than 2500 seat in one viewing, but more than 2500 in the building), buildings that are occassionaly used for entertainment events even when they are being used for fairs and flea markets and open air events with no real "seating". We could "win" by simply getting the legislature to define it better. This shouldn't be that hard of an issue.

The courts have ruled in at least one case that a CPL holder carrying openly on school property is violating the CEZ. Having the legislature clarify that the CEZs ONLY apply to concealed carry (regardless of if the perosn has a CPL) would be a win.

I understand the CEZ for churches on the grounds of allowing a religious group to operate thier property without interfeerence from the goverment. But simply forcing them to post thier property to enforce it would be a win (changing the default to firearms are NOT prohibited unless the church property is posted).

If you really think that there is no support for outright elimination of a CEZ then why not those? They are low hanging fruit we should be able to get through (at least as easily as an exemption for any special group). I'm sure there is other "low hanging fruit" that I haven't thought of.

[SADAacp]

Something else to consider, which BTW, makes the CEZ's under 28.425o even more senseless, is the fact that other than some hospitals and schools, they're all private property. Even if 28.425o didn't exist or it was repealed, they would still be CEZ's if posted. Even if the current CEZ's were not posted, some you still have metal detectors and/or security to deal with. The point is, that even if 28.425o was repealed, you're not always going to be allowed to carry, there are and always will be exceptions for LE of course.

[Knightrider03m]

I'm more worried about the CPL having an expiration date vs PFZ. Once a person have a CPL, it should be good for life.

[TheQ]

I'm more worried about the CPL having an expiration date vs PFZ. Once a person have a CPL, it should be good for life.
Doing that jeopardizes our reciprocity.

[SADAacp]

Doing that jeopardizes our reciprocity.

How so? It seems to be working out okay in Indiana. Not as many states recognize Indiana's LTCH compared to those who accept our CPL's but I don't think it has anything to do with their lifetime LTCH option.

[TheQ]

Not as many states recognize Indiana's LTCH compared to those who accept our CPL's but I don't think it has anything to do with their lifetime LTCH option.


That's precisely what some of it has to do with. Some states won't recognize a CPL with a longer life. Maybe somebody here can chime in with which states precisely.

[appliancebrad]

Length of the permit may be an issue in setting reciprocity. The much bigger issue though is that Michigan CPL holders are exempt from NICS checks. That doesn't say that some sellers won't still make the call on you but they don't have to. BATFE will not grant the exemtion to a state where the permit lasts longer than 5 years.

[Tallbear]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/22/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[KeithD]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/22/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Where gun bills are sent to die...

[TheQ]

Where gun bills are sent to die...

+1

[Smokepole]

Here's the way I look at it. The more exemptions we add, the less people that there will be around to lobby once we want to get rid of the PFZs for good. Do you think the special classes will lobby for the rest of us once they have their cake?

We can agree on that!
...And, it looks like we have yet another "special class" of citizens on the way!


2011 House Bill 4435: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception (House Roll Call 128)

Passed 99 to 9 in the House on March 22, 2012, to revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired state probation officers who have concealed pistol licenses from the restrictions.
View All of House Bill 4435: History, Amendments & Comments (http://michiganvotes.org/2011-HB-4435)
The vote was 99 in favor, 9 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 128)


Link (http://michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=610998&Print=true)

[luckless]

2011 House Bill 4435: Revise “gun free zone” CPL exception (House Roll Call 128)

Passed 99 to 9 in the House on March 22, 2012, to revise the “gun free zone” provision of the concealed pistol permit law to exempt retired state probation officers who have concealed pistol licenses from the restrictions.
View All of House Bill 4435: History, Amendments & Comments (http://michiganvotes.org/2011-HB-4435)
The vote was 99 in favor, 9 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 128)


Link (http://michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=610998&Print=true)


That's exactly the kind of thing that irritates me about our "pro-gun" house and senate! More like pro-state employee. It seems like they believe the only ones who can be trusted in pfzs are people who work for, or have worked for, the government.

[Smokepole]

That's exactly the kind of thing that irritates me about our "pro-gun" house and senate! More like pro-state employee. It seems like they believe the only ones who can be trusted in pfzs are people who work for, or have worked for, the government.
99-9, that's pretty impressive.
...Just too bad that gun owners in this state don't have that kind of clout.

[langenc]

We've not removed a single Pistol Free Zone since 2002. Time to rethink strategy on the issue.

There simply isn't support in the Legislature to remove them all. Gun owners can't get together and concentrate on one or two to remove. So we need a different plan.

While neither I or SAFR support any more members of the law enforcement or legal community being given the exemption, perhaps it's time we talk about a broader group of people being added to the exemption list.

I had a conversation with a legislative aid a few months back regarding how the firearms community would accept a two tiered system of permits. That is keep what we have right now but add a couple of addition requirements to gain access to the No Carry Zones. His thoughts were a couple years with your current permit and perhaps an additional 10 hours of documented training. While I don't support the idea, it's a place to start a discussion.


