H.B. 5460 Reduce age requirement for certian military

[Tallbear]

HB 5460 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5460)
Weapons; licensing; age requirement for obtaining concealed pistol license; reduce for certain military personnel. Amends sec. 5b of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425b).
Last Action: 3/8/2012 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[Cackler]

It would still be a trick to go before the board. How many people are going to be able to take leave to make an appearance?

[Roundballer]

It would still be a trick to go before the board. How many people are going to be able to take leave to make an appearance?

Prime example why this should also be moved to the Secretary of State!

Some Counties don't require an appearance at all.

Some Counties only require first time applicants to appear.

Some Counties require all to appear, every time.

Luck of the draw?.... In-equal application of law, abuse of power?.....Take your pick.

[xmanhockey7]

I am fully against this bill! I think this will hurt Michigan's perfect reciprocity and I am against the fact you must be in the military to obtain the permit.

[luckless]

I would rather see a law that treats our citizens equally.

[TheQ]

I'm not much of an expert on other state reciprocity rules. How many states would we lose by licensing 18 year olds?

[ChaneyD]

I think prior military service or military retirement should be an eliminator on the requirement to have to take the cpl class.

[xmanhockey7]

I'm not much of an expert on other state reciprocity rules. How many states would we lose by licensing 18 year olds?

Ohio seems to be sticklers about the 18 thing. Texas has a similar law that allows those in the military to get it at 18. Their permit is not recognized in Ohio, for that reason I do believe. I could be wrong but based on other states that are recognized in OH that have similar requirement I think that hurts Texas.

ETA: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/a1132c37-0e60-41fe-88dd-998d85f5cabd/2007-Michigan-Concealed-Carry-Reciprocity-Agreemen.aspx
Look under the "findings" I think because we would be issuing to those under 21 we'd lose reciprocity with them. I think we'd lose Washington as well and possibly West Virginia.

ALSO:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx

Texas No Allows under 21-yrs-old honorably discharged veterans to have license.

[TheQ]

Ohio seems to be sticklers about the 18 thing. Texas has a similar law that allows those in the military to get it at 18. Their permit is not recognized in Ohio, for that reason I do believe. I could be wrong but based on other states that are recognized in OH that have similar requirement I think that hurts Texas.

ETA: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/a1132c37-0e60-41fe-88dd-998d85f5cabd/2007-Michigan-Concealed-Carry-Reciprocity-Agreemen.aspx
Look under the "findings" I think because we would be issuing to those under 21 we'd lose reciprocity with them. I think we'd lose Washington as well and possibly West Virginia.

ALSO:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx

Thanks -- this is revealing. I have placed a call to the Ohio's AG office to inquire what impact this bill would have.

[Cackler]

I think prior military service or military retirement should be an eliminator on the requirement to have to take the cpl class.

What does military training with a rifle have to do with concealed carry?

[zigziggityzoo]

What does military training with a rifle have to do with concealed carry?
Considering the PPITH class is all but worthless to anyone but the greenest of shooters, I'd say that anyone who went through boot camp has the basic grasp they'd need to conceal carry a firearm. The only thing they'd be lacking is an overview of Michigan law, but I got that on my own, dunno about you.

[xmanhockey7]

What does military training with a rifle have to do with concealed carry?
Like LEOs they're seen a people who can be trusted with guns. My friend who fairly recently joined the Army said when he went though basic they never even touched a handgun. FL is looking to pass the same legislation.

[Cackler]

Like LEOs they're seen a people who can be trusted with guns. My friend who fairly recently joined the Army said when he went though basic they never even touched a handgun. FL is looking to pass the same legislation.


What does signing up have to do with "trust"?

It is about familiarity/competency (partly) regarding firearms laws.

Military training simply does not provide that.

[zigziggityzoo]

There should be a separate under-21 CPL then. Like the Vertical driver's license.

[ChaneyD]

What does signing up have to do with "trust"?

It is about familiarity/competency (partly) regarding firearms laws.

Military training simply does not provide that.

I beg to differ. I'm familiar with all kinds of weapons thanks to Uncle Sam. Michigan cpl rules are easy to read up on.

[Tallbear]

I beg to differ. I'm familiar with all kinds of weapons thanks to Uncle Sam. Michigan cpl rules are easy to read up on.

