New Legislative Director & SB59 Reintroduction

[Barrettone]

Hello All,

I will be serving as the new Legislative Director for MGO. I would like to thank Mike Theide for doing it for all these years, and I hope I can do the same. We have a lot in the works right now. I met yesterday with Senator Mike Green, as well as with the heads of MOC, MCRGO, SAFR, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and our NRA State representative, Al Herman. We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

[emt232004]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

[moparman]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of pulic areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl progam and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no dirrerent than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

Yea what he said!

[Bikenut]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of pulic areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl progam and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no dirrerent than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.
I concur...

[Sam H.]

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially

I could live with this, Part of politics is wheeling and dealing and if it means making progress in smaller steps, it's still progress. As gun owners our focus should always be on continual progress by any and all means that we can.

I am new to this forum but the one thing I have come to realise over the last month is that we will always have to fight the good fight when it comes to the 2nd amendment regardless of SCOTUS rulings or who holds exective office, our work will never be done.

[Barrettone]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

I agree

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

I agree, but MOC is the one offerring to give OC up in the schools if we can get what I mentioned above passed.

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

Let's face it, the additional 8 hours is just to pacify people and say there was additional training. It is just a necessary evil. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out why its there.


10 Characters

[DP425]

I would rather see SB59 scaled back to the original intent of moving CPL's to the SOS. Of course add in the additional protections for CPL holders/applicants which would be applicable. It would also be nice if something were directly mentioned concerning "minor mental illness"; mild depression, ptsd to an extent. Give some legislative clarity to the CPL/mental health issue while protecting the rights of those not dangerous to others.

Make a push on the PFZ's in separate legislation. If schools must be left out, IMO they should be left out entirely, no one person should have the control; this is clearly a STATE issue, not a county issue. I support our sheriffs that support us of course, but we can't be signing away our rights to the authority of individuals. At this point, I'd rather see holding off on PFZ's if we can't get 2/3 veto proof and do this right. And I supported SB59 as good compromise that moved us forward... but I wouldn't be willing to give up anymore than what SB59 did.

[Tallbear]

SB 59 asked for too many changes in one package. If the "gun board elimination" would have been in a separate bill we would have that now.

PFZ's should be one issue and the gun board should another. I told Sen. Green's staff this last year and they ignored it.

[Smokepole]

Jeff,

Take this one small step at a time, just like we have on other issues, and think strategically, not tactically, and in a concentric manner.

Start with getting control of the CPL process at the state level, and getting it away from county level.

The benefits are obvious in that we substantially remove the political influence from 83 little fiefdoms, and add uniformity at a state level.

Once that's accomplished, whittle away at these PFZ's with an established priority incrementally from the easiest, and then moving onto the more difficult.(schools)

With each successive removal of a PFZ, we collectively demonstrate that properly licensed and vetted CPL holders are no threat to public safety, and may in fact enhance it.

And, as those goals are accomplished, we need to aggressively market each step to bring favorable awareness to the public, and elected officials.

[Barrettone]

Jeff,

Take this one small step at a time, just like we have on other issues, and think strategically, not tactically, and in a concentric manner.

Start with getting control of the CPL process at the state level, and getting it away from county level.

The benefits are obvious in that we substantially remove the political influence from 83 little fiefdoms, and add uniformity at a state level.

Once that's accomplished, whittle away at these PFZ's with an established priority incrementally from the easiest, and then moving onto the more difficult.(schools)

With each successive removal of a PFZ, we collectively demonstrate that properly licensed and vetted CPL holders are no threat to public safety, and may in fact enhance it.

And, as those goals are accomplished, we need to aggressively market each step to bring favorable awareness to the public, and elected officials.

Man, I wish it was that easy!!! With so many special interests at the table though, it is tough to "whittle away", as everybody wants their pet project addressed. I've got MOC, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, etc...They have input too, so keeping it simple is often hard, but I'll try!!! I especially like the idea of getting CPL issuance at the State level.

[libertarian623]

I agree with smokepole, by taking this away from the county and making it a state issue, you are pushing it further into there arena. Where they have to take ownership at some point. This is the correct objective. There is little room for debating this and will move all the stake holders closer to there objectives.

[Barrettone]

I agree with smokepole, by taking this away from the county and making it a state issue, you are pushing it further into there arena. Where they have to take ownership at some point. This is the correct objective. There is little room for debating this and will move all the stake holders closer to there objectives.

So noted...Please keep the comments coming, I AM LISTENING, even if I do not respond to each comment made. I need to make sure I am speaking correctly for the organization and representing YOUR interests!!!

[G36 Shooter]

I concur...
+3, Why give up on OC? I don't understand why the Gov. would not rather have CPL holders CC in schools than OC? But if we cannot get the elimination of the PFZ's then I would rather OC. We the responsible CPL holders are not the problem.

[MSGT]

Whatever small steps taken forward will enhance the eventual culmination in "constitutional carry". Carry on.

[dougwg]

SB 59 asked for too many changes in one package. If the "gun board elimination" would have been in a separate bill we would have that now.

PFZ's should be one issue and the gun board should another. I told Sen. Green's staff this last year and they ignored it.
Agreed!

Please stop with these damn "package deals" where we get both kissed and slapped at the same time.

ONE thing at a time.

[bobn]

Move the process to the S.O.S. When Ruth Johnson campaigned for that office she said she would take over it. Hold her feet to the fire and make her do it.
Be careful of playing with pre-emption, (schools). We could lose a lot with a stroke of a pen.
If extra training will get rid of the PFZ's, then lets get it done.
While we are at it, lets make the MSP enforce the laws, not lobby for or against them. I'm done, Bob

[Smokepole]

Move the process to the S.O.S. When Ruth Johnson campaigned for that office she said she would take over it. Hold her feet to the fire and make her do it.
Be careful of playing with pre-emption, (schools). We could lose a lot with a stroke of a pen.
If extra training will get rid of the PFZ's, then lets get it done.
While we are at it, lets make the MSP enforce the laws, not lobby for or against them. I'm done, Bob

Two excellent points!

I remember when Ruth Johnson made those statements, and its time she's called out on that issue.
...There is so much synergy between the administration of a driver's license, and a CPL renewal, this should be a "no brainer."
...But then we have to remember that we're dealing with politicians.

The MSP should have no voice, influence, or lobbying with legislators.
...They work for us, and they are the enforcement of arm of the courts, and the laws as they are enacted.
...It should actually be considered a conflict of interest to let them assume any level of influence over the laws they are supposed to enforce.

[partdeux]

Two excellent points!

I remember when Ruth Johnson made those statements, and its time she's called out on that issue.
...There is so much synergy between the administration of a driver's license, and a CPL renewal, this should be a "no brainer."
...But then we have to remember that we're dealing with politicians.

The MSP should have no voice, influence, or lobbying with legislators.
...They work for us, and they are the enforcement of arm of the courts, and the laws as they are enacted.
...It should actually be considered a conflict of interest to let them assume any level of influence over the laws they are supposed to enforce.
On the theory of small steps...

How about SoS handling renewals?

[Smokepole]

On the theory of small steps...

How about SoS handling renewals?

That's exactly what I'm saying.
...It's way overdue.

[Leader]

On the theory of small steps...

How about SoS handling renewals?

Nope... get rid of the registration, gun boards & have SoS issue.

[partdeux]

Nope... get rid of the registration, gun boards & have SoS issue.
I agree with what you are saying, and more so believe we should get rid of the whole flippin process... but lets try some baby steps.

[SteakNEggs]

Hello All,

I will be serving as the new Legislative Director for MGO.

Thank you!


I would like to thank Mike Theide for doing it for all these years, and I hope I can do the same.

Yes, thanks to Mike too!


First, we take schools out of the equation.

Where does doing something like that stop? Hospitals would be calling up Snyder, Library's, City Government (Grand Rapids).


Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools.

Isn't that what the last bill did?


Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

If given the choice, very few Sheriffs would approve it.

I don't like this, the only option I see is a full repeal of 28.425o, no restrictions to open carry, no additional training. Our Governor won't go for it, can we convince him based on reason and statistics? Will it ever be important enough for him? I doubt it.

I think we have a choice, what we have now is OK, it isn't perfect at all, but it is OK, the better to what we have now, is to be able to simply conceal without any hassle.

I really think leaving schools out of repealing 28.425o opens a huge can of worms. Preemption is one of our best friends. If we can't educate the Governor then he is a lost cause and so you and all the groups you met with should work to find a Governor who will be on our side in the future.

I vote no.

[G22]

SB 59 asked for too many changes in one package. If the "gun board elimination" would have been in a separate bill we would have that now.

PFZ's should be one issue and the gun board should another. I told Sen. Green's staff this last year and they ignored it.


Agreed!

Please stop with these damn "package deals" where we get both kissed and slapped at the same time.

ONE thing at a time.

THIS!


Roundballer has said exactly what I would like to see happen:


Michigan Bills:
Each of these should be handled as a stand alone bill.

Pistol caliber carbines for deer hunting in Zone 3.
Use of suppressors for hunting.
Alter laws to allow SBR/SBS under US Treasury Stamp.
Allow loaded long guns in vehicles under CPL
State wide Knife preemption, and allow auto-openers.
Codify the measurement of OAL to match Federal methods.
Move CPLs to SoS
Remove Concealed PFZs
Exempt parking lots for all firearm prohibited places.
Expand requirements for K-12 firearm safety courses.
Teeth in the laws for issuing LTPs, and the eventual repeal of registration.


Federal Bills:

Repeal of Lautenberg.
Repeal of Hughes.
Repeal of Gun Free School Zones.
Removal of suppressors from the NFA, they are not firearms, and were never a problem in crime.
Repeal of any/all "sporting use" restrictions.
Repeal of anything that is left of the Brady bill, kill the NICS, and start defunding the ATF. (this is all State level powers)


At a State level, any three of those should be doable.

At the Federal level, getting just one would be a major victory.

[HKholic]

I like what I'm hearing guys, on the whole anyway. I could also live with the 'baby steps' approach but I'm not crazy about letting institutions start opting out of the repealing of PFZs or putting the school carry question in the hands of local law enforcement. For me, the whole point of the incremental approach would be to force people to see that their doom and gloom predictions don't come true, as they didn't with CPLs, and then take it to the next level. We can't do that effectively if lots of places opt out, just as the creation of PFZs has, in my mind, watered-down the power of the statistics on CPLs. We can say, "Hey, check it out: we've been carrying all over the place and we've proven that as a group, we're still less of a risk than the general population, but the ANTIs will say, "But if we HAD let you carry in schools, there would have been chaos and disaster." I'm not ignoring the many, many folks who openly carry in schools, but I just don't think there are enough of them to make the point as we need it made. I hope some other states will help us by showing that people don't turn into murderous maniacs when entering a school with a concealed firearm.

But I guess I could live with a net gain in places we could carry even if that doesn't include schools for a while. A gain is a gain and furthers the case we want to make to those who don't yet get it, and any progress would make our daily lives easier and safer, if even just a bit.

I agree it's a real balancing act between forcing legislation that will expose the falsehood of the dire predictions of the ANTIs and "wheeling and dealing" effectively to get some of the politics moving. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks to all of you for your hard work. I was lurking a lot before I joined, but I was right in there making weekly calls with you all last fall. Hope we'll get more results this time, but it sure wasn't for lack of trying.

[emt232004]

For me, the whole point of the incremental approach would be to force people to see that their doom and gloom predictions don't come true, as they didn't with CPLs, and then take it to the next level. We can't do that effectively if lots of places opt out, just as the creation of PFZs has, in my mind, watered-down the power of the statistics on CPLs. We can say, "Hey, check it out: we've been carrying all over the place and we've proven that as a group, we're still less of a risk than the general population, but the ANTIs will say, "But if we HAD let you carry in schools, there would have been chaos and disaster."

Ohio recently passed law to allow carry in places that serve alchol, anti's made a stink about them getting drunk and shooting up the old west. It has not happened, these include places like applebees.

[JJ1989]

Michigan Bills:
Each of these should be handled as a stand alone bill.
Pistol caliber carbines for deer hunting in Zone 3.
Use of suppressors for hunting.
Alter laws to allow SBR/SBS under US Treasury Stamp.
Allow loaded long guns in vehicles under CPL
State wide Knife preemption, and allow auto-openers.
Codify the measurement of OAL to match Federal methods.
Move CPLs to SoS
Remove Concealed PFZs
Exempt parking lots for all firearm prohibited places.
Expand requirements for K-12 firearm safety courses.
Teeth in the laws for issuing LTPs, and the eventual repeal of registration.

Federal Bills:
Repeal of Lautenberg.
Repeal of Hughes.
Repeal of Gun Free School Zones.
Removal of suppressors from the NFA, they are not firearms, and were never a problem in crime.
Repeal of any/all "sporting use" restrictions.
Repeal of anything that is left of the Brady bill, kill the NICS, and start defunding the ATF. (this is all State level powers)

At a State level, any three of those should be doable.