Second para says ..."isnt support to remove......"

Time to make support and to get rid or registration.

On the other hand if we (the employeers) dont care why should the legislature (employees) care?? We get what we deserve..in action and quality of legislators. How many people here, or that you know, will say "Oh I dont vote in the primary." Many races are determined in primaries.

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

DATE: Wednesday, October 17, 2012

TIME: 9:00 AM

PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933

PHONE: Lauren Michalak (373-5323)
Committee Clerk

AGENDA


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

[Tallbear]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 10/15/2012 Analysis File Added

[Pit Bull]

I know that there are some who will jump on me for what I'm about to say, but please READ this before you reply. I happen to be a Corrections Officer for the MDOC and have been for 28 years and am also a NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, Training Counselor and FFL Dealer. I HEAR and FEEL what you are saying about having 2 separate tiers of CPL holders, and I do really believe that no one persons life is more valuable than another - even because of your employment, but understand why this situation is so.

I can only speak for myself, but believe that the others that this applies to understands where I am coming from. As a Corrections Officer I have been assaulted NUMEROUS time in the commission of my duties - pulled shanks on, punched, kicked, bit, etc.... I have a stack of discharge papers from the local ER to prove this.... I have stopped at least 3-4 inmates from escaping by chasing them across the yard and pulling them off the perimeter fence, and have been involved in many forced cell extractions. This is just part of my job, one that I willingly do that places me in peril, that makes me more likely to be the victim of an attack from either a former convict, their family, or friends/gang members, etc.... And because I am out in the public eye at times transporting offenders to/from hospitals, court, visiting room duties, etc.... and am or can be recognized, and anyone could find me going to/from work, etc... I can literally have a target on my back and not even know it.... This is not being paranoid - this is a serious possibility. I believe the "average" person does not share this same situation.

There was a MDOC officer killed this past year after work in the Metro-Detroit area - in uniform - by an unknown gunman that is still being investigated. It has been thought to have had a connection to his Job. Just like any other person in the Criminal Justice/Law Enforcement community, just taking off the uniform at the end of the shift doesn't sometimes end the extra danger we face because of what we do.

Again, I understand your frustration.... I now am under this system... I have a work issued permit that I can carry anywhere I have to... ON DUTY... but after work, under my County issued State CPL, I can't be trusted to do the right thing in a place I just left from while on duty???? This makes no sense to me. I even asked my County Gun Board for the exemption and was told NO. I did get some support from the MSP represenative who said if it was up to him, he would approve it, but the Chair is the County Prosecutor, and he said no, because my job wasn't specifically listed in the law for the exemption.

Whenever I talk to others about this, I DO ADVOCATE for all who have CPL's and speak of doing away with all CEZ's, but am not angry at those who were given an exemption.... Hopefully we can advocate for one another and not be split or divided among ourselves because of bureaucracy and address those who make these laws and get them changed.... It won't be easy, but we are making some progress... just going to take some time. Vote for those who support these changes....

Pit Bull

[45/70fan]

Pit Bull, years ago when I retired from a federal position that required me to deal with criminals I tried to get a Michigan carry permit under the old system. I was denied by the board, specifically the prosecutor. I went on a campaign to replace him for a more gun friendly prosecutor. The former prosecutor was replaced and is now practicing law without many clients. Hint, hint :smile:
I then got my permit, then the law changed. You are now under a system that is severely flawed and still doesn't recognize a full 2nd Amendment right.
When the shall issue system was being considered I and many others pushed to just change one word: May issue to Shall issue. that didn't happen because of a couple of individuals pushing the bill wanting to get their name on it. We now have a system that has done more harm than good for the advancement of gun rights.
We need to all push together for change and not allow divisions or separation from within to dilute our purpose.

[Leader]

Sorry Pit Bull but you won't get my support to make you special.

You would get my support if you campaigned to prohibit police, judges, politicians and all other special people from carrying anyplace all of us can't carry.

[G22]

While I can certainly understand and sympathize with your situation Pit Bull, you have to understand the animosity created each time a special interest group is granted privileges up and beyond those of the general population.

The attitude after the fact has, for the majority of those who are allowed these privileges, been one of abandonment.
That's if those few were even advocating for the average citizen in the first place.

It's good to know you are not that way, but the majority unfortunately is, and without every single advocate we can get, were screwed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot put my support behind this type of special interest legislation. I can however strongly support legislation that benefits all, including those interests, if that is ever introduced.

[luckless]

I even asked my County Gun Board for the exemption and was told NO. I did get some support from the MSP represenative who said if it was up to him, he would approve it, but the Chair is the County Prosecutor, and he said no, because my job wasn't specifically listed in the law for the exemption.

Pit Bull


Even if all three members of the board wanted to give you an unrestricted license, the CPL laws don't allow for it. Unfortunately, when "shall issue" passed, "shall not issue" was also passed.