Not everyone that has been in the military has received the training that Army/Marines get.

I was in the Air Force and was trained on the M-16 and never saw one after basic training.

[45/70fan]

Not everyone that has been in the military has received the training that Army/Marines get.

I was in the Air Force and was trained on the M-16 and never saw one after basic training.

REMF's aren't required to and never needed the training.

[Tallbear]

REMF's aren't required to and never needed the training.

Not familiar with that term. Care to explain??

[xmanhockey7]

There should be a separate under-21 CPL then. Like the Vertical driver's license.

I've been saying we should create two classes of licenses. A class 1 would be the permit system we have currently. A class 2 would be a permit that requires no training, be 18 or older, and not so many silly disqualifications. Will the class 2 have great reciprocity? No. Will it allow more people to get a permit and carry in Michigan? Yes!

[ChaneyD]

Not familiar with that term. Care to explain??

Rear Echelon Mother **********

[Tallbear]

REMF's aren't required to and never needed the training.

So, do you believe a 18 year old"REMF" should be allowed to have a CPL?

[DP425]

Going on 12 years combined service Regular Army and Army NG-

This is a bad idea-

#1 may hurt reciprocity

#2 being in the military does not make an 18 or 19 yr old any more likely to make better decisions than his/her civilian counterpart- just look at the discipline records and leave risk assessment paper work and you'll see that for yourself.

#3 citizens should be treated equally, no matter their military affiliation.

#4 this would really only be helpful for NG and Reservists- Active component can't take personal firearms on base concealed, if at all, most in this age group would live in the barracks where they are not allowed possession of personal firearms no matter post policy.


As for eliminating the class requirements for military:

#1 I've see far too many negligent discharges by military persons to believe we as a whole some how have a greater grasp on firearm use and safety than our civilian counterparts

#2 "standard" military firearms training for non-combat jobs is very menial. A range session is far more "structured" to reduce the chance of ND's than you see in the civilian world.

#3, Most of the Army will never use a pistol

#4, Just because YOU researched the legal aspects of carrying does not mean everyone does- giving a free pass on the class to military assumes they will do the research on their own. Any good NCO will tell you- when you assume your lower enlisted will do something without guidance, they won't.

#5 most non-combat job personel have absolutely frightening weapons handling habits- they could use some instruction that does not include "turn toward the tower, keeping your weapon pointed up and down range and move to the range safety to be rodded off the range".


Anyone in the military who doesn't agree with the above- while you are entitled to your own opinion, it would be my opinion that you are delusional.

[45/70fan]

So, do you believe a 18 year old"REMF" should be allowed to have a CPL?

Does it matter how I feel about "REMF's".

[ChaneyD]

I believe the 2nd Amendment is my cpl authority. I do not need the State or Government to tell me when I can or cannot defend myself. Between the ages of 18-21 I'm at the mercy of anyone who wants to do me harm. Over 21 NOW I'm allowed to defend myself. :bs: No where does the Constitution dictate training of any kind nor licensing.

[TheQ]

I just spoke to Rep Santana's office and shared our concerns RE Reciprocity. I told him I have a call into the AG's office in Ohio. I told him I'd share with him the results of the conversation with the Ohio AG.

[DP425]

I believe the 2nd Amendment is my cpl authority. I do not need the State or Government to tell me when I can or cannot defend myself. Between the ages of 18-21 I'm at the mercy of anyone who wants to do me harm. Over 21 NOW I'm allowed to defend myself. :bs: No where does the Constitution dictate training of any kind nor licensing.


Well, the supreme court doesn't seem to feel the same way.

Also I think one could argue, just as every other amendment to the constitution applies to individuals, not the states (essentially how they ruled in heller)... every other amendment is not without limits- neither is the second.

But that's an unpopular view in the gun-rights world; doesn't matter how minimal I view those inherent limits to be.

[xmanhockey7]

Well, the supreme court doesn't seem to feel the same way.

Also I think one could argue, just as every other amendment to the constitution applies to individuals, not the states (essentially how they ruled in heller)... every other amendment is not without limits- neither is the second.

But that's an unpopular view in the gun-rights world; doesn't matter how minimal I view those inherent limits to be.