At the Federal level, getting just one would be a major victory.

:yeahthat:

Why baby steps? Let's do baby running. Introduce everything separately, if something isn't approved introduce it again, keep pushing but don't put any one finger too far on the table at a time lest the whole hand gets slapped.

Also, any chance of funding for some sort of education campaign? TV commercials, magazine ads, newspaper ads, pamphlets, etc. to start getting some real info out there to people? I mean a major push to really inform everyone about stuff like this: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/important-gun-violence-video-to-share-with-friends/ and the FBI statistics about fists killing double the number of people a year that firearms do, the peer reviewed studies of John Lott. It would take some major money, but it would preempt antis from putting out misinformation - if EVERYONE already knows the facts then they'll just look stupid..they're counting on the gullible masses..let's educate them.

[Bikenut]

:yeahthat:

Why baby steps? Let's do baby running. Introduce everything separately, if something isn't approved introduce it again, keep pushing but don't put any one finger too far on the table at a time lest the whole hand gets slapped.

Also, any chance of funding for some sort of education campaign? TV commercials, magazine ads, newspaper ads, pamphlets, etc. to start getting some real info out there to people? I mean a major push to really inform everyone about stuff like this: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/important-gun-violence-video-to-share-with-friends/ and the FBI statistics about fists killing double the number of people a year that firearms do, the peer reviewed studies of John Lott. It would take some major money, but it would preempt antis from putting out misinformation - if EVERYONE already knows the facts then they'll just look stupid..they're counting on the gullible masses..let's educate them.
I think the "introduce everything" concept has merit. After all, for the past many decades, whenever the anti's wanted something they asked for everything including the kitchen sink... and after the dust settled they didn't get everything they asked for but.... they still gained something. And that tactic seems to have worked quite nicely for them!

Oh... and they never ever stop "pushing".

[luckless]

I would like to see the legislation broken up into individual pieces that could be piggybacked onto bills that the governor likes. His school bullying legislation could have had pro 2A amendments, as an example.

Let's go for the end of pistol registration. This would help every pistol owner, not just cpl holders. I know the RINO likes it but he needs to understand that we won't take "no" for an answer. The gop owes us one and we shouldn't let them forget it!

I would also like to see Michigan adopt the current, federal definition of a firearm. This would end the registration of bb pistols and muzzle loaders. The next step would be to exempt c&r pistols from registration. After that, we can try for single shot hunting pistols. Their registration scheme will become so convoluted that local LE will beg for the full repeal.

My biggest criticism of SB 59 is that it didn't effect every gun owner. If you don't cc , there was nothing in it for you. SB 59 was only a titular change, anyway. The same three entities still had the same input into your CPL, but without the monthly, open meeting and that pesky citizen representative. We will not solve the CPL problems until we remove the MSP and county prosecutors from the equation and make Sheriffs responsible for their actions. To eliminate law enforcement from the process, completely, would require a huge rewrite of current law. IMO

[camaro1776]

I must say I agree with the last several post. Push push and push, don't comprise on what you want, if it repeatedly fails, take smaller steps, or piggyback it. Ultimate goal is the feds should have nothing to do with firearms and the state makes the regulations(and hopefully not many). I am willing to help let me know.

[HKholic]

I could live with that too!

Carry on!

[langenc]

Can these things be introduced seperatley instead of a 'cover all'?

Then some might pass instead of one veto for some things that may have otherwise passed.

SOS issue would be a good (best??) stand alone of the bunch. IMHO.
This would show those who are really just puffing smoke--ie we loose money on every CPL issued. When the money would go to the SoS, as it would probably have to, listen to em how

PS I see several others think the same.l.

[Roundballer]

Wow, you guys went and found something I posted to a different thread. I read this thread early yesterday and have been trying to compose my thoughts specifically on how I would like to see the issues addressed in SB 059, re-approached.

I will apologize in advance, this is going to be a long post.

SB 059 started off as "move the CPL to the SoS". While we were being urged to support this bill with our Senators and Reps, it was completely rewritten into something else. I have lost a little faith with the "system". We were supporting one thing, and then it was changed to, what seems like, a bill that would get less support because it encompassed too much.

I agree with both Tallbear and Smokepole on the messages they are sending. Approach it differently this time. I also don't think that OC should be negotiated away, that would "compromise" the bills.

Issues to be addressed, each in a stand alone bill:


Fixing the problems with the 83 differing processes, wait-times, and all that goes with it. Move it to the SoS. I direct you to MCL 28.421a (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-421a), comparing the original intent to what we have, Legislature has failed to achieve its' own intent.
Sec. 1a.

It is the intent of the legislature to create a standardized system for issuing concealed pistol licenses to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol, to allow law abiding residents to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol, and to prescribe the rights and responsibilities of individuals who have obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol.Repairing this is going to take allot of work, addressing all references to "Licensing Board" in 28.424, 28.425 and 28.425(a-w). The process of fingerprinting needs to be addressed also, or the locals could still hang the process up with that alone.
Start eliminating the PFZ's.



Rework 123.1101 to specifically preempt Colleges, Universities, Authorities, and any other subdivision or entity created by either legislature or lessor entities. "“Local unit of government” means any entity other than the Legislature of the State of Michigan." This will open up all campus carry, leaving only the dorms and classrooms as PFZs
Make the "preemption law" effective, with directives to remove existing ordinances, and penalties for charging a citizen under a non-compliant ordinance. Include this in the bill, then if needed, "compromise" on the point.
Address 750.234d and place an exclusion for parking lots in the law, reword (h), from "any establishment licensed", to "licensed to serve alcohol". We need that one, a majority of Sportsman's Clubs have licenses for the use of their halls after shooting hours.
28.425o can be approached in several manners, pick one.




There are already 10 exempted classes, place a way for any individual to earn an exemption.
Go through the list and remove all "public property", or remove "private property", and spell out signage requirements.
Pick each of the individual PFZ's that already have an exception in them, and extend the exemption to all, or eliminate the PFZ because if there is a single exemption, it is no longer a "PFZ"



There is a bunch of other issues that should be addressed in legislature, but I am limiting this post to the issues addressed in the re-written SB 059.

We might consider including "preemption" for knives when addressing other issues in 123.1101-1105

This is just a rough outline of the concepts, more may come as I consider or reconsider differing ideas.
:coffee:

[Smokepole]

Can these things be introduced seperatley instead of a 'cover all'?

Then some might pass instead of one veto for some things that may have otherwise passed.

SOS issue would be a good (best??) stand alone of the bunch. IMHO.
This would show those who are really just puffing smoke--ie we loose money on every CPL issued. When the money would go to the SoS, as it would probably have to, listen to em how

PS I see several others think the same.l.

"SOS" would eliminate the problems some of you have with the shenanigans of county clerks, sheriffs, etc.and remove their political influence at the same time.
...If they no longer have a stake in the process, they would no longer have a voice.

[luckless]

"SOS" would eliminate the problems some of you have with the shenanigans of county clerks, sheriffs, etc.and remove their political influence at the same time.
...If they no longer have a stake in the process, they would no longer have a voice.
The sos can't run fingerprints or access LEIN. This would restrict the sos to using public records to determine cpl eligibility. Which may not be a bad thing.

We could try to eliminate fingerprints for renewals and require sos to issue the renewals based on public record, only. It would be a step forward until we can eliminate the Sheriff,MSP and county prosecutor from the process.

[Roundballer]

The sos can't run fingerprints or access LEIN. This would restrict the sos to using public records to determine cpl eligibility. Which may not be a bad thing.
The SoS wouldn't need to do those things. Currently, fingerprints are forwarded to the MSP, and the FBI background check is initiated by them. The report is sent back to the County Clerks. If we moved this to the SoS, they would be serving the same duties as the Clerk does now. It will be a pass, or fail on the background check. If the MSP or FBI don't come back with a "dis-qualifier", then it is "SHALL ISSUE". This should cut issue/reissue time down to a couple of weeks, rather than several months. An issue with moving this to the SoS would be taking the prints the first time. I wonder if they could come up with 83 units, one for a SoS office in each County. They should be making enough money off of the fees to cover it.


We could try to eliminate fingerprints for renewals and require sos to issue the renewals based on public record, only. It would be a step forward until we can eliminate the Sheriff,MSP and county prosecutor from the process.
If your fingerprints were taken by "electronic methods" the first time (or any time since), you don't have to get them redone for a renewal. Moving this to the SoS removes the Sheriff, County Prosecutor, and the County Clerk (which most of the time is the hold up). The MSP and FBI would still be used as they are today.

The major problems with the county system is the limited times that the Gun Boards meet, and the Clerks treating them as "fill-in" work and not possessing them in a timely manner. There are also major inconsistencies in whether an applicant needs to appear before the Gun Board.

[gjgalligan]

From Roundball:

to "licensed to serve alcohol". We need that one, a majority of Sportsman's Clubs have licenses for the use of their halls after shooting hours.


How many sportsman clubs make the majority of their income off the alcohol sales?
If they do, well maybe they need to rethink what they are there for.

[Leader]

From Roundball:

to "licensed to serve alcohol". We need that one, a majority of Sportsman's Clubs have licenses for the use of their halls after shooting hours.


How many sportsman clubs make the majority of their income off the alcohol sales?
If they do, well maybe they need to rethink what they are there for.

That's not the point, if they are licensed at all ( like a WalMart or 7-11) the mere possession of any gun on the property is against the law.

[PDinDetroit]

Hello All,

I will be serving as the new Legislative Director for MGO. I would like to thank Mike Theide for doing it for all these years, and I hope I can do the same. We have a lot in the works right now. I met yesterday with Senator Mike Green, as well as with the heads of MOC, MCRGO, SAFR, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and our NRA State representative, Al Herman. We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

Jeff - Thank you for stepping up to the plate here.

To date, the Legislative Lighthouse has been pretty well organized listing the BILLS currently in the MI House or MI Senate and sometimes at the Federal Level. What I do not always see is the Proposed/Wanted List of Bills/Changes that we as MGO would like to pursue.

While we have a Proposed/Wanted Bills/Changes List proposed in threads here or there (like in this one), I would believe that having a separate Forum Section under Legislative Lighthouse for this would be helpful. In this separate forum section, we could have a Stickied Thread for the Proposed/Wanted Bills/Changes List and then Individual Threads for each item in the List (keep pro/con discussion out of the main list). This separate Forum Section should only be available after Login to MGO.

For Some of the Wanted Changes listed in this thread, I have previously put together DRAFT Changes for affecting the Wanted Changes. I would be willing to upload these changes to an area like this for discussion and action purposes.

[James Weaver]

I hope you have a lot of energy. You've stepped up at an unprecedented period in history. I know that I'm not alone when I state that I was very upset when the governor used the Sandy Hook event as an excuse to veto SB59. The irony to me is that one event should have proved beyond the shadow of a doubt exactly why pfz's need to be abolished.

If self-defense is a right, not a privilege, how can teachers and adult students have it routinely denied?

I know, I'm preaching to the choir.

Seriously, thanks for taking the initiative. When it comes time for MGO members to actually do something, like contacting reps, etc. some sort of e-mail notification alert would be helpful.

An army of supporters can only be helpful.

[BOSS302]

I think we need to be realistic about what we can get passed. Gov. Snyder vetoed one bill and was reluctant about it even before the massacre. The elimination of registration was removed from another bill because he (actually the MSP) didn't like it.

I think we can get most of the PFZs eliminated. Schools have always been and will continue to be a hard sell. Your idea to leave out schools with the option of having the Sheriff allow it is interesting and maybe acceptable to Snyder. I'd like to keep OC in the PFZs but it sounded like the Governor only considered the bill last time because he didn't know we could open carry in PFZs.

I'm not all that sure Synder will be re-elected. I think we may be wise to get some small gains while we can. It may be a long wait before we have another opportunity.

Maybe Senator Green will have better insight to what Snyder would be willing to sign.

SBRs??

[gjgalligan]

That's not the point, if they are licensed at all ( like a WalMart or 7-11) the mere possession of any gun on the property is against the law.


Ok, I reread it and understand it better now.

[sasquatchpa]

Barry , China Rick and the rest of the fun bunch claim to support responsible hunting gun owners.
Give them a "hunter" bill that is a "baby step" win for us?

[SADAacp]

Barry , China Rick and the rest of the fun bunch claim to support responsible hunting gun owners.
Give them a "hunter" bill that is a "baby step" win for us?

The repeal of 750.227d and/or 750.234d would be a good start.

[fbuckner]

SEPERATE NOTE-Michigan should also put forth a bill making it a felony that any federal agent who tries to enforce obamas gun grab plan. several other states are moving forward with this already.