[Quaamik]

Even if all three members of the board wanted to give you an unrestricted license, the CPL laws don't allow for it. Unfortunately, when "shall issue" passed, "shall not issue" was also passed.

When has it mattered if the law allowed for it? Really now, if all three voted for it, and they put the little check mark on the license, jsut who would have prevented it?

PitBull, I feel for ya. I really do. But time and time again i have been asked to support this group or that group being able to carry where I am told I cannot. While I have seen individuals from those proffessions who have special exemptions work for repeal of all PFZs, I've seen no widespread support among them. In fact, I've seen more resistance. I will not support any more dilution or any more increase in the number of professions granted special exemptions.

[movinggreen]

ye . that may right...:spiral:

[Tallbear]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 11/8/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

[TheQ]

HB 4435 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-4435)
Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain retired corrections officers. Amends sec. 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425o).
Last Action: 11/8/2012 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

Time for me to start writing emails to generate phone calls to get this bill defeated *sighs*

[Pit Bull]

Even if all three members of the board wanted to give you an unrestricted license, the CPL laws don't allow for it. Unfortunately, when "shall issue" passed, "shall not issue" was also passed.

There are some counties that ALREADY issuing UNRESTRICTED CPL's to MDOC employees saying something to the effect that because they are "corrections officers", they are qualified or under this law.... my County doesn't interpret it this way.... I know several who's County issued CPL's are marked exempt.

Pit Bull

[Pit Bull]

Sorry Pit Bull but you won't get my support to make you special.

You would get my support if you campaigned to prohibit police, judges, politicians and all other special people from carrying anyplace all of us can't carry.


Not asking you to "support" me nor did anywhere in my post did I say I was "special" - I'm not like that. What I did say is that by virtue of what I do for a living, I am placed in a predicament that places me in danger of retaliation or assault more than the average Joe who is working in a Factory, restaurant, farming, etc..... and I understand where it comes from.....

Also, it doesn't make sense to me to be mad at or say that just because I wasn't on the list or included to be on it to say if I can't do it no one can. I bet if you were in my situation, you would feel the same.

Pit Bull

[TheQ]

Not asking you to "support" me nor did anywhere in my post did I say I was "special" - I'm not like that. What I did say is that by virtue of what I do for a living, I am placed in a predicament that places me in danger of retaliation or assault more than the average Joe who is working in a Factory, restaurant, farming, etc..... and I understand where it comes from.....

Also, it doesn't make sense to me to be mad at or say that just because I wasn't on the list or included to be on it to say if I can't do it no one can. I bet if you were in my situation, you would feel the same.

Pit Bull

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pit Bull.

I've queued up an email to be sent out Monday morning. My record at killing bills this session is 3 for 3.

I work for the Dept. of Treasury to make their tax collection systems better. People hate me because of it and I am at more risk then the average joe. Can I get exempt too?

[KeithD]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pit Bull.

I've queued up an email to be sent out Monday morning. My record at killing bills this session is 3 for 3.

I work for the Dept. of Treasury to make their tax collection systems better. People hate me because of it and I am at more risk then the average joe. Can I get exempt too?


You must be connected well to get 3 bills killed all by your lonesome. If your that well connected why don't you just get a good bill passed that benefits everyone? :roll:

[Pit Bull]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Pit Bull.

I've queued up an email to be sent out Monday morning. My record at killing bills this session is 3 for 3.

I work for the Dept. of Treasury to make their tax collection systems better. People hate me because of it and I am at more risk then the average joe. Can I get exempt too?

Why all the hostile tones from some of you guys???? Q, I don't have a "bubble" to bust, nor in any of my posts have I said I'm better than or more deserving than ANYONE else to be allowed to be considered for an exemption, but that I understand THEIR, the LEGISLATURES reasoning for doing so.... And although you do probably have a difficult job, and people - ALL PEOPLE - hate taxes, most people you affect don't even see your face or can attribute YOUR influence as to the cause of their tax issues.

When is the last time you had someone throw a cup of urine mixed with feces on you in your job.... had to have a fight with someone trying to take your head off with a chair or pool cue, or mop handle - been attempted to be bit by someone infected with HIV... trying to infect YOU!!! I've been there.

Also, If you or anyone else can lobby for or make a compelling argument as to your need to be exempt, I'm not mad at you .... Hell, I'm HAPPY. I think Cab Drivers, Pizza Delivery Drivers and late night Convenience Store Clerks should be added to the list as well for the dangers they face.

Pit Bull

[SADAacp]

There are some counties that ALREADY issuing UNRESTRICTED CPL's to MDOC employees saying something to the effect that because they are "corrections officers", they are qualified or under this law.... my County doesn't interpret it this way.... I know several who's County issued CPL's are marked exempt.

Pit Bull

The exemption under 28.425o, for CO's, ONLY applies to county CO's and not state CO's. Why? I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to exempt county and not state, but it is what it is.