Sadly the 2nd amendment is the one that has IMHO the most limits despite the "shall not be infringed" wording.

[DP425]

Sadly the 2nd amendment is the one that has IMHO the most limits despite the "shall not be infringed" wording.


Without a doubt. With the 4th most likely coming in second.

[fbuckner]

I think prior military service or military retirement should be an eliminator on the requirement to have to take the cpl class.

Why would that be? I have 2 Marine Sons and while one (the youngest who just turned 20) I would have trusted him with a CPL at 15 and the oldest at 24 I wouldnt trust to carry a squirt gun.

[Quaamik]

Constitutional carry, like AK, AZ & WY have would solve this issue and others.

Make it legal to carry, openly or concealed, without any permit fro 18 and over. If needed to pass the law allow the PFZs to remain.

Continue the current "shall issue" permit system for those 21 and over who whish to travel outside the state. Better yet, use the trainign required under the current permit system to jsutify eliminating the PFZs for those who have permits (as opposed to those who don't).

Not ideal if we had to keep the PFZs, or that those 18 - 20 wouldn't have permits that would be valid in other states, but definately a step forward. The law could also mandate the AG attempt to negotiate non-permit reciprocity with states like VT, AK, AZ and WY.

[xmanhockey7]

Constitutional carry, like AK, AZ & WY have would solve this issue and others.

Make it legal to carry, openly or concealed, without any permit fro 18 and over. If needed to pass the law allow the PFZs to remain.

Continue the current "shall issue" permit system for those 21 and over who whish to travel outside the state. Better yet, use the trainign required under the current permit system to jsutify eliminating the PFZs for those who have permits (as opposed to those who don't).

Not ideal if we had to keep the PFZs, or that those 18 - 20 wouldn't have permits that would be valid in other states, but definately a step forward. The law could also mandate the AG attempt to negotiate non-permit reciprocity with states like VT, AK, AZ and WY.
Problem is AK, AZ, & WY for constitutional carry require the person to be 21. VT is the only constitutional carry state that allows it for those under 21. But I agree we should be 18+ constitutional carry.

[Revdrshad]

While I am all for as many Contitutional rights as possible, There's way too many variables to this issue.

As a former MP I can honestly Say I did not receive nearly as much training as I should have. BUT, Most other states do wave the training requirement for prior military. HOWEVER, the State of Michigan DOES NOT recognize any military training as legal training. (FACT! I believe Mi. is only one of three states that does not recognize military training)

The idea of a "tiered" CPL system is ridiculously comical. We would be grouping CPL holders into facets of "Can" and "Can not" that would become both a nightmare for Police Officers, and an administrative joke for the counties that currently hate the system.

IIRC Michigan DOES allow those service people -In Uniform- traveling to and from military functions (Drill, training, Etc..) to carry WITHOUT a permit, (no age requirement) granted all other aspects of Concealed Carry are followed. (Traffic stop, etc..)

Seems like the idea of allowing 18-20 year olds, having prior service, the right to CPL's becomes Null and Void...

(It did suck being a 20 year old MP and not being able to legally buy pistol ammo though...)

[zigziggityzoo]

While I am all for as many Contitutional rights as possible, There's way too many variables to this issue.

As a former MP I can honestly Say I did not receive nearly as much training as I should have. BUT, Most other states do wave the training requirement for prior military. HOWEVER, the State of Michigan DOES NOT recognize any military training as legal training. (FACT! I believe Mi. is only one of three states that does not recognize military training)

The idea of a "tiered" CPL system is ridiculously comical. We would be grouping CPL holders into facets of "Can" and "Can not" that would become both a nightmare for Police Officers, and an administrative joke for the counties that currently hate the system.

IIRC Michigan DOES allow those service people -In Uniform- traveling to and from military functions (Drill, training, Etc..) to carry WITHOUT a permit, (no age requirement) granted all other aspects of Concealed Carry are followed. (Traffic stop, etc..)

Seems like the idea of allowing 18-20 year olds, having prior service, the right to CPL's becomes Null and Void...

(It did suck being a 20 year old MP and not being able to legally buy pistol ammo though...)

A nightmare for police officers?