[wwjmaj]

I agree with smokepole, by taking this away from the county and making it a state issue, you are pushing it further into there arena. Where they have to take ownership at some point. This is the correct objective. There is little room for debating this and will move all the stake holders closer to there objectives.

I agree and have been speaking with my Rep and Senator for several terms along these lines. Then someone pointed out if we got an anti-gun Sec. of State who decides for "Administrative Efficiency" all cpl's would be processed centrally in Lansing with only one or two employees of the nonproductive variety that exist in the private sector and thrive in the public they could effectively single handedly block rights; True a court challenge and the old Writ of Mandamus from your high school history books in Marbury v. Madison could be sought but in the meantime lawful CPL grinds to an effective halt. Left with the Counties it is a problem in one smaller area not the whole state. As the current occupant of a certain house in DC shows one bad apple CAN tread on constitutionally granted rights in ways that squashes those rights effectively (though unconsitutionally) for the people. Let's not put ourselves in a potentially worse situation ...

[Smokepole]

I agree and have been speaking with my Rep and Senator for several terms along these lines. Then someone pointed out if we got an anti-gun Sec. of State who decides for "Administrative Efficiency" all cpl's would be processed centrally in Lansing with only one or two employees of the nonproductive variety that exist in the private sector and thrive in the public they could effectively single handedly block rights; True a court challenge and the old Writ of Mandamus from your high school history books in Marbury v. Madison could be sought but in the meantime lawful CPL grinds to an effective halt. Left with the Counties it is a problem in one smaller area not the whole state. As the current occupant of a certain house in DC shows one bad apple CAN tread on constitutionally granted rights in ways that squashes those rights effectively (though unconsitutionally) for the people.
...I really don't see that as a realistic threat.
And even so, It is much easier for every gun rights organization, and Second Amendment activists, such as ourselves to focus on one, or two people in Lansing, than to have our attention diffused over 83 counties, each with their own agenda.

[Leader]

I agree and have been speaking with my Rep and Senator for several terms along these lines. Then someone pointed out if we got an anti-gun Sec. of State who decides for "Administrative Efficiency" all cpl's would be processed centrally in Lansing with only one or two employees of the nonproductive variety that exist in the private sector and thrive in the public they could effectively single handedly block rights; True a court challenge and the old Writ of Mandamus from your high school history books in Marbury v. Madison could be sought but in the meantime lawful CPL grinds to an effective halt. Left with the Counties it is a problem in one smaller area not the whole state. As the current occupant of a certain house in DC shows one bad apple CAN tread on constitutionally granted rights in ways that squashes those rights effectively (though unconsitutionally) for the people. Let's not put ourselves in a potentially worse situation ...

We have that going on now in 83 different counties and sense it only affects a few people at a time, nothing gets done about it.
*IF* the SoS tried that, the WHOLE STATE would be in an uproar and it would get FIXED fast.

[Smokepole]

We have that going on now in 83 different counties and sense it only affects a few people at a time, nothing gets done about it.
*IF* the SoS tried that, the WHOLE STATE would be in an uproar and it would get FIXED fast.
...Correct!
We could then focus like a laser beam on ONE person, in ONE location, and make things happen quickly!
:thup:

[JimA]

I agree and have been speaking with my Rep and Senator for several terms along these lines. Then someone pointed out if we got an anti-gun Sec. of State who decides for "Administrative Efficiency" all cpl's would be processed centrally in Lansing with only one or two employees of the nonproductive variety that exist in the private sector and thrive in the public they could effectively single handedly block rights; True a court challenge and the old Writ of Mandamus from your high school history books in Marbury v. Madison could be sought but in the meantime lawful CPL grinds to an effective halt. Left with the Counties it is a problem in one smaller area not the whole state. As the current occupant of a certain house in DC shows one bad apple CAN tread on constitutionally granted rights in ways that squashes those rights effectively (though unconsitutionally) for the people. Let's not put ourselves in a potentially worse situation ...
This is the same old crap that screwed up this legislation last year. We are our own worst enemy.

[Leader]

I agree and have been speaking with my Rep and Senator for several terms along these lines. Then someone pointed out if we got an anti-gun Sec. of State who decides for "Administrative Efficiency" all cpl's would be processed centrally in Lansing with only one or two employees of the nonproductive variety that exist in the private sector and thrive in the public they could effectively single handedly block rights; True a court challenge and the old Writ of Mandamus from your high school history books in Marbury v. Madison could be sought but in the meantime lawful CPL grinds to an effective halt. Left with the Counties it is a problem in one smaller area not the whole state. As the current occupant of a certain house in DC shows one bad apple CAN tread on constitutionally granted rights in ways that squashes those rights effectively (though unconsitutionally) for the people. Let's not put ourselves in a potentially worse situation ...

Besides... as proof that this couldn't happen, our currant SoS was elected with the promise that they would take over the CPL system and being just a poor lowly SoS didn't have the power to over ride the laws of this state & do it.
So... if it was law, a lowly SoS couldn't NOT follow the law & stop or hold up permits.

[bobn]

So... if it was law, a lowly SoS couldn't NOT follow the law & stop or hold up permits.

Which is why I say hold her feet to the fire and make her do them or we can find some one else to do the job. Later, Bob

[Smokepole]

Which is why I say hold her feet to the fire and make her do them or we can find some one else to do the job. Later, Bob
Candace Miller made the same promises when she was campaigning, but did nothing once elected.

[wwjmaj]

I don't remember this SOS making it a cornerstone but Land certainly did and ran from the issue every time it came up. Remember Austin? The man slept through his final 12 years! Even though a "laser" was focused on the antiquated horrible service of his office. He finally became a poster child for term limits and probably by example single handedly passed it....12 years after it was obvious the office was beyond him. In this state (and apparently most others) incumbents even those who abuse or abandon positions of their first campaigns are re-elected and that includes the judges that should order enforcement. I agree 83 counties leave some with problems but like Appliance Brad fixed Hillsdale there are often ways around a problem clerk because others in the County will feel the heat. The further you kick the responsibility the more likely they sit behind security and dictate...I wish we could have SOS processing, but only if compliance and issuance is as automatic as the law says.

[dfrak]

SB 59 asked for too many changes in one package. If the "gun board elimination" would have been in a separate bill we would have that now.

PFZ's should be one issue and the gun board should another. I told Sen. Green's staff this last year and they ignored it.

I agree with this approach. One focused step at a time...

Dan

[71commander]

Way to go Jeff.

[HoldHard]

Jeff,

Your top priority should be to eliminate these free-fire slaughter areas that the government nicknamed "gun-free zones". Virginia Tech, Columbina and now Sandy Hook prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mentally unstable murders will commit their heinous crimes in schools where they know there will be no return fire.

Everything else is just window dressing in comparison to our children's lives.

The only other acceptable alternative would be for the government to fund armed guards in all schools instead of just where the Washington DC elite kids go.

If the SoS cannot currently access LEIN records that has to change. No law enforcement organization from the state police on down to the local police chief is going to allow a CPL issued without a complete, high integrity background check. That is a show stopper.

If the SoS cannot create electronic fingerprints, that is going to extend the time required for the person that is applying for thier initial CPL to pass the background check. The process would have to be done using the old "ink pad and paper" method. The processing is much slower than the existing electronic scanned prints. This is another show stopper.

I'm not a big fan of the SoS solution. Down here in the lower right corner of the state, the SoS employees have two speeds, slow and "on break". There are numbered ticket dispensers at the door and it's not unusual to pull ticket 84 and look up to see that they are servicing number 18. Sure they have 20 computer stations at the SoS "Super Centers" but only 2 or 3 actually have anyone working at them. Be prepared for a 2 to 3 hour wait before your number is called.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

HH

[James Weaver]

The problem as I see it, is that schools have long had a security problem! If we protected a truckload of money the way schools protect kids the results would be just as predictable.

School leaders seem to be living in a fairy tale world. Even if we could magically eliminate all firearms, means to illegally manufacture firearms, ammunition, etc., it would not address the real problem.

This should have been dealt with a very long time ago, but at least right after September 11th.

As long as schools are readily accessible, soft targets the only thing that will change will be the perpetrators and their methods.

There are all kinds of possibilities for even worse attacks using poison gas, incendiaries, etc.

If a school could prevent an attack from inside a facility, parents and teachers should still be able to be armed. If for no other reason than to prevent attacks outside the school. I'm thinking immediately before school and after school.

[Barrettone]

Well Folks,

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

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

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

3) County Clerks to still process the applications.

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

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

6) Pre-emption is out.

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


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

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

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

[Leader]

The "enhanced carry" endorsement will expire at the same time as your CPL expires...after your 5th birthday.

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


6) Pre-emption is out.

What does this mean?

[DP425]

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



What does this mean?


Yeah no kidding! "Pre-Emption is out" does NOT sound good.

[Barrettone]

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

NO

What does this mean?

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


Carry on...

[DP425]

Carry on...


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

[Leader]

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

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

[Barrettone]

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

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

Correct

[xmanhockey7]

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

[Tallbear]

Another "all or nothing" bill??

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


Well Folks,

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

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

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

3) County Clerks to still process the applications.

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

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

6) Pre-emption is out.

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


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

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

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

[JJ1989]

Well Folks,

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

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

3) County Clerks to still process the applications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Leader]

Another "all or nothing" bill??

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

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

[luckless]

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

[emt232004]

This should be broken into at least two separate bills. 1, 2, & 3 Deal with issuing CPL's and should be in one bill.
The rest deal with an entirely different subject, PFZ's. Those should have a bill of their own. (as should registration which wasn't mentioned).
I agree and who keeps suggesting it is a great idea to bargin with oc? Giving up one right for another should not be done especially when many other options have been brought up within this post. To reintroduce it as it was or close to when it was killed is just lazy and a bad choice.

[Leader]

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

Again, if we only have ONE unit of government to worry about, it is easier to keep them in compliance.
At this point even though the state police don't LIKE OC, they do follow the law and allow it.

[Barrettone]

Another "all or nothing" bill??

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

I know. I tried to get them to break it up into at least 2 bills, but they simply wouldn't bite. They seem to think they just needed to remove the schools to get it done. I am just one of the 5 or 6 in the room.

[Barrettone]

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

Believe it or not, MOC (Phil H) said it would be WILLING to make concessions to get the whole bill passed. It is not the ideal scenario, but he understands it may come to pass. You guys need to understand, everybody doesn't get everything they want. If you want a, b, and c, you may need to give up d. Hate the game, not the players.

[emt232004]

Believe it or not, MOC (Phil H) said it would be WILLING to make concessions to get the whole bill passed. It is not the ideal scenario, but he understands it may come to pass. You guys need to understand, everybody doesn't get everything they want. If you want a, b, and c, you may need to give up d. Hate the game, not the players.
Yes I believe it, he was not my choice either. It should not even been and option. Your response is going to be baby steps and maybe in a few years we can get it removed. Well these criminals don't do things in baby steps and the knee jerk reactions are taking away our rights faster than baby steps get them back. About us guys understanding many of us do and many came up with options that are not all nothing nor do they give up other rights.

[luckless]

Again, if we only have ONE unit of government to worry about, it is easier to keep them in compliance.
At this point even though the state police don't LIKE OC, they do follow the law and allow it.
I don't believe that is a viable strategy. The MSP will use its control of CPL's to exert even more lobbying pressure to get more gun control and stop reforms. A single entity won't be more controllable. An anti2A governor can order the MSP to make things difficult for us.

I understand the theory but it doesn't play out in reality. An anti2A SOS would be no easier to keep in line than an anti2A governor. Take Levin and Stabenow as examples, no matter what, we just can't get these gun owner haters unseated. As such, they know we won't vote for them and they have proven they don't need our votes so, they have no reason to work with us.

MSP has a proven track record of opposing our civil right to own and use firearms. As I heard it at the MSP training session, "If you can find ANY reason to deny a purchase permit, it will mean one less gun on the streets and that means one less gun in the hands of the bad guys."

[Leader]

I know. I tried to get them to break it up into at least 2 bills, but they simply wouldn't bite. They seem to think they just needed to remove the schools to get it done. I am just one of the 5 or 6 in the room.

If they think they can get it passed as one bill why not as two?
I still think the SoS would be better then the SP and registration should be addressed AS A SEPARATE BILL.

Who can we contact (pressure) to get this split?
How can we help?

[ltdave]

I only read the first page (im on my phone) but did I read it right that A) we take more training, B ) give up Concealed PFZ's OC exemption and then C) allow those same (public) PFZ's the right to "opt out" of allowing firearms on the property?

Are you reading what you're writing? To what benefit is there in ANY of this?

[Barrettone]

If they think they can get it passed as one bill why not as two?
I still think the SoS would be better then the SP and registration should be addressed AS A SEPARATE BILL.