[luckless]

There are some counties that ALREADY issuing UNRESTRICTED CPL's to MDOC employees saying something to the effect that because they are "corrections officers", they are qualified or under this law.... my County doesn't interpret it this way.... I know several who's County issued CPL's are marked exempt.

Pit Bull
Certain members of MDOC are qualified under the current legislation. The qualified employees are members of extraction teams (basically).

[TheQ]

You must be connected well to get 3 bills killed all by your lonesome. If your that well connected why don't you just get a good bill passed that benefits everyone? :roll:


Just there are a good number of folks willing to make noise. Earlier this year there was a bill that would exempt PI employees. It was up for a hearing in committee. Michigan Open Carry leadership generated lots of calls/emails and zap...bill died.

I worked my azz off to push SB 59 S-3, to no avail :(

[shoxroxice]

Also, If you or anyone else can lobby for or make a compelling argument as to your need to be exempt, I'm not mad at you .... Hell, I'm HAPPY. I think Cab Drivers, Pizza Delivery Drivers and late night Convenience Store Clerks should be added to the list as well for the dangers they face.


Instead of creating special classes of people, instead of adding more confusing laws, restrictions and regulations, and instead of pitting responsible gun owners against each other for rights to be classified as 'privileges' - why doesn't everyone get a frickin' clue and work together to eliminate PFZ's period?

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (not just a select few)

[Smokepole]

Instead of creating special classes of people, instead of adding more confusing laws, restrictions and regulations, and instead of pitting responsible gun owners against each other for rights to be classified as 'privileges' - why doesn't everyone get a frickin' clue and work together to eliminate PFZ's period?

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL (not just a select few)

Because some people think they're "special".
...Contrary to what they say, if they really felt "only" equal to you, they would work to get "equal protection under the law" for everybody.

When they work in only their own self interest, they are actually working AGAINST yours.

[TheQ]

Because some people think they're "special".
...Contrary to what they say, if they really felt "only" equal to you, they would work to get "equal protection under the law" for everybody.

When they work in only their own self interest, they are actually working AGAINST yours.

Agreed.

MOC would support any effort to eliminate any given PFZs (Pick bars or movie theaters, for example), provided we eliminated those PFZs for EVERYONE. We will ACTIVELY oppose the creation of more "special" people.


Picture a giant circle. This circle represents everyone who can't carry in PFZs. This circle also represents a pissed off block of voters. Each time you carve a chunk out of the circle, there's fewer pissed off voters to make a ruckus to get the problem fixed. It if for this reason we will actively oppose these measures. ...that and whatever happened to equality for all, yada yada?

[matthew7]

Sounds to me like alot of people on here are acting a little childish. If you can't have it then you don't want anyone to have it. Grow up!

[westcliffe01]

I think the irritation is about the violation of a God given right which is protected by the constitution, the violator being the state government. It is not a childish matter, it is the same issue that on a broader scale lead to the american revolution.

[Roundballer]

Sounds to me like alot of people on here are acting a little childish. If you can't have it then you don't want anyone to have it. Grow up!
One by one there have been a multitude of "special exemptions" written into this (and other) laws. We are sick of these groups getting special treatment for themselves, but when we ask for something similar, they (their hierarchy) comes out against us. The MSP has been against us on everything, yet "they" get all of the exemptions. They are no better than we are, some would even claim that there is a higher rate of criminal activity within police forces than there is in the general populous.

Laws should apply to ALL, EQUALLY!

Here is what the list of exemptions would look like if this passes:


(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
(a) An individual licensed under this act who is a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the law enforcement agency stating that the retired police officer or law enforcement officer retired in good standing.
(b) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is employed or contracted by an entity described under subsection (1) to provide security services and is required by his or her employer or the terms of a contract to carry a concealed firearm on the premises of the employing or contracting entity.
(c) An individual who is licensed as a private investigator or private detective under the professional investigator licensure act, 1965 PA 285, MCL 338.821 to 338.851.
(d) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department or who is licensed under this act and is a retired corrections officer of a county sheriff's department. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the sheriff's department stating that the retired corrections officer retired in good standing.
(e) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.
(f) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a member of a sheriff's posse.
(g) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is an auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's department.
(h) An individual who is licensed under this act and who is a parole, or probation, or corrections officer of the department of corrections or who is licensed under this act and is a retired parole, probation, or corrections officer of the department of corrections. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a letter from the department of corrections stating that the retired parole, probation, or corrections officer retired in good standing.
(i) A state court judge or state court retired judge who is licensed under this act. The concealed weapon licensing board may require a state court retired judge to obtain and carry a letter from the judicial tenure commission stating that the state court retired judge is in good standing as authorized under section 30 of article VI of the state constitution of 1963, and rules promulgated under that section, in order to qualify under this subdivision.
That is nine different "groups" that are some how "better" or somehow "more needful" than the rest of us.....BS

Most of those "groups" don't require anything more that to be "licensed under this act" to qualify..... Why can't we?