We already have:

Restricted Driver's License
Graduated Driver's License
Operator's License
Commercial Driver's License
Chauffer Driver's License

For driver's licenses. Is that a nightmare for officers?

[xmanhockey7]

While I am all for as many Contitutional rights as possible, There's way too many variables to this issue.

As a former MP I can honestly Say I did not receive nearly as much training as I should have. BUT, Most other states do wave the training requirement for prior military. HOWEVER, the State of Michigan DOES NOT recognize any military training as legal training. (FACT! I believe Mi. is only one of three states that does not recognize military training)

The idea of a "tiered" CPL system is ridiculously comical. We would be grouping CPL holders into facets of "Can" and "Can not" that would become both a nightmare for Police Officers, and an administrative joke for the counties that currently hate the system.

IIRC Michigan DOES allow those service people -In Uniform- traveling to and from military functions (Drill, training, Etc..) to carry WITHOUT a permit, (no age requirement) granted all other aspects of Concealed Carry are followed. (Traffic stop, etc..)

Seems like the idea of allowing 18-20 year olds, having prior service, the right to CPL's becomes Null and Void...

(It did suck being a 20 year old MP and not being able to legally buy pistol ammo though...)

I really don't see it as being a nightmare for them. Besides if we moved to a class 1 and class 2 permit in the state of Michigan they would be exactly the same thing.

[ChaneyD]

What does military training with a rifle have to do with concealed carry?

Discipline my friend, discipline.

[Made_in_Michigan]

A nightmare for police officers?

We already have:

Restricted Driver's License
Graduated Driver's License
Operator's License
Commercial Driver's License
Chauffer Driver's License

For driver's licenses. Is that a nightmare for officers?


I don't know, ziggity. I am fairly sure your idea of an under 21 cpl that is MI only is an easy solution for the issue without endangering reciprocity. (if indeed it would, which appears it will.) Best idea I've read here so far.

[xmanhockey7]

Discipline my friend, discipline.
What about those not in the military that are just as responsible/disciplined? Or those in the military who are in it but really aren't that responsible or disciplined?

[45/70fan]

Or those in the military who are in it but really aren't that responsible or disciplined?

They don't last long in the military.

[Revdrshad]

A nightmare for police officers?

We already have:

Restricted Driver's License
Graduated Driver's License
Operator's License
Commercial Driver's License
Chauffer Driver's License

For driver's licenses. Is that a nightmare for officers?

While I understand what you are saying here, I still think this is [I]almost[I] like comparing apples to oranges.
It's not so much a nightmare for officers, as it is an opportunity to impound/arrest/confiscate.

Graduated Drivers' licenses are mainly for time-of-day restrictions, and vehicle passenger limitations. So are you implying an 18-20 CPL holder be... What exactly? Not be able to be in a crowd of his/her friends? Only Carry during certain times of the day? Have to adhere to more Victim Disarmament Zones? Be tiered by amount of range time?
Restricted?? As in only able to carry... When? While carrying a set amount of money? While in a company car? Etc?
As for the other types of licenses, I can only see a direct correlation if you were going to license by gun type or caliber. (Much like a chauffeur license for a driving a taxi) And that sets a scary precident for anti gun rights individuals to argue the point of placing limitations on the rest of us.

I understand what you're trying to say I just can't see how the benefits to society can out weigh the negative connotations.

I can almost understand the point of a class 1 license (21+) and a class 2 license (18-20) for purposes of reciprocity. It just seems like it becomes a moot point for how many laws would need to be modified just to set a nationwide precident.

Like I stated previously, Reservists and National Guardspeople in uniform ARE allowed to carry already... It's not a matter of discipline, it's a matter of threat awareness. These individuals are "targets" while in uniform, and should definitely have the right to defend themselves!!

But, Let's look at the opposite side of the spectrum. Wouldn't we all be furious if the law said "CPL's for certain college students age 18-20?"
Why differentiate just for having had prior military service...

[Quaamik]

.................

Graduated Drivers' licenses are mainly for time-of-day restrictions, and vehicle passenger limitations. So are you implying an 18-20 CPL holder be... What exactly? ..........

While I didn't say it, I'll take a stab at it. How about:

1) A CPL for someone under 21 looks different. Maybe a different color, maybe printed sideways. Also it is stated as a different class / level so we could get other states reciprcocity agreements to honor only a (class1?) Mi CPL if they refused to honor it if issued to those under 18.