Who can we contact (pressure) to get this split?
How can we help?

It's basically about the NUMBER of bills presented that are gun related. Schneider does not want to appear to be "gun happy", so they are trying to consolidate the legislation, as that is supposedly more palatable to him. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the groups determination as a whole.

[partdeux]

I might accept the no OC in PFZ, but I won't accept opt out by any entity, including schools.

[emt232004]

There is no reason to give up oc at any expense. Show me where it has done any harm.

[Quaamik]

Jeff,

Thank you for introducing yourself. As to the things you listed:


......... We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.

If public institutions can "opt out" it guts preemption and we start down a road where every city has thier own rules as to whether they honor CPLs. If the State of Michigan insists certain public institutions be out of bounds for carry, then force them to list those. Any other way and we face death by a thousand cuts trying to fight every city council, every school board and every county seat.


My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools.

Let me get this straight. Your proposing 3 levels of CPLs now? Four if you count that fact of the various "exempted classes" we already have?
1) basic CPL
2) Enhanced CPL needing additional training (more money)
3) extra special enhanced CPL with added training and a favor from the sherriff
4) "exempted classes" such as retired cops, PIs and such.

1st off, the school issue was the latest line of excuses from the govenor. He does not support carrying in the "pistol free zones" and likely never will. We should plan on having to get the support needed to override a veto, and pushing the legislature to act early enough thatthey have time to do so.

2nd, taking schools out of the equation gaurantees that we will NEVER be able to carry in a school (open or concealed). The govenor will not sign it and most of the legislature will not support it without addressing the loophole that allows OC with a CPL. We may be able to keep that in PFZs where we changed the law to be able to carry concealed. We are highly unlikely to keep it in a PFZ where its been reinforced that we still can't carry. Asking the sherriffs permission is a joke. They are unlikely to grant that without a "official" reason (such as for a school superintendant or school security with the permission of the school board). For us mere mortals, and for teachers who want to carry, the answer will always be "NO" (unless you have deep pockets and your sherriff is willing to trade favors for donations - somethign that was not uncommon before shall issue).

3rd, I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot suport ANY push or ANY bill that allows someone in the government to exercise "may issue" again.




Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

I agree the bill should take the legal liabilities away from the sheriffs department, provided they meet the requirements in the law. Legal and financial liabilities should be in place if they fail to issue in a timely fasion, if they fail to perform the duties required to issue licenses, or if they add local requirements to it.

The "legal liabilities" related to granting the exemptions for school zones you propose are a red herring. Sheriffs may use them as a smokescreen, but the reality is they are not going to support your average CPL holder carrying in a school zone anyway. They have a different mindset. A cop with a gun is good and safe no matter what and a private person is a shooting waiting to happen.

To give an example of the mindset difference, I saw an incident at a local high school football game. A couple of kids, joking with an officer outside the game made as if to climb the fence to get in. He partially drew his sidearm at them. To him it was a joke. To me (behind and to his side), and to the kids, it was less funny and somewhat more serious.



The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

if you think it is best to take an incremental approach, we can do that in much better ways. Examples:

- Go after individual PFZs instead of all of them.
- Clarify that the Church PFZ is only the buildings, not the parking lots and Church owned property.
- Remove Churches and Day Cares from the "automatic" PFZ and make them PFZs only if they post at each and every entrance.
- Take the wind out of companies that ban firearms by pushing a bill that your car is an extension of your domicile and what is in it, out of sight, they cannot prohibit. They can either let you park on company parking lots or not, but they can't search your car or fire you for whats in it.
- Propose a school PFZ exemption for teachers and staff that work in the school district and parents with students enrolled in the district only.
- Propose that if the school is the location for voting for the area, the school grounds and voting area of the school is not a PFZ on election day. If the school district doesn't like it, they can have the kids stay home that day.

There are other ideas as well.

(please forgive the spelling / typos)

[Quaamik]

As it stands, re-introducing the same bill as passed last year, re-passing it, and working to get enough votes to override a veto is (IMHO) the best option. While the bill is not perfect (especially about the OC provision) it has the benifit of already having been voted on and approved by a majority.

If it has to be modified to get past the legislature with a veto proof majority, then (if needed) remove schools and leave them as a PFZ AND ALSO remove the anti OC provisions. That still allows local districts to hire security and arm them, and forces the legislature to address the schools later if they want to prevent OC with a CPL there.

Rienforcing that schools are still PFZs AND prohibiting OC with a CPL in schools and the other PFZs AND requiring additional training to carry in the other PFZs gives up too much. I would not support it, would not contact my legislators to support it and would write them to politely ask they torpedo it.

[gvlaker]

I think we should add a piece like the IL conceal carry bill, where any place (public or private) where someone with a CPL isn't allow to carry the owner is liable if something happens to a CPL holder.

[dab102999]

If this passes and i take advanced class to carry in p.f.z. who has a right to see that cirtification??? How will this apply to out of state c.p.l. holders??

[Bikenut]

Another comment...

Each and every legislation that gun owners/carriers support needs to have a solid foundation in the actual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

And there should never be any confusion concerning the simple fact that a "carry permit" is NOT the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

I would suggest that all those involved in the legislative arena of supporting gun rights keep in mind.....

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

and to remember that a "permit" is NOT a "right".

And to never ever strengthen the "permit system" by compromising away the "right"...not even in the smallest degree.

[DanM]

I concur with those who call for smaller, incremental bills that do not involve criminalizing any gun rights we currently possess. If a bill is so big it requires going along with criminalizing currently legal gun rights, it is too big.

I further concur with those who call for not upfront throwing in concessions such as extra training. It is poor negotiation skill to come to the table with the enemy, with your concessions already given to them. You come to the table with what you want, and you make them pay blood (in the form of giving you more of the rights you want) to get concessions from you. And the concessions do not involve criminalizing what rights we currently legally possess.

[BOSS302]

Why not allow the schools to opt out instead of in? That's what Snyder asked for. Why give him more.

[JJ1989]

It's basically about the NUMBER of bills presented that are gun related. Schneider does not want to appear to be "gun happy", so they are trying to consolidate the legislation, as that is supposedly more palatable to him. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the groups determination as a whole.

I've looked this man in his eyes face to face and seen in them at times how timid and uncertain he can, on occasion, feel. After all, he is just a man like any of the rest of us and puts his pants on one leg at a time just as we do. There is nothing wrong with moments of feeling timid or uncertain yet we must not let our feelings affect our judgement. Though, while I'm certain that he understands it is his job to lead this state, sometimes in our moments of internal uncertainty we may falter to do the right thing and just need a little proverbial push from our fellow pants-wearers to put us back on the correct path. It's not a matter of being gun happy or not, it's a matter of doing what is best for this state and the people he bears responsibility for.

If that means he has to stand up on his podium and recite and cite the true facts that the media twists and refuses to report, and at the same time denounce the media for doing those things when explaining his decisions, then that is what he must do. Not only as governor but as a man. If that means he must endure the berating he will receive from the special interest groups and elitist who twist the truth for unknown reasons then that is what he must do.

It's time to put your pants on gentlemen, because it is us, and more importantly the aforementioned 5-6 people sitting in the room drafting the bills, who are responsible to correct the path of our leader and do what is right ourselves as well. If our founding fathers had decided to sacrifice what is right in order to ensure a more palatable deal was reached with England then we would still be a colony.

I propose we all send a copy of a book which is one of the only peer reviewed and credible on the entire topic to remind Governor Snyder of who he answers to and that we care he makes knowledgeable, factual, and logic based decisions in the best interest of the people.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Amazon limits the number of words in a gift message so you can order the book for yourself then you can repackage and include as a note something along the lines of:

"Dear Governor Snyder,
I was disheartened by your previous rejection of SB-59 based on your disagreement about a public entity opt out option. This book is one of the only peer reviewed and credible on the topic as well as part of the longest continuous study. All other peer reviewed and credible studies come to the same conclusions the most pertinent of which is that Pistol Free Zones only increase the amount of crime.

As the governor it is your duty to act on logic and reason alone. Therefore, I am asking you to take ownership of the situation and take corrective action for your previous misstep. Pass legislation that the only credible evidence has shown creates a safer environment - guarantee it for the public, by the public, and in the public.

Sincerely Your Constituent,
<Your Name>"

Governor Snyder's address is:

Governor Rick Snyder
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909

[DanM]

I might accept the no OC in PFZ, but I won't accept opt out by any entity, including schools.

I might accept opt out (weakening of preemption), but I won't accept extra training required just to cross an imaginary line (the ability to CC into PFZs).

I might accept restrictions on black rifles, but I won't accept restrictions on my hunting rifles.

I might accept a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but I won't accept prohibition of my revolvers.

This is how they will divide and conquer us if you let them.

[DanM]

Schneider does not want to appear to be "gun happy", so they are trying to consolidate the legislation, as that is supposedly more palatable to him.

No, he realizes that if gun-rights bills are small, focused, and tightly tailored, they are much harder for him to water down or defeat. Because if they are small, it's harder for him to get his anti-gun compromises swallowed by the sponsors. Also, smaller bills are more easily formally or informally tied to other legislation he or his allies desperately want.

The large packages are easier for him to get the anti-gunners ginned up about and give him an excuse to veto, or to get the sponsors to swallow a "little bit" of compromise and criminalize some increment of currently legal gun rights.

You guys have got to be smarter than this guy. He's really smart, and he will take every chance to take bites out of our gun rights every chance he gets.

Go tight, go focused, and go aggressive with tieing our bills to things he and his cronies want. If you play his game, of course he's going to beat you at it.

[Leader]

As it stands, re-introducing the same bill as passed last year, re-passing it, and working to get enough votes to override a veto is (IMHO) the best option. While the bill is not perfect (especially about the OC provision) it has the benifit of already having been voted on and approved by a majority.

If it has to be modified to get past the legislature with a veto proof majority, then (if needed) remove schools and leave them as a PFZ AND ALSO remove the anti OC provisions. That still allows local districts to hire security and arm them, and forces the legislature to address the schools later if they want to prevent OC with a CPL there.

Rienforcing that schools are still PFZs AND prohibiting OC with a CPL in schools and the other PFZs AND requiring additional training to carry in the other PFZs gives up too much. I would not support it, would not contact my legislators to support it and would write them to politely ask they torpedo it.

The bill as it was passed last year SUCKED.

It was a JOKE & shouldn't even be used as a model for what NOT to do.

[dfrak]

I might accept... but I won't accept...

This is how they will divide and conquer us if you let them.

Absolutely correct. We have seen it before.

Dan

[71commander]

I might accept restrictions on black rifles, but I won't accept restrictions on my hunting rifles.

I might accept a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but I won't accept prohibition of my revolvers.



I might accept restrictions on your hunting rifle but will not accept restrictions on my black rifles.

No big deal anyway as only 17% of the gun owners hunt.

I won't accept restrictions on my bottom feeders but might accept restrictions on my revolvers.

Jeff has saw me shoot my revolvers, he might agree with that.

[DanM]

I might accept restrictions on your hunting rifle but will not accept restrictions on my black rifles.

No big deal anyway as only 17% of the gun owners hunt.

I won't accept restrictions on my bottom feeders but might accept restrictions on my revolvers.

You are getting my point exactly.

Gentlemen, we must hang together or surely they will hang us separately.

[gryphon]

The MSP should have no voice, influence, or lobbying with legislators. They work for us, and they are the enforcement of arm of the courts, and the laws as they are enacted. It should actually be considered a conflict of interest to let them assume any level of influence over the laws they are supposed to enforce.

I agree.

[bobn]

The MSP should have no voice, influence, or lobbying with legislators. They work for us, and they are the enforcement of arm of the courts, and the laws as they are enacted. It should actually be considered a conflict of interest to let them assume any level of influence over the laws they are supposed to enforce.

Then why should we have MSP involved in issueing the CPL's? Have them send the info (pass/fail) to the SOS and have her do the cards. I'd be worried that we can get into the same rut with 'good MSP post/bad MSP post' much like 83 counties of 'good dept/bad dept' of the sheriff's dept. Where as with the SOS, one person. Later, Bob

[gryphon]

6) Pre-emption is out.

What does this mean? I assume it means with the exception of schools, circumventing all other preemption is off the table. But you didn't say that, so some clarification is in order.

[shurhouse]

What does this mean? I assume it means with the exception of schools, circumventing all other preemption is off the table. But you didn't say that, so some clarification is in order.

It was clarified earlier in this thread.

[gryphon]

It was clarified earlier in this thread.

I posted that before I read the "clarification."

And then this was the clarification I read:

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

Yet that's not the case at all. There is discussion about cutting or modifying it since schools will no longer be preempted. So I have to "assume" he meant no further erosion of preemption. Hence the request for clarification.