This one is now sitting at the same place in the cue as HB 5225 et-all. I wonder where they will focus the attention!

[TheQ]

Sounds to me like alot of people on here are acting a little childish. If you can't have it then you don't want anyone to have it. Grow up!


Just a question:

Are you currently exempt?

Will you be if this law passes?

Thanks...just trying to understand everyone's motives.

[SingingChris t]

Why all the hostile tones from some of you guys???? Q, I don't have a "bubble" to bust, nor in any of my posts have I said I'm better than or more deserving than ANYONE else to be allowed to be considered for an exemption...

When is the last time you had someone throw a cup of urine mixed with feces on you in your job.... had to have a fight with someone trying to take your head off with a chair or pool cue, or mop handle - been attempted to be bit by someone infected with HIV... trying to infect YOU!!! I've been there.
Pit Bull


Umm, that statement right there :yeahthat: seems to imply that you think you are more deserving than the average citizen.

By the way Pit Bull, since you are already exempt from CEZ's when engaged in your official duties when was the last time you had somebody throw a cup of urine mixed with feces on you... had to have a fight with someone trying to take your head off with a chair or pool cue, or mop handle - been attempted to be bit by someone infected with HIV... WHEN OFF DUTY?

[KeithD]

By the way Pit Bull, since you are already exempt from CEZ's when engaged in your official duties when was the last time you had somebody throw a cup of urine mixed with feces on you... had to have a fight with someone trying to take your head off with a chair or pool cue, or mop handle - been attempted to be bit by someone infected with HIV... WHEN OFF DUTY?

hell thats a typical tuesday night for me...

[TheQ]

Email went out. I know many of you are subscribed, I hope you'll take action....

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=9d4cc3b1f4

[matthew7]

Yes if this is passed I will be exempt. Unless you are or have been a corrections officer, then I don't expect you to understand. I'm not saying I am better than anyone else. How many of you have had to work face to face, day in and day out with some of the states worst criminals? Very few of you I'm sure. How many of you have had your life threatened or had your familys life threatened? Very few. Unless you have walked in my shoes then you have NO idea the type of danger that I can be in if I run into one of these scumbags. You may not agree with me and that is your choice, but to get angry about someone else being allowed the exemption is rather selfish.

[Leader]

Yes if this is passed I will be exempt. Unless you are or have been a corrections officer, then I don't expect you to understand. I'm not saying I am better than anyone else. How many of you have had to work face to face, day in and day out with some of the states worst criminals? Very few of you I'm sure. How many of you have had your life threatened or had your familys life threatened? Very few. Unless you have walked in my shoes then you have NO idea the type of danger that I can be in if I run into one of these scumbags. You may not agree with me and that is your choice, but to get angry about someone else being allowed the exemption is rather selfish.

Then like we keep saying... get all your support behind getting PFZ's eliminated for EVERYONE.
That will solve your problem.

[45/70fan]

... You may not agree with me and that is your choice, but to get angry about someone else being allowed the exemption is rather selfish.

I do not agree with you and I consider you arrogantly, self serving selfish.

[TheQ]

Yes if this is passed I will be exempt.
...
but to get angry about someone else being allowed the exemption is rather selfish.



Thanks for helping us understand your motives.

How wold you feel if we didn't exempt you but rather we exempted anyone who was a commercial fisherman? Would you support that move if you weren't already exempt? Would you oppose it?

[TheQ]

FWIW, I know the MSP would be neutral on PFZ repeal as a standalone bill (ex SB 58 ).

[shoxroxice]

Yes if this is passed I will be exempt .... You may not agree with me and that is your choice, but to get angry about someone else being allowed the exemption is rather selfish.

You're confusing selfish. What you're saying is that the people who want ALL CPL holders to be exempt from PFZ's, not just themselves is somehow selfish. What you're saying is that you just want to be exempt, and screw everyone else... that is actually selfish. Instead of just working to get yourself exempt, why don't you help work towards getting all CPL holders exempt and then you will also be exempt and someone else might be able to help you protect yourself if you were to ever need it in a PFZ.

[G22]

What I have a MAJOR problem with is our legislators who LIED to us, ABANDONED us, and somehow now have the time and resources to make this happen for a select few.

As I've stated many times in this thread, I cannot support this legislation, and I most certainly won't forget this humiliating betrayal come election day.

What LIES will they attempt to tell you in order to get elected next time?
Even the sponsors of this bill were too spineless, too gutless, to force this to a vote even with an overwhelming bipartisan majority that could have overrode a Governors veto.

That being said, I don't blame the Corrections Officers for wanting this legislation to go through. Anyone in their position would be a fool to oppose it.

[BOSS302]

FWIW, I know the MSP would be neutral on PFZ repeal as a standalone bill (ex SB 58).

What else was attached?

[matthew7]

...That being said, I don't blame the Corrections Officers for wanting this legislation to go through. Anyone in their position would be a fool to oppose it.