2) List bars / places that get most of their income from alcohol sales by the glass as CEZs on the 18 - 20 yr old permits with an exception if they employed there. Keep that restriction even if the CEZ prohibitions are removed from CPLs. Legaly, they are not supposed to be in a bar anyway, so that would just add teeth that if they carried into a bar their CPL could be suspended.



But, Let's look at the opposite side of the spectrum. Wouldn't we all be furious if the law said "CPL's for certain college students age 18-20?"
Why differentiate just for having had prior military service...

The difference is that currently there is NO CPL option for those under 21. This would be (IMHO) a good way to crack open that door. The eventual goal being a CPL availability for anyone over 18.

Mind you that I'd support constitutional carry for 18+, or CPLs of two classes (to preserve reciprocity) for 18+ regardless of military service even better. But currently there is nothing supporting that on the horizon.

[zigziggityzoo]

An 18-20 CPL could have the very same restrictions as a 21+ CPL but not have any of the reciprocity, for all I care. Call it a Michigan only CPL and make it Red instead of Blue.

I just don't want to lose reciprocity for people 21+.

[xmanhockey7]

While I didn't say it, I'll take a stab at it. How about:

1) A CPL for someone under 21 looks different. Maybe a different color, maybe printed sideways. Also it is stated as a different class / level so we could get other states reciprcocity agreements to honor only a (class1?) Mi CPL if they refused to honor it if issued to those under 18.

2) List bars / places that get most of their income from alcohol sales by the glass as CEZs on the 18 - 20 yr old permits with an exception if they employed there. Keep that restriction even if the CEZ prohibitions are removed from CPLs. Legaly, they are not supposed to be in a bar anyway, so that would just add teeth that if they carried into a bar their CPL could be suspended.




The difference is that currently there is NO CPL option for those under 21. This would be (IMHO) a good way to crack open that door. The eventual goal being a CPL availability for anyone over 18.

Mind you that I'd support constitutional carry for 18+, or CPLs of two classes (to preserve reciprocity) for 18+ regardless of military service even better. But currently there is nothing supporting that on the horizon.

I disagree with part number 2. If they get the exemption allow them to carry concealed there. They are allowed to be in a bar btw. Besides lets say the 18 year old isn't drinking but is the DD. I don't know about you but I'd be more apt to DD if I could carry than not.

I think if this bill passes and "open(s) that door" we'll lose the argument to allow it for those 18-20.

[DP425]

They don't last long in the military.


I've seen otherwise.

[45/70fan]

I've seen otherwise.

Then somebody wasn't doing their job.

[Quaamik]

I disagree with part number 2. If they get the exemption allow them to carry concealed there. They are allowed to be in a bar btw. Besides lets say the 18 year old isn't drinking but is the DD. I don't know about you but I'd be more apt to DD if I could carry than not.

I think if this bill passes and "open(s) that door" we'll lose the argument to allow it for those 18-20.

You've got a point. I fell into the trap of reading bar and thinking "nightclub". There are a lot of places that qualify as "bar"s that 18 - 20 year olds are still allowed in.

I'm not sure I understand the second comment.

[xmanhockey7]

You've got a point. I fell into the trap of reading bar and thinking "nightclub". There are a lot of places that qualify as "bar"s that 18 - 20 year olds are still allowed in.

I'm not sure I understand the second comment.

Exactly. Besides there are other PFZs on the list besides bars and taverns. Why shouldn't someone 18-20 be able to carry concealed into a movie theater with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more.

[Quaamik]

Exactly. Besides there are other PFZs on the list besides bars and taverns. Why shouldn't someone 18-20 be able to carry concealed into a movie theater with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more.

I didn't / don't support the PFZs at all.

The only reason I mentioned continueing "bars" as a PFZ for a license issued to those under 21 was I was thinking of nightclub type "bars" where people under 21 are legally prohibited from being anyway. I was thinking of it as a way to ensure that a 18 - 20 year old who decided to try to go to a bar anyway would think twice about it. As it was mentioned, there are many "bars" where 18 - 20 year olds can go get a burger, so even that one would be needlessly prohibitive.