[gryphon]

I might accept the no OC in PFZ, but I won't accept opt out by any entity, including schools.
According to the above details they will no longer be subject to preemption. So when you say you won't accept the law, does that mean that you will carry a firearm in schools unlawfully if passed as written above?

[ken243]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.


This. ZERO loss of current rights and privileges.

[jtivat]

Schools are the main reason I would want this exception.

[Barrettone]

I say this as an instructor for the NRA. The current training for CPL holders is not adequate for carrying in PFZ's. We are teaching you PPITH (Personal Protection IN the Home). You are getting a license to carry out in public, yet we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting. Quite frankly, I don't feel comfortable with cutting anybody loose in the schools without PPOTH (Person Protection OUTSIDE the Home). You may say, "Well that's the NRA's problem!". Maybe it is, but the fact remains that we need to show proficiency in the environment you are being licensed to carry in. Additionally, legislators and the general public are not going to go for the idea of letting current CPL holders carry in ANY PFZ's without additional training. It would be a deal breaker to even attempt such a proposal. That is the reality, and no amount of vocalization or protesting is going to change that.

Bottom line is guys and gals, that it is easy to get mad and yell "NO COMROMISE!!!". Fact is, that we need to increase our gun rights the same way they try to take them away...incrementally. If you think taking an "all or nothing" approach is going to gain us any ground, you are sadly mistaken. Nobody likes compromising anything, but I can only fight on so many issues being one of 6-8 people in the room. I stood my ground on breaking the schools out as long as the schools still had the ability to "opt in". I also don't want to compromise OC in the schools, so it is not on the table...initially. My third wishlist item was to break it up into two bills, and I was shot down on that. Maybe that will change before the bill is introduced. I am just letting you guys know the general direction that this thing is going in. This is the last thing I am going to say about this until it goes to draft. At that point, we can re-address things, as we'll have something in writing to critique. I will still be watching and noting your comments though!!!

[Raggs]

It is worrisome to me that you think people you have trained are somehow safe in public but not in schools. You use the in home training for people who are not concealing in the home. makes no sense.


I say this as an instructor for the NRA. The current training for CPL holders is not adequate for carrying in PFZ's. We are teaching you PPITH (Personal Protection IN the Home). You are getting a license to carry out in public, yet we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting. Quite frankly, I don't feel comfortable with cutting anybody loose in the schools without PPOTH (Person Protection OUTSIDE the Home). You may say, "Well that's the NRA's problem!". Maybe it is, but the fact remains that we need to show proficiency in the environment you are being licensed to carry in. Additionally, legislators and the general public are not going to go for the idea of letting current CPL holders carry in ANY PFZ's without additional training. It would be a deal breaker to even attempt such a proposal. That is the reality, and no amount of vocalization or protesting is going to change that.

Bottom line is guys and gals, that it is easy to get mad and yell "NO COMROMISE!!!". Fact is, that we need to increase our gun rights the same way they try to take them away...incrementally. If you think taking an "all or nothing" approach is going to gain us any ground, you are sadly mistaken. Nobody likes compromising anything, but I can only fight on so many issues being one of 6-8 people in the room. I stood my ground on breaking the schools out as long as the schools still had the ability to "opt in". I also don't want to compromise OC in the schools, so it is not on the table...initially. My third wishlist item was to break it up into two bills, and I was shot down on that. Maybe that will change before the bill is introduced. I am just letting you guys know the general direction that this thing is going in. This is the last thing I am going to say about this until it goes to draft. At that point, we can re-address things, as we'll have something in writing to critique. I will still be watching and noting your comments though!!!

[45/70fan]

I thought this was part of the class, I have been teaching this since the classes started."...we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting. ..." I don't know what classes you are referring to but situational awareness is part of the NRA text for teaching.
I may be all wrong but at least my students are getting 10 hrs of class room and 2 or more hours on the range. Are they over qualified, no I would teach more but the students can't sit that long nor absorb much more.
I do agree with Barretone however, ppith is not enough and ppoth is just beginning to touch on the subject of an active shooter situation which is what you will have in a school situation.
Using a pistol for self defense against an asault is not the same as going up against an active shooter bent on destroying multiple lives along with their own.

[Leader]

It is worrisome to me that you think people you have trained are somehow safe in public but not in schools. You use the in home training for people who are not concealing in the home. makes no sense.

I agree here. From what you (Barrettone) say, you don't believe I should be allowed to carry at Wal-Mart or the corner of Walk & Don't Walk.
I truly feel I am capable of safely carrying a pistol anywhere I am legally allowed to be. The fact that the state thinks if I see a child I'll go nuts & start shooting offends me. Now I see that that is the way you feel also.

[Barrettone]

I agree here. From what you (Barrettone) say, you don't believe I should be allowed to carry at Wal-Mart or the corner of Walk & Don't Walk.I truly feel I am capable of safely carrying a pistol anywhere I am legally allowed to be. The fact that the state thinks if I see a child I'll go nuts & start shooting offends me. Now I see that that is the way you feel also.

I NEVER said that!!! I said, that in my opinion, as an instructor, that I do not feel that PPITH goes far enough to allow someone to deal with an encounter that COULD involve very precision shooting in a very high-stress environment. Maybe you practice a lot, and if you do, kudos. However, PPITH did not get you to that level of proficiency on it's own. As an instructor, I am entitled to my opinion on the matter. Other instructors may feel differently. Fact is, that NRA tells us what the acceptable cirriculum is for CPL issuance. My beef is with their policy, not you.

I do not let my bias' or personal opinions dictate how I serve my MGO constituents. I will do what the majority wants, however, I am entitled to voice my opinions too, just like any other MGO member. Fact is, PPOTH more adequately addresses carrying in public, and I like the NRA's Defensive Pistol Class even more, as it is the only class that mandates you shoot with a timer on you, and it creates stress. Not exactly a life-threatening stress, but stress nonetheless, and you are not guaranteed a certificate.

Fact is, I, personally, would not pass anybody in a class that I would not trust to put my sons on either side of the target, and know that they will ALWAYS hit the target, and not my kids. Call me crazy, but I want QUALIFIED people to carry in the schools. Not everybody strives to get better on their own. They take the class, and then that is it!!! As I said, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm sorry. However, I have seen other instructors "Plain Jane" classes that do not go as far as I do (you can teach more than the class requires), and I would not trust some of them in a school just because they passed PPITH within the NRA's guidelines. Apologies to 45/70fan, there is some situational awareness criteria in PPITH, however, I was referring to the fact that it does not properly address some PFZ scenarios (as he more eloquently stated).

[DanM]

I say this as an instructor for the NRA. The current training for CPL holders is not adequate for carrying in PFZ's. We are teaching you PPITH (Personal Protection IN the Home). You are getting a license to carry out in public, yet we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting.

Barrettone, would you agree that if there is a 20+ year record of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force), then we should look to that record as the authoritative guide on how adequately or inadequately legal CC'ers are doing when it comes to CC and use of self-defense in public?

What does that record suggest to you?

[Jackam]

Boy - will this post seem way off base.....

Remember that the Sec of State would GLADLY take over the responsibility AS LONG AS THEY ARE FUNDED to do so! They are a business with a budget and like everyone else, will shun more work for no pay and gladly take on more work for additional pay.

I now bring you back to your regularly scheduled NRA training feud....

[Raggs]

Barrettone, would you agree that if there is a 20+ year record of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force), then we should look to that record as the authoritative guide on how adequately or inadequately legal CC'ers are doing when it comes to CC and use of self-defense in public?

What does that record suggest to you?

+1

[G22]

Jeff, who exactly was against breaking the bill into separate line items?

Maybe some reasoning from their constituents or members could sway their opinion?

Dan, Wayne LaPiere said on Hannity that the NRA has documented over 2 million cases of self defense per year with legal firearms.

[Barrettone]

Barrettone, would you agree that if there is a 20+ year record of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force), then we should look to that record as the authoritative guide on how adequately or inadequately legal CC'ers are doing when it comes to CC and use of self-defense in public?

What does that record suggest to you?

I say again:

Fact is, I, personally, would not pass anybody in a class that I would not trust to put my sons on either side of the target, and know that they will ALWAYS hit the target, and not my kids. Call me crazy, but I want QUALIFIED people to carry in the schools. Not everybody strives to get better on their own. They take the class, and then that is it!!! As I said, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm sorry. However, I have seen other instructors "Plain Jane" classes that do not go as far as I do (you can teach more than the class requires), and I would not trust some of them in a school just because they passed PPITH within the NRA's guidelines. Apologies to 45/70fan, there is some situational awareness criteria in PPITH, however, I was referring to the fact that it does not properly address some PFZ scenarios (as he more eloquently stated).

[emt232004]

It is worrisome to me that you think people you have trained are somehow safe in public but not in schools. You use the in home training for people who are not concealing in the home. makes no sense.

A school is nothing more than any other place that allows you to c.arry such as walmart or applebees or what not.


Additionally, legislators and the general public are not going to go for the idea of letting current CPL holders carry in ANY PFZ's without additional training
There are those that carry openly with cpl currently and they have not done any harm by doing so.

[45/70fan]

A school is nothing more than any other place that allows you to c.arry such as walmart or applebees or what not.
On the contrary, schools are a high priority for protecting at this time.


There are those that carry openly with cpl currently and they have not done any harm by doing so. You really don't want to go there because that door will be shut now that the cat is out of the bag.

I can almost guarantee you that there are some in Lansing working to change the open carry loophole.

[Melski]

Cut the restrictions! If you are legal to carry on the side walk, you should be legal to carry in the school. It is just ridiculous to think that law abiding citizens can carry in a crowded mall during Christmas but will go crazy if they walk into a school.

[James Weaver]

We have more control of Sheriff's because they are elected officials. The MSP and their paid lobbyists have done more to hamstring real reforms than any other groups!

Giving the MSP more control is a bad idea!

I'd also like to see the elimination of handgun registration in our state.

[Raggs]

Cut the restrictions! If you are legal to carry on the side walk, you should be legal to carry in the school. It is just ridiculous to think that law abiding citizens can carry in a crowded mall during Christmas but will go crazy if they walk into a school.

But instructors want more people to take the advanced class.

[SADAacp]

But instructors want more people to take the advanced class.

Say it isn't so. Do you honestly believe, for one second, the "experts" who teach classes to satisfy requirements for an Enhanced CPL, at $150 to $200 a pop, would support a re-introduction of SB59 or reasonable facsimile which, at the same time, as an "expert" would exempt them as well?

[emt232004]

You really don't want to go there because that door will be shut now that the cat is out of the bag.

I can almost guarantee you that there are some in Lansing working to change the open carry loophole.

Yes I do want to go there, Every place that is listed at a pfz is no more special than those that are not on the list. I should not have to take an "advanced" class to carry at these "special" places.

All of you saying you support others rights and support oc are the first to thow it under the bus to bargin with. It is not a loophole and it is not anything new.

[DanM]

I say again:

Fact is, I, personally, would not pass anybody in a class that I would not trust to put my sons on either side of the target, and know that they will ALWAYS hit the target, and not my kids. Call me crazy, but I want QUALIFIED people to carry in the schools. Not everybody strives to get better on their own. They take the class, and then that is it!!! As I said, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm sorry. . . .

I'm not questioning whether I agree with you or not, I'm questioning whether or not your opinion agrees with a record of reality we can look to:

Twenty-plus years of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force).

From that record, we can ask ourselves the following:
Have legal gun carriers demonstrated a pattern of a problem with responsibility?
Have legal gun carriers demonstrated a pattern of a problem with using force legally, when they've had to?
Have legal gun carriers demonstrated a pattern of a problem, when having to fire their firearm for self-defense, with hitting bystanders if they are present?

It's not your opinion or anyone else's that matters, when we have a record such as that to look at. So, what does the record lead us to believe on each of those three questions above, and any other question you might have?


Apologies to 45/70fan, there is some situational awareness criteria in PPITH, however, I was referring to the fact that it does not properly address some PFZ scenarios (as he more eloquently stated).

PFZs are nothing but areas with an imaginary line drawn around them, when it comes to the factors relevant to a person needing to shoot in self-defense. Legal carriers carry in places outside of PFZs that have all the same relevant factors as what are in PFZs. So again, I present the record I mention above, and I ask:

According to the expansive record we can now look to, have legal gun carriers demonstrated a pattern of a problem, when having to fire their firearms for self-defense, with hitting bystanders or causing any other significant damage other than to the bad guys they have defended themselves against?

[SADAacp]

Yes I do want to go there, Every place that is listed at a pfz is no more special than those that are not on the list. I should not have to take an "advanced" class to carry at these "special" places.

All of you saying you support others rights and support oc are the first to thow it under the bus to bargin with. It is not a loophole and it is not anything new.