Thanks G22,
At least someone on here has some common sense.


I never said that I don't favor all CCW holders to be exempt. Some of you are putting words in my mouth that I NEVER said. I guess there's no point in trying to talk any sense to many of you. You're too blinded by your jealousy in this matter. Good luck to you anyway, I hope one day you will be able to be exempt also.

[matthew7]

By the way Q, I don't know many commercial fisherman that have had their lives threatened. Your statement is rather weak and ignorant.

[maustin195]

By the way Q, I don't know many commercial fisherman that have had their lives threatened. Your statement is rather weak and ignorant.
So being threatened is a good reason for an exemption? If so then anyone that works for Detrooit Public Schools should qualify. I worked there 33 years and would be threatened on a weekly basis. Had to carry a hammer just to stay alive. Rocks through my car windows while driving many times. No I don't think it qualified me anymore than it qualifies you. It should be everyone or no one.

[matthew7]

jeal·ous·y
   [jel-uh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural jeal·ous·ies for 4.
1.
jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.

[G22]

So being threatened is a good reason for an exemption? If so then anyone that works for Detrooit Public Schools should qualify. I worked there 33 years and would be threatened on a weekly basis. Had to carry a hammer just to stay alive. Rocks through my car windows while driving many times. No I don't think it qualified me anymore than it qualifies you. It should be everyone or no one.


I think the blame is being misplaced on the recipients of this bill when it actually should rest on the legislators who are pushing it and left us in the dust.

[matthew7]

Agreed.

[Unistat76]

I think the blame is being misplaced on the recipients of this bill when it actually should rest on the legislators who are pushing it and left us in the dust.

Hear, hear.

[luckless]

jeal·ous·y
   [jel-uh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural jeal·ous·ies for 4.
1.
jealous resentment against a rival, a person enjoying success or advantage, etc., or against another's success or advantage itself.
While you are at it, check out the definition of the word "elitist".

No one here is arguing that you, personally, shouldn't be able to protect yourself anywhere you choose to be. The argument is more about this legislation promoting a failed strategy.

The legislation, itself, is just a sop for MDOC employees to help improve the gop's image with public sector union members. I think the chances of this passing in the lame duck session is slim.

[Bronson]

why don't you help work towards getting all CPL holders exempt

Because he's special and better than the rest of us.

Bronson

[shurhouse]

So unless a person works for law enforcement they are not in danger. What about the teacher as stated, what about the business owner that refuses to be shook down. What about the person that has taken a life by protecting themselves and are now be threatened or stalked by the bad guys friends and family. Don't they deserve to have an exemption to protect themselves just like yourself. It's not a question of if you deserve to be exempt or not it's a question of if everyone works to just get a specific class of person exempt than the others that also have a need to be exempt will never have that right. If the firearms community helps you get that exemption, how hard will you work to get that exemption for everyone else?

[Smokepole]

Gentlemen,
...Let's refrain from personal attacks, and focus on the topic itself.
Thank you.
<Mod>

[TheQ]

By the way Q, I don't know many commercial fisherman that have had their lives threatened. Your statement is rather weak and ignorant.


I think you miss the point. Many of the arguments you made could fit in with many special interest groups. So what makes you and your group more special than the rest of us?

My example was purposely absurd to prove that point.

[Leader]

I think you miss the point. Many of the arguments you made could fit in with many special interest groups. So what makes you and your group more special than the rest of us?

My example was purposely absurd to prove that point.

I think truck drivers should be exempt, they have a more dangerous job then cops or prison guards.
And more people are pissed at them then are in ALL the prisons combined and they are already out there with them.

[TheQ]

I think truck drivers should be exempt, they have a more dangerous job then cops or prison guards.
And more people are pissed at them then are in ALL the prisons combined and they are already out there with them.

I agree. I think we should also exempt anyone who works for DTMB (michigan.gov/dtmb). The computer systems they operate are so screwed up every civil servant that uses them gets angry. When they find out someone physically near them works for DTMB they are likely to get violent.

BTW, do we know anyone who works for DTMB? :???: ;-)

[Pit Bull]

Umm, that statement right there :yeahthat: seems to imply that you think you are more deserving than the average citizen.

By the way Pit Bull, since you are already exempt from CEZ's when engaged in your official duties when was the last time you had somebody throw a cup of urine mixed with feces on you... had to have a fight with someone trying to take your head off with a chair or pool cue, or mop handle - been attempted to be bit by someone infected with HIV... WHEN OFF DUTY?