Couldn't agree more, but on the surface, I don't think that's really the point the "experts" are trying to make. I believe what they're getting at is density (people per volume). Unlike a store or even some restaurants, a school classroom and hallways have a much higher density of people, at least at times - a larger number of people (students) are typically much closer together.

[emt232004]

PFZs are nothing but areas with an imaginary line drawn around them, when it comes to the factors relevant to a person needing to shoot in self-defense. Legal carriers carry in places outside of PFZs that have all the same relevant factors as what are in PFZs.


Nothing more true has been said to date.





According to the expansive record we can now look to, have legal gun carriers demonstrated a pattern of a problem, when having to fire their firearms for self-defense, with hitting bystanders or causing any other significant damage other than to the bad guys they have defended themselves against

Let's take it a step further and look at the leo's in NY that shoot bystanders vs the cpl holder in the mall shooting that confronted the shooter but did not pull the trigger due to seeing other movement, shooter then offs himself.

Oregon CCW Holder Confronted Gunman And Stopped Clackamas Town Center Mall Shooting (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html)

NYC cop “accidentally” shoots 76-year-old bystander during drug raid (http://www.copblock.org/1692/nyc-cop-accidentally-shoots-76-year-old-bystander-during-drug-raid/)

NYPD Gunfire In Empire State Building Shooting Wounded All Nine Bystanders (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html)

[emt232004]

I believe what they're getting at is density (people per volume). Unlike a store or even some restaurants, a school classroom and hallways have a much higher density of people, at least at times - a larger number of people (students) are typically much closer together.

Ok how about county fairs that allow carry? The Detroit hoedown when it was on public property? Thankgiving day parade? How about AB&E-Let alone they don't mind all the drinks next to all the kids....... Those all have a high density of people and nothing happens.

[SADAacp]

Ok how about county fairs that allow carry? The Detroit hoedown when it was on public property? Thankgiving day parade? How about AB&E-Let alone they don't mind all the drinks next to all the kids....... Those all have a high density of people and nothing happens.

Make no mistake, I don't agree with the "experts" in this regard, I'm just addressing what I think the point is they're attempting to make, at least in part. I don't, and never will, support these bozo's who are supportive of ANY legislation that throws the rest of us under the bus simply for their own BS personal, financial, or otherwise, gain. F'em.

[G22]

There are several groups providing input for this legislation.
These are the lead players who will be instrumental in writing this new legislation.

Please feel free to politely contact them with your concerns:

Senator Mike Green
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/ima_form.asp?name=COMMENT31&form_path=E:/webforms/rep

Representative Joel Johnson
joeljohnson@house.mi.gov


Everybody's concerns about this new legislation will be MUCH better served by contacting the above people personally.

Respectfully tell them what you want, or don't want.

Ready....GO

[Barrettone]

Make no mistake, I don't agree with the "experts" in this regard, I'm just addressing what I think the point is they're attempting to make, at least in part. I don't, and never will, support these bozo's who are supportive of ANY legislation that throws the rest of us under the bus simply for their own BS personal, financial, or otherwise, gain. F'em.

It's not about financial gain...I (and every other instructor I know) have more than enough on our plates...especially with all this gun control BS going on. Simply put, PPITH does not have scenario-based training, and in a high stress environment, people sink to the level of their training. If (God forbid), one of my students is involved in a school shooting, and I am called to testify (as most instructors are), I want to be able to vouch for the fact that they had adequate scenario based training to deal with such a threat. Having taught as many people as I have in PPITH, I think I, and most other instructors would agree. It's not always a conspiracy ya know.

[Leader]

You're telling me (us) that when there is a shooting, whoever taught the shooter is called into court to testify?

And this happens as a regular thing?

Why is it that we haven't heard of this before?

Next, Why is the school your son is in any different then the Wal-Mart your Grandson & Wife are in?
Why is a hospital any different then the Kroger store full of old sick people?
And yes, explain the difference between the county fair or the Circus and a football game.

[goplayer]

Opinion that i would like to express is that an active shooter is not the same as the usual hold-up or home invasion. The active shooter has planned and intends shoot a lot of people. Many more guns and ammo. Robber may not even be seriously interested in shooting as most cases the robber runs if confronted with a gun. A school is a magnet for an active shooter at this time. Maybe in the future when there is armed people in the schools they will not be as much of target and we can lower the requirements but for now I think that there should be more training for carry in a school. Especially training for active shooter situations.

[TomE]

You're telling me (us) that when there is a shooting, whoever taught the shooter is called into court to testify?

And this happens as a regular thing?

Why is it that we haven't heard of this before?

Next, Why is the school your son is in any different then the Wal-Mart your Grandson & Wife are in?
Why is a hospital any different then the Kroger store full of old sick people?
And yes, explain the difference between the county fair or the Circus and a football game.
:flame:

[Leader]

Not to mention that most states do not have as many or the same GFZ's as Michigan.

What makes us unable to safely carry in them here and it's ok in other states?

Just because we didn't give some NRA instructor $200?

[Tallbear]

What happened with all the people that could carry everywhere before 2001 when there where no PFZ and they had no training?



Opinion that i would like to express is that an active shooter is not the same as the usual hold-up or home invasion. The active shooter has planned and intends shoot a lot of people. Many more guns and ammo. Robber may not even be seriously interested in shooting as most cases the robber runs if confronted with a gun. A school is a magnet for an active shooter at this time. Maybe in the future when there is armed people in the schools they will not be as much of target and we can lower the requirements but for now I think that there should be more training for carry in a school. Especially training for active shooter situations.

[ltdave]

The bill as it was passed last year SUCKED.

It was a JOKE & shouldn't even be used as a model for what NOT to do.

agreed...

[Leader]

What happened with all the people that could carry everywhere before 2001 when there where no PFZ and they had no training?

Oh... That's easy.
The sheriff had complete control of who he gave a permit to and ONLY picked the very best & brightest marksmen . Those above reproach such as cops.

[Barrettone]

What happened with all the people that could carry everywhere before 2001 when there where no PFZ and they had no training?

We live in a different world now than back in 2001. Public opinion, government officials, and educators attitudes change. I'm not saying you have to like it, only pointing out the reality of the situation.

[ltdave]

But instructors want more people to take the advanced class.



Say it isn't so. Do you honestly believe, for one second, the "experts" who teach classes to satisfy requirements for an Enhanced CPL, at $150 to $200 a pop, would support a re-introduction of SB59 or reasonable facsimile which, at the same time, as an "expert" would exempt them as well?


boy oh boy...

you two have hit on what ive felt for a LONG TIME... nothing like having a vested interest in getting a requirement for more training than to have a trainer pushing for that extra training...

[45/70fan]

No trainer that would make a penny on the advance training requirement is behind this bill as far as I know. Goplayer hit the reasoning for more training squarely.

[DanM]

It's not about financial gain...I (and every other instructor I know) have more than enough on our plates...especially with all this gun control BS going on. Simply put, PPITH does not have scenario-based training, and in a high stress environment, people sink to the level of their training.

If (God forbid), one of my students is involved in a school shooting, and I am called to testify (as most instructors are), I want to be able to vouch for the fact that they had adequate scenario based training to deal with such a threat. Having taught as many people as I have in PPITH, I think I, and most other instructors would agree. It's not always a conspiracy ya know.

Have legal carriers without "scenario-based training" exhibited a pattern of problems?

This isn't a matter of opinion, with the record we now can look to of 20+ years of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force).

And in looking at this expansive record, the distinction between PFZs and non-PFZs is irrelevant, when it comes to the factors relevant to a person needing to shoot in self-defense. Legal carriers carry in places outside of PFZs that have all the same relevant factors as what are in PFZs.

Do legal carriers without "scenario-based training" exhibit a pattern of problems in their tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of employing self-defense?

What proportion of legal carriers in the record I speak of probably don't have "scenario-based training"? What does that record demonstrate, nevertheless, about whether or not there is a pattern of a problem existing?

[Chopper]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.
this

[DanM]

Opinion that i would like to express is that an active shooter is not the same as the usual hold-up or home invasion. The active shooter has planned and intends shoot a lot of people. Many more guns and ammo. Robber may not even be seriously interested in shooting as most cases the robber runs if confronted with a gun. A school is a magnet for an active shooter at this time. Maybe in the future when there is armed people in the schools they will not be as much of target and we can lower the requirements but for now I think that there should be more training for carry in a school. Especially training for active shooter situations.

There's no need for you to rely on opinion, when we have a record of 20+ years of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force).

Every self-defense encounter in that record that involved a bad guy armed with a gun threatening imminent bodily harm or death was, essentially, an "active shooter" situation at least from the perspective of the gun-carrying potential victim.

So, does that record indicate that there is a pattern of a problem with legal carriers when they've had to employ self-defense against an "active shooter" bad guy (a bad guy armed with a firearm threatening imminent bodily harm or death)?

[Barrettone]

Have legal carriers without "scenario-based training" exhibited a pattern of problems?

This isn't a matter of opinion, with the record we now can look to of 20+ years of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force).

And in looking at this expansive record, the distinction between PFZs and non-PFZs is irrelevant, when it comes to the factors relevant to a person needing to shoot in self-defense. Legal carriers carry in places outside of PFZs that have all the same relevant factors as what are in PFZs.

Do legal carriers without "scenario-based training" exhibit a pattern of problems in their tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of employing self-defense?

What proportion of legal carriers in the record I speak of probably don't have "scenario-based training"? What does that record demonstrate, nevertheless, about whether or not there is a pattern of a problem existing?

You can reiterate this argument over and over again, and it isn't going to change the fact that the public perception, and legislators perception is that without us offerring up additional education, we won't be able to get this legislation passed. The public has to feel "comfortable" with the idea, and without this "additional training", our politicians have nothing to answer the "public perception" that these areas require advanced skills. I am not saying it is right, or that you have to like it. Fact is, that 80% of the general public are not avid shooters. You must sway them to make the legislation palatable. Just because you and I think we don't need it, and that there are facts that support that argument, doesn't mean squat to John Q. Public. Hate the game, not the player.

[ltdave]

No trainer that would make a penny on the advance training requirement is behind this bill as far as I know. Goplayer hit the reasoning for more training squarely.


youre saying Barrettone wouldnt profit from this if it was passed, requiring more training? he is currently the most 'vocal' about what this bill needs (more training, specifically PPOtH) which he teaches. i guess he wont be charging anyone for this extra training...

(sorry Jeff, i dont mean to single you out but, this is already 7 pages long and i cant go back through all of these individual posts)...

[Leader]

You can reiterate this argument over and over again, and it isn't going to change the fact that the public perception, and legislators perception is that without us offerring up additional education, we won't be able to get this legislation passed. The public has to feel "comfortable" with the idea, and without this "additional training", our politicians have nothing to answer the "public perception" that these areas require advanced skills. I am not saying it is right, or that you have to like it. Fact is, that 80% of the general public are not avid shooters. You must sway them to make the legislation palatable. Just because you and I think we don't need it, and that there are facts that support that argument, doesn't mean squat to John Q. Public. Hate the game, not the player.

Then perhaps we should focus on educating the legislators & general public.
We could start with an add campaign comparing the records of permitted carriers to that of police officers. (Real AD's and accidental shootings of non criminals)
Police officers should have a perfect record with all the training they get and the permit holders should have vast numbers of innocent dead stacked up in hospitals, schools, theaters, and Wal-Marts all over the country. (Remember some states do not require ANY training)

[ltdave]

Leader, i likee...

[DanM]

Just because you and I think we don't need it, and that there are facts that support that argument, doesn't mean squat to John Q. Public. Hate the game, not the player.

Ok, you stated those opinions as *your* opinions you held about the inadequacy of all the John Q. Carrier's out there not having PPOTH or "scenario-based training". I was responding to you. It appears you are clarifying you are perfectly fine that the record demonstrates that John Q. Carrier has exhibited no pattern of problem with the legal carry and self-defense he has performed, possibly most of those without the "benefit", not to mention (cough) extra training revenues, of PPOTH or SBT.

You clarify that and pivot to what John Q. Public thinks about John Q. Carrier. You assert it is John Q. Public who thinks John Q. Carrier needs more training, if we are to make further legislative progress.

I question your opinion. But, again, it is not me questioning whether your opinion disagrees with mine. It is questioning whether an established record disagrees with your opinion.

Since shall-issue, there is a record of further pro-gun rights legislation in Michigan passing without adding extra training on to legal carriers. The ways and methods those were successfully shepherded, if not shoved through, is the model we ought to employ. Either John Q. Public really didn't have the concerns you speak of, or he didn't really respect the validity of his concerns enough to call his legislator and oppose.

The advantage we have over John Q. Public is that we are tenacious, vocal, and we actually do vote according to where our representatives are with regard to their support of gun-rights legislation.

Any legislative director of any organization would be wise to harness that power, and look to the record on what are the best methods that have been used to get legislation passed without the need for further burdening his constituents.

I offer you my own time, physical presence, and any other effort that I can spare, along with all others here you could harness, as long as you promise to look to the record of how past legislation was passed without further burdening us, and go that route and employ the tactics you learn to get the legislation we all want passed, without further burden placed upon us. This is more than possible . . . it is inevitable, with time and tenacity. Harness us and the lessons you can learn from the passage of past legislation that did not add to our burdens!

[dab102999]

I asked this a few pages ago and cant find an answer so I will expand my question a bit...

If I am correct a police officer can not just come up and ask me if I have a cpl for no reason correct???..I need to be stopped or detained for this to become nessesary to disclose legally.

So therefore if this bill was to pass who would have a right to see my enhanced license??..and how would this pertain to out of state permit holders??

[Raggs]

This kind of sounds a bit arrogant doesn't it? you teach the class right but you don't trust the other instructors, nice


Fact is, I, personally, would not pass anybody in a class that I would not trust to put my sons on either side of the target, and know that they will ALWAYS hit the target, and not my kids. Call me crazy, but I want QUALIFIED people to carry in the schools. Not everybody strives to get better on their own. They take the class, and then that is it!!! As I said, I am entitled to my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm sorry. However, I have seen other instructors "Plain Jane" classes that do not go as far as I do (you can teach more than the class requires), and I would not trust some of them in a school just because they passed PPITH within the NRA's guidelines. Apologies to 45/70fan, there is some situational awareness criteria in PPITH, however, I was referring to the fact that it does not properly address some PFZ scenarios (as he more eloquently stated).

[45/70fan]

For the record the additional training requirements were established long before Barrettone entered the picture. There are individuals working behind the scene that do have some influence on the contents of the legislation. And no there was never any consideration of financial gain, it was for the appeasement of the naysayers opposed to PFZ carry all together.
I can see that SB 59 (2013) is going nowhere already with all of these special arguments.
iF YOU don't like the legislation talk to your representatives and get them to introduce what you demand. BTW: be prepared to write it yourself and listen to all of the :flamethr: bitching.

[Michigander]

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

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

6) Pre-emption is out.

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


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

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

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


I don't believe you know me, Barretone, usually I just post on OCDO. I want to address some concerns of mine, because I think you guys are making a very serious mistake.

If you give up OC as a bargaining chip, you will cause the first anti OC law in Michigan, which I believe is a very dangerous precident. Further, you will marginalize those who do OC in schools who have a legit need to be there, which would primarily be voting, but also includes parents. If the schools get to ban this, which I am quite sure the sweeping majority of urban schools will, it will in effect ban carry at schools while also throwing OCing under the bus.

I am with DanM on this, you say you want to be working in increments, yet you are trying to make a big fat compromise package. Hit our anti governor with small jabs, please, such as addressing one no carry zone at a time. In the past year, we have lost long gun carry in cars, and I believe we just lost preemption for all registered pistol owners against the GFSZA (something I warned Mike Green about in person, by the way, and yet they did it anyway). We really aren't doing this right.

I do not know how you could come to the conclusion that after throwing out school carry, which is legal now, that you'll be able to get it to boomerang back years down the road. You've seen the news, the media is utterly capable of doing a propaganda war again. Do you really thing a majority of politicians and our governer, years down the road will want to face the media about legalizing school carry? I won't rule it out, but I am by no means willing to bet on it. If you throw school carry away this time, please make it count, because I very sincerely doubt we'll ever get it back.


I say this as an instructor for the NRA. The current training for CPL holders is not adequate for carrying in PFZ's. We are teaching you PPITH (Personal Protection IN the Home). You are getting a license to carry out in public, yet we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting. Quite frankly, I don't feel comfortable with cutting anybody loose in the schools without PPOTH (Person Protection OUTSIDE the Home).

I have never taken the outside the home course, but the inside the home course, if taught as the NRA specifies, doesn't really qualify someone to carry anywhere, in my opinion. The fundamentals of the law are covered, and the fundamentals of basic pistol operation are covered. Retention shooting, FOF, threat deescalation and other parts of fight psychology, and many other key topics, they are not even covered/barely get mentioned. For God's sake, you can't even let the students use real silhouette targets, never mind a target that actually looks and is shaped like a person!

Honestly, if you want to be arguing for greater training requirements, you should be doing it for all licensed carry, period. I am personally a constitutional carry advocate, but if you're going to insist on negotiating rights away, in spite of the financial burden and power grab to the government it would be, mandating better training for all future first time CPL applicants would be one of the better things you could do than throwing away carry in schools.

All that said, I'd again suggest not biting off more at a time than our current rights/privileges can chew.

[Barrettone]

I hear you Guys and Gals, and I am listening. To clear up one little thing that keeps getting insinuated though, I wish to clarify one VERY BIG thing.

I have taken PPOTH as a student, so I know what the class covers, HOWEVER, I AM NOT CERTIFIED TO INSTRUCT IT!!!

I wanted that in big letters so that all those insinuating that I will profit from this can get that out of their head. It is not listed as one of my credentials in my signature line.

Now that said, I stated "it doesn't matter what you and I think"...I was being facetious. I DO still think PPOTH or NRA Defensive Pistol (another credential I don't have even though I've taken the class) is necessary. I agree that the NRA should make PPOTH the initial requirement for ANY CPL, but alas, I am not king. Many instructors share my opinion too. Anyway, I wanted to clarify that so we can put the "conflict of interest" thing to bed. Additionally, as 45/70fan stated, this criteria was decided long before I got involved in the discussions.

Tallbear has suggested I invite Senator Green to our February meeting at Duncans, and I am going to do so. Hopefully I can get him to attend so members can make their concerns known in a face-to-face format. I'll see what I can do.

Carry on...

[BOSS302]

I asked this a few pages ago and cant find an answer so I will expand my question a bit...

If I am correct a police officer can not just come up and ask me if I have a cpl for no reason correct???..I need to be stopped or detained for this to become nessesary to disclose legally.

So therefore if this bill was to pass who would have a right to see my enhanced license??..and how would this pertain to out of state permit holders??

Out of State CPL holders will not be allowed to carry in the PFZs. You must disclose when you are stopped/detained. I don't know why they would ask if that wasn't the case.

[DanM]

I DO still think PPOTH or NRA Defensive Pistol (another credential I don't have even though I've taken the class) is necessary. I agree that the NRA should make PPOTH the initial requirement for ANY CPL, but alas, I am not king. Many instructors share my opinion too.

Barrettone, here I go again thinking you are stating *your* opinion on what you think yourself and other instructors think John Q. Carrier lacks as far as training. Please clarify if this is *your* opinion or your opinion of *John Q. Public's* opinion and your opinion that John Q. Public's opinion need dictate that we insert burdens upon ourselves in order to get legislation passed.

Either way, I've responded EXTENSIVELY to you on both (your opinion, or your opinion of John Q. Public's opinion and your opinion that we need to accomodate JQP's opinion in legislation we drive aggressively on). Please clarify whose opinion you are referring to (again), and review my responses above to either of the possible answers you give. In either case, your opinions have a record that they can be reckoned against which suggests your opinions should be re-examined.


Tallbear has suggested I invite Senator Green to our February meeting at Duncans, and I am going to do so. Hopefully I can get him to attend so members can make their concerns known in a face-to-face format. I'll see what I can do.

Appreciate your efforts on that. I will attend if I can make it. Also, appreciate your acknowledgement you are "listening" here, and your willingness to respond.

Regards,
Dan

[Barrettone]

Barrettone, here I go again thinking you are stating *your* opinion on what you think yourself and other instructors think John Q. Carrier lacks as far as training. Please clarify if this is *your* opinion or your opinion of *John Q. Public's* opinion and your opinion that John Q. Public's opinion need dictate that we insert burdens upon ourselves in order to get legislation passed.

Either way, I've responded EXTENSIVELY to you on both (your opinion, or your opinion of John Q. Public's opinion and your opinion that we need to accomodate JQP's opinion in legislation we drive aggressively on). Please clarify whose opinion you are referring to (again), and review my responses above to either of the possible answers you give. In either case, your opinions have a record that they can be reckoned against which suggests your opinions should be re-examined.


Regards,
Dan

I'm dizzy now...Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know is on third base? LOL

1) Barrettone (the individual and instructor) - PPOTH should be taught as THE class for standard CPL issuance and for PFZ's right out of the gate, and PPITH should just be a standard first-time gun owner class so that they can adequately defend themselves and their family INSIDE THEIR HOME just as the class title suggests. PPITH should NOT be a prerequisite for PPOTH as it currently is. Additionally, I feel that certain aspects of NRA DEFENSIVE PISTOL should be incorporated into PPOTH to add some dynamic shooting into the class to help simulate stress. Alas, the NRA will not change their class criteria accepted currently in 50 states to make the MGO folks happy on some state-level legislation. Therefore, we are gonna have to deal with what they give us. People who like my idea need to petition the NRA for that change, and it is not likely to happen due to little 'ol SB-59.

2) Barrettone (on the general opinion of John Q. Public) - They (JQP-the "sheeple") think we shouldn't be allowed to carry in schools under any circumstances. HOWEVER, under the guise of "enhanced training", and the mystical powers included therein, they would be able to stomache the idea, as it gives it more legitimacy in their feeble eyes. Do you like it...OF COURSE NOT!!! Is it reality...yup. Do we need to pacify JQP to get this passed...yup. Do gun owners care what JQP thinks...nope. Should we...yup, if we want to get this passed. Am I going to get flamed for wanting to pander to these cretens...yup. Are you happy with me for suggesting we have to placate them...nope. Is the messenger getting killed here...yup. Can I please everybody...nope. Do I care if I can only please the majority and not a very vocal minority...nope. Would I rather be shooting up north at my cottage, four wheeling, hunting, and fishing and not in this position representing MGO on an issue I'm sure to piss some people off and get hate mail for the rest of my life from them because they didn't get everything on their SB-59 wish list...ya you betchya (insert yooper dialect here).

3) Barrettone (the MGO PRESIDENT) - We should support whatever the MAJORITY of MGO Members think about PFZ carry.

Are we now clear on how all three of my alter-egos feel on this issue? Gawd I hope so...it's late, and I'm going to bed.

[firespec35]

I guess I have a question that may boil right down to the base of this. Where is Lt Gov Calley in all this. When a bunch of us were grumbling about having Snyder as the only choice a bunch came back and said but hes got Calley as a running mate and is super dooper pro gun. He should have the Gov's ear more than anyone in Lansing yet publicly I didnt hear a word (yeah I know the whole united front thing. Cant speak against the boss) and I didnt hear anything here about using his influence so WTH?

As for this whole bill thing I personally think were screwed any which way we look so any progress is good progress.
Good Luck Barrettone.

[SADAacp]

I hear you Guys and Gals, and I am listening. To clear up one little thing that keeps getting insinuated though, I wish to clarify one VERY BIG thing.

I have taken PPOTH as a student, so I know what the class covers, HOWEVER, I AM NOT CERTIFIED TO INSTRUCT IT!!!

I wanted that in big letters so that all those insinuating that I will profit from this can get that out of their head. It is not listed as one of my credentials in my signature line.

Now that said, I stated "it doesn't matter what you and I think"...I was being facetious. I DO still think PPOTH or NRA Defensive Pistol (another credential I don't have even though I've taken the class) is necessary. I agree that the NRA should make PPOTH the initial requirement for ANY CPL, but alas, I am not king. Many instructors share my opinion too. Anyway, I wanted to clarify that so we can put the "conflict of interest" thing to bed. Additionally, as 45/70fan stated, this criteria was decided long before I got involved in the discussions.

Tallbear has suggested I invite Senator Green to our February meeting at Duncans, and I am going to do so. Hopefully I can get him to attend so members can make their concerns known in a face-to-face format. I'll see what I can do.

Carry on...

It's very much awake and running rampant.

There were members here - possibly just certified to teach CPL classes - and elsewhere who admitted to taking or have completed a class where they're certified to teach classes that meet the requirements for the Enhanced CPL. So, with nearly 350K CPL holders in Michigan, does anyone HONESTLY believe that all the folks certified to teach the class, or classes, are not supportive of SB59 or a similar Bill?

[Leader]

I'm dizzy now...Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know is on third base? LOL

1) Barrettone (the individual and instructor) - PPOTH should be taught as THE class for standard CPL issuance and for PFZ's right out of the gate, and PPITH should just be a standard first-time gun owner class so that they can adequately defend themselves and their family INSIDE THEIR HOME just as the class title suggests. PPITH should NOT be a prerequisite for PPOTH as it currently is. Additionally, I feel that certain aspects of NRA DEFENSIVE PISTOL should be incorporated into PPOTH to add some dynamic shooting into the class to help simulate stress. Alas, the NRA will not change their class criteria accepted currently in 50 states to make the MGO folks happy on some state-level legislation. Therefore, we are gonna have to deal with what they give us. People who like my idea need to petition the NRA for that change, and it is not likely to happen due to little 'ol SB-59.