Won't even comment on any more of these ridiculous statements after this. I DO SUPPORT GETTING RID OF ALL PFZ'S, CEZ'S, ETC... FOR EVERYONE - AND STAND TO GET MORE OUT OF IT IF IT DOES HAPPEN THAN JUST BEING ABLE TO CARRY MYSELF - AS A NRA INSTRUCTOR, I CAN SCHEDULE AS MANY 6HR CLASSES AS I CAN STOMACH AND GET PAID DOING SOMETHING I LOVE TO DO - TRAIN PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. SO, AT ABOUT SAY $100 A POP, I COULD MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT MONEY NOR GREED OR JEALOUSY FUELS MY MOTIVES. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF MISPLACED ANGER HERE - BE MAD AT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO LIE - TO US, AND THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE AND DIVIDE US.... THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATORS WANT US TO DO... IF THEY CANT DEFEAT US COLLECTIVELY THEY WILL DIVIDE US FROM WITHIN AND get us to beat ourselves. Also, Singing Chris t, there have been many times off duty that I have walked away from trouble or avoided problems - took the high road - because it is the right thing to do... that is what we are all trained to do. I will make e-mails to my legislators supporting the repeal of all pfz's (SB 59) and wait to see the outcome of 4435.

Pit Bull

[TheQ]

Won't even comment on any more of these ridiculous statements after this. I DO SUPPORT GETTING RID OF ALL PFZ'S, CEZ'S, ETC... FOR EVERYONE - AND STAND TO GET MORE OUT OF IT IF IT DOES HAPPEN THAN JUST BEING ABLE TO CARRY MYSELF - AS A NRA INSTRUCTOR, I CAN SCHEDULE AS MANY 6HR CLASSES AS I CAN STOMACH AND GET PAID DOING SOMETHING I LOVE TO DO - TRAIN PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. SO, AT ABOUT SAY $100 A POP, I COULD MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT MONEY NOR GREED OR JEALOUSY FUELS MY MOTIVES. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF MISPLACED ANGER HERE - BE MAD AT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO LIE - TO US, AND THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE AND DIVIDE US.... THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATORS WANT US TO DO... IF THEY CANT DEFEAT US COLLECTIVELY THEY WILL DIVIDE US FROM WITHIN AND get us to beat ourselves. Also, Singing Chris t, there have been many times off duty that I have walked away from trouble or avoided problems - took the high road - because it is the right thing to do... that is what we are all trained to do. I will make e-mails to my legislators supporting the repeal of all pfz's (SB 59) and wait to see the outcome of 4435.

Pit Bull

We are angry with our legislators. That's why we (MOC) have suggested people contact them to oppose this bill and demand a vote on SB 59.

[Leader]

Won't even comment on any more of these ridiculous statements after this. I DO SUPPORT GETTING RID OF ALL PFZ'S, CEZ'S, ETC... FOR EVERYONE - AND STAND TO GET MORE OUT OF IT IF IT DOES HAPPEN THAN JUST BEING ABLE TO CARRY MYSELF - AS A NRA INSTRUCTOR, I CAN SCHEDULE AS MANY 6HR CLASSES AS I CAN STOMACH AND GET PAID DOING SOMETHING I LOVE TO DO - TRAIN PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. SO, AT ABOUT SAY $100 A POP, I COULD MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT MONEY NOR GREED OR JEALOUSY FUELS MY MOTIVES. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF MISPLACED ANGER HERE - BE MAD AT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO LIE - TO US, AND THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE AND DIVIDE US.... THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATORS WANT US TO DO... IF THEY CANT DEFEAT US COLLECTIVELY THEY WILL DIVIDE US FROM WITHIN AND get us to beat ourselves. Also, Singing Chris t, there have been many times off duty that I have walked away from trouble or avoided problems - took the high road - because it is the right thing to do... that is what we are all trained to do. I will make e-mails to my legislators supporting the repeal of all pfz's (SB 59) and wait to see the outcome of 4435.

Pit Bull

And that's one of the reasons I can't support SB59 either.

[Quaamik]

And that's one of the reasons I can't support SB59 either.


While I don't like the requirement for additional training under SB-59, I see it as an acceptable compromise. I feel for those who cannot afford the added training, but they are not locked out of getting a CPL, not of getting exempted from the PFZs – they just may have to save a while longer to get that exemption.


On the other hand, exemptions based on what a persons job is or was are granting privlidges to a favored class. Just look at who has exemptions:

1) ….......retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer --- ex government employees
2) …....... corrections officer of a county sheriff's department or ... a retired corrections officer of a county sheriff's department --- current and ex government employees
3)…....... a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer ---current government employees.
4) …....... a member of a sheriff's posse --- government contract employees
5) ….......auxiliary officer or reserve officer --- government employees (though they may be unpaid)
6) …....... a parole, or probation, or corrections officer ... or ... retired parole, probation, or corrections officer --- current and ex government employees
7)…....... state court judge or state court retired judge ---current and ex government employees


Only two profession share exempted that are not government employees. One, private investigators, is a profession that police officers who leave law enforcement prior to retirement favor. The other, security services that are required (note – not permitted) to carry a concealed weapon as part of their employment, would have created a major problem preventing anyone but ex (or moonlighting) government employees from providing those services had they not been given an exemption.


This is favoritism pure and simple. These are the same people who, under the old system, stood a good chance of receiving a “general” license.


Enough is enough. When comes the whole “equal under the eyes of the law” thing with respect to concealed carry?

[maustin195]

Won't even comment on any more of these ridiculous statements after this. I DO SUPPORT GETTING RID OF ALL PFZ'S, CEZ'S, ETC... FOR EVERYONE - AND STAND TO GET MORE OUT OF IT IF IT DOES HAPPEN THAN JUST BEING ABLE TO CARRY MYSELF - AS A NRA INSTRUCTOR, I CAN SCHEDULE AS MANY 6HR CLASSES AS I CAN STOMACH AND GET PAID DOING SOMETHING I LOVE TO DO - TRAIN PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. SO, AT ABOUT SAY $100 A POP, I COULD MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT MONEY NOR GREED OR JEALOUSY FUELS MY MOTIVES. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF MISPLACED ANGER HERE - BE MAD AT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO LIE - TO US, AND THOSE WHO WOULD ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE AND DIVIDE US.... THAT IS WHAT THE LEGISLATORS WANT US TO DO... IF THEY CANT DEFEAT US COLLECTIVELY THEY WILL DIVIDE US FROM WITHIN AND get us to beat ourselves. Also, Singing Chris t, there have been many times off duty that I have walked away from trouble or avoided problems - took the high road - because it is the right thing to do... that is what we are all trained to do. I will make e-mails to my legislators supporting the repeal of all pfz's (SB 59) and wait to see the outcome of 4435.

Pit Bull
Seems funny that you can schedule 6 hour classes as a NRA instructor when the NRA course requires a minimum of 8 hours.

[Pit Bull]

Seems funny that you can schedule 6 hour classes as a NRA instructor when the NRA course requires a minimum of 8 hours.

Wouldn't be a NRA course..... As an Instructor for the NRA as well as a Firearm Instructor for the MDOC, I could create a class that meets the requirements of the law, yet recognized because of my training background. I could add the requirements to my own made certificates stating the course complies with "section 5j of 1927 PA 372" or what ever it needed to say and I'm sure it would be good. All I have to do is state this course is "not NRA approved or sanctioned" to be good there (not violate my NRA TRAINING REQUIREMENTS)... I'd make up my own hand outs and my own course of fire that comply with the law.

Pit Bull

[Bronson]

I could create a class that meets the requirements of the law

Hmmm, could you? The law requires that the program be certified by the State of MI or a state or nationwide firearms training organization. You could design the program but it would need the rubber stamp of either the State of MI or some higher power from a recognized training organization. According to the plain wording of the law you can't just make up your own course regardless of your training background. The course has to be sanctioned by either the State or a recognized training org. Now I don't know what's involved with getting the State to put their rubber stamp on a homebuilt course...maybe you do.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pxqvmv2f1ekifx55nyjaf52p))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425j&query=on&highlight=concealed%20AND%20training


(1) A pistol training or safety program described in section 5b(7)(c) meets the requirements for knowledge or training in the safe use and handling of a pistol only if the program consists of not less than 8 hours of instruction and all of the following conditions are met:


(a) The program is certified by this state or a national or state firearms training organization and provides 5 hours of instruction in, but is not limited to providing instruction in, all of the following:


Bronson

[luckless]

Wouldn't be a NRA course..... As an Instructor for the NRA as well as a Firearm Instructor for the MDOC, I could create a class that meets the requirements of the law, yet recognized because of my training background. I could add the requirements to my own made certificates stating the course complies with "section 5j of 1927 PA 372" or what ever it needed to say and I'm sure it would be good. All I have to do is state this course is "not NRA approved or sanctioned" to be good there (not violate my NRA TRAINING REQUIREMENTS)... I'd make up my own hand outs and my own course of fire that comply with the law.

Pit Bull
I think you need to be an MCOLES instructor and training must be conducted at an MCOLES training facility. Your course must be accepted by the state to comply. Currently, the only courses that I know of accepted by the state are the NRA's and MCRGO's course. Only politicians take the MCRGO course and I have never been able to find any info on the content of their course.

I don't want to discourage you. Just don't want you to disappoint your students.

[langenc]

People need to face reality. The chances of us getting a bill passed to get rid of PFZ all together has almost no chance. Period.

While yes I agree that we all should have a right, each exemption class is a chip off the boulder. But if People wantto have an all or nothing mentality, whatever.


This is in the same category as gun REGISTRATION.
No one likes but no one will remove. Police chiefs are beholden to the mayor or city council. They want everyone to be 'safe' so the chief , chief of MSP also, dont rock the boat but 'oppose'. They cant tell you when either law did any good but "let's keep it anyway."

Englers chief of MSP opposed shall/broad issue and it never went cause the gunboard MSP rep had orders to oppose. Our sheriff at the time went w/ the MSP rep and no one got one before shall issue, only the lackeys.