I am only going to address this one part of your post.

What facts, data, or studies support your feeling that if a person does not have this class they are unsafe and unable to protect themselves?

As far as I know, very few people in this country have had this class. I'm guessing under a million. And I don't see news reports dealing with the deaths caused by not being certified by the NRA .
I do see & hear about people trusting there own natural instincts and protecting themselves and others. I hear about thousands of people everyday that have a license and have NOT had any NRA classes and still don't hurt or kill anyone.
How do you explain that?

[emt232004]

I am only going to address this one part of your post.

What facts, data, or studies support your feeling that if a person does not have this class they are unsafe and unable to protect themselves?

As far as I know, very few people in this country have had this class. I'm guessing under a million. And I don't see news reports dealing with the deaths caused by not being certified by the NRA .
I do see & hear about people trusting there own natural instincts and protecting themselves and others. I hear about thousands of people everyday that have a license and have NOT had any NRA classes and still don't hurt or kill anyone.
How do you explain that?

One better we have been hearing a lot about kids and wives using firearms in the home to protect their family. How many of them had either ppith or ppoth? How many times have they hit the wrong person or innocent person when they have little to no training on the books?

[SteakNEggs]

Well looks like were in for a fight....

From MCGRO Facebook -


Meet Michigan's newest anti-gun legislator. Freshman Democrat Andy Schor (D-Lansing). Concealed or open carry, Schor wants to eliminate the ability for licensed gun owners to carry weapons into schools or any of the other places that currently don't allow concealed weapons. That includes child care centers, sports arenas, bars, churches, large entertainment venues, hospitals or university classrooms. Schor argues, ""If the teacher pulls a gun out of his desk and starts shooting, that's more bullets flying around . . . There's also the possibility that she would have gotten killed and now there would have been another gun lying on the floor." Schor says he is currently shopping for co-sponsors of his bill and intends on introducing it today or tomorrow.

Do NOT give schools an exemption to the exemption. We must not other institutions legislative ammo, court ammo, for fighting for their illogical fears (CADL, Grand Rapids, Hospitals). Even setting the stage for exempting schools from this proposed 59 exemption replacement, or leaving it in the hands of the Sheriff could hurt us in say 7 years if we have a Democrat Governor. We are a blue (UAW) state!

[45/70fan]

It's very much awake and running rampant.

There were members here - possibly just certified to teach CPL classes - and elsewhere who admitted to taking or have completed a class where they're certified to teach classes that meet the requirements for the Enhanced CPL. So, with nearly 350K CPL holders in Michigan, does anyone HONESTLY believe that all the folks certified to teach the class, or classes, are not supportive of SB59 or a similar Bill?

And your point is?

The initial impetus for granting the enhanced PPITH CPL to instructors was because they for one must have taken the PPITH class as a student before they could take the PPITH instructors level course. To qualify for the instructors certification the applicant had to demonstrate a level of marksmanship above that necessary to be granted the initial PPITH certificate. Then the instructor applicant had to take an additional 8-10 hrs of class and demonstrate an understanding of the teaching material sufficiently to meet the NRA standards. Once they completed the classroom portion the applicant then had to demonstrate on the range a level of competency above that required to be certified at the basic PPITH level. Nobody was going to be denied the ability to test for and obtain this route to the enhanced CPL.
For those that still wanted to obtain the enhanced CPL they could elect to take the PPOTH certification route rather than the PPITH instructors certification.
Either way an individual must have first fulfilled the basic CPL instructional level of instruction then they elect at their discretion one or both or neither methods. Michigan residents were being offered alternatives each with different benefits or requirements to reach the same goal if they so chose. I cannot emphasis enough that the choice was up to the individual how they achieved what they wanted or didn't want. They key word here is they or more personally you!
When the enhanced CPL qualification requirements first became a topic of discussion I suggested that a person that wanted to obtain an enhanced CPL (1.) take the PPITH instructors certification and begin to teach while gaining the enhanced cpl and earn back the dollars spent to get the certification. or (3.) take the PPOTH level of instruction and get the enhanced cpl with no monetary return. or (4.) Become a PPOTH instructor and get the enhanced cpl along with recouping some dollars by instructing others. or (5.) maintain the standard minimum cpl and stay out of PFZ's.
There were other routes available but I won't go there at this time.
The end result was always up to you the individual how to obtain the enhanced check mark or not get it.
The primary reasoning for the additional levels of training were to get better educated and consequently higher qualified individuals into the PFZ's. A secondary purpose of the requirements was to gain support from some legislators that were opposed to throwing open the doors to just anyone. That is called a trade or compromise, without which nothing will happen in Lansing or Washington.
I will reiterate once more Barrettone was never part of the discussion early on, but I do welcome his voice now. I don't remember exactly when the topic of methods to obtain the enhanced cpl came about but if I remember it was somewhere around the time SB0059 S-2 was on the table.
Was there ever a financial gain for instructors considered as an ulterior motive, absolutely not. Was it going to be a secondary gain, probably because that is the way the system works most of the time-it's called capitalism.

[TomE]

[quote=SteakNEggs]Well looks like were in for a fight....

From MCGRO Facebook -



Do NOT give schools an exemption to the exemption. We must not other institutions legislative ammo, court ammo, for fighting for their illogical fears (CADL, Grand Rapids, Hospitals). Even setting the stage for exempting schools from this proposed 59 exemption replacement, or leaving it in the hands of the Sheriff could hurt us in say 7 years if we have a Democrat Governor. We are a blue (UAW) state![/quot

Iff that were true, RTW legislation would not have passed and been signed into law. Just stating facts.:rainfro:

[SteakNEggs]

Iff that were true, RTW legislation would not have passed and been signed into law. Just stating facts.:rainfro:

If we had a Democrat Gov, do you think that would still have happened? Since it did happen, along with the proposed gas tax, do you think we will still have a Republican Gov next election?

I stand by my philosophy.

[Barrettone]

I am only going to address this one part of your post.

What facts, data, or studies support your feeling that if a person does not have this class they are unsafe and unable to protect themselves?

As far as I know, very few people in this country have had this class. I'm guessing under a million. And I don't see news reports dealing with the deaths caused by not being certified by the NRA .
I do see & hear about people trusting there own natural instincts and protecting themselves and others. I hear about thousands of people everyday that have a license and have NOT had any NRA classes and still don't hurt or kill anyone.
How do you explain that?

I am going to answer your question with two of my own:

1) Have you taken PPOTH so you have a yardstick by which to measure your opinion?

2) Can you quantify your data, and give me accurrate stats of lethal force encounters THAT ONLY INVOLVE what would be considered a PFZ in Michigan from national statistics?

The onus is not on me to prove to you why we need enhanced training. It is on you to give me data to present that supports your claim that it is not needed for these specific areas (PFZ's). Give me what I need, and I will go to work to try and convince the others that we should drop that provision. Bottom line is, I need ammo, not calls for them to prove their argument. Giving me generalizations of how safe CPL shooters are from a broad range of circumstances and different demographics does not. All they have to do is vote "NO". The onus is on you to change that to a "YES". Is that right? Maybe not. Do you have to like it? No. Does it make sense? No. Is it, however, the reality? Yes. Can I change this fact? No. Does it piss me off too? Yes.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you have to understand what I'm up against.

[45/70fan]

Sorry to be so blunt, but you have to understand what I'm up against.

Barrettone you are up against the left, the elitist, multiple special interest groups, blind ignorance, unfounded fear, just plain stupidity and from within a mountain of discord. Brother you have your hands so full you have no time for playing with self. :banghead:

[Leader]

I am going to answer your question with two of my own:

1) Have you taken PPOTH so you have a yardstick by which to measure your opinion?

2) Can you quantify your data, and give me accurrate stats of lethal force encounters THAT ONLY INVOLVE what would be considered a PFZ in Michigan from national statistics?

The onus is not on me to prove to you why we need enhanced training. It is on you to give me data to present that supports your claim that it is not needed for these specific areas (PFZ's). Give me what I need, and I will go to work to try and convince the others that we should drop that provision. Bottom line is, I need ammo, not calls for them to prove their argument. Giving me generalizations of how safe CPL shooters are from a broad range of circumstances and different demographics does not. All they have to do is vote "NO". The onus is on you to change that to a "YES". Is that right? Maybe not. Do you have to like it? No. Does it make sense? No. Is it, however, the reality? Yes. Can I change this fact? No. Does it piss me off too? Yes.

Sorry to be so blunt, but you have to understand what I'm up against.

No I have not taken the class.
I did take the PPITH class and do not feel it has prevented me from randomly killing any one that I didn't kill in the 50+ years I owned a gun before I took it.

If you can't show a need for these new rules, regulations, & restrictions, why do I have to prove beyond what is already out there that they don't work & we don't need MORE?

No I don't have to understand what you are up against.
I am asking YOU about YOUR opinion. YOU stated that YOU believe people that do not have these classes should not have a CPL.
I want to know what is behind the way YOU think.
Then maybe I can figure out how to change YOUR mind.
The others can come later.
It appears at this point all you have to justify your feelings is "common sense" that people that are trained are safer & anyone that isn't is UN safe.
That makes it very hard for YOU to argue in defense of fewer laws & regulations.

You stated

1) Barrettone (the individual and instructor) - PPOTH should be taught as THE class for standard CPL issuance and for PFZ's right out of the gate, and PPITH should just be a standard first-time gun owner class so that they can adequately defend themselves and their family INSIDE THEIR HOME just as the class title suggests. PPITH should NOT be a prerequisite for PPOTH as it currently is. Additionally, I feel that certain aspects of NRA DEFENSIVE PISTOL should be incorporated into PPOTH to add some dynamic shooting into the class to help simulate stress. Alas, the NRA will not change their class criteria accepted currently in 50 states to make the MGO folks happy on some state-level legislation. Therefore, we are gonna have to deal with what they give us. People who like my idea need to petition the NRA for that change, and it is not likely to happen due to little 'ol SB-59.

I am asking what makes you believe this to be true.

[ltdave]

Barrettone you are up against the left, the elitist, multiple special interest groups, blind ignorance, unfounded fear, just plain stupidity and from within a mountain of discord. Brother you have your hands so full you have no time for playing with self. :banghead:

ive looked and looked at years past and i see NO evidence that those CPL holders from pre-2000/2001 were any more or less safe than those CPL holders post-2001...

if a person says to themselves, "id like to be better trained to deal with..." then BULLY FOR THEM! let them go and get all the training available under the sun. there is NO ONE stopping them. dont make it a requirement for everyone...

to say that I am safe on a sidewalk but NOT safe once i walk through a SPECIFIC doorway, is ludicrous. everyone on this board knows that. forcing someone to jump through MORE HOOPS to exercise their A1,S6 rights is wrong...

THIS IS THE source of discord, and i may be the odd man out because i am certified to teach the PPOtH course (along with ItH) which could net me a ton of money but i guess unfortunately i dont believe in putting caveats on the exercise of rights. if so i might just as well have my legislators introduce bills that require someone to go back to school to learn some basic grammar before using the internet. your, youre, there, their, theyre, to, too, two etc. is getting old...

(yes i know i dont capitalize everything. e.e. cummings didnt and he didnt get any grief! lol)...

[Jackam]

Good news for gun owners from Lansing today eh? :)

[emt232004]

if a person says to themselves, "id like to be better trained to deal with..." then BULLY FOR THEM! let them go and get all the training available under the sun. there is NO ONE stopping them. dont make it a requirement for everyone...

to say that I am safe on a sidewalk but NOT safe once i walk through a SPECIFIC doorway, is ludicrous. everyone on this board knows that. forcing someone to jump through MORE HOOPS to exercise their A1,S6 rights is wrong.....

Exactly, well said. +1 On sending them back to school on grammar but let's add a few classes on the Constitution.

[Barrettone]

No I have not taken the class.
I did take the PPITH class and do not feel it has prevented me from randomly killing any one that I didn't kill in the 50+ years I owned a gun before I took it.

If you can't show a need for these new rules, regulations, & restrictions, why do I have to prove beyond what is already out there that they don't work & we don't need MORE?

No I don't have to understand what you are up against.
I am asking YOU about YOUR opinion. YOU stated that YOU believe people that do not have these classes should not have a CPL.
I want to know what is behind the way YOU think.
Then maybe I can figure out how to change YOUR mind.
The others can come later.
It appears at this point all you have to justify your feelings is "common sense" that people that are trained are safer & anyone that isn't is UN safe.
That makes it very hard for YOU to argue in defense of fewer laws & regulations.

You stated


I am asking what makes you believe this to be true.

It is not for public view, and it is not my official position as President of MGO, so it will not be stated on this forum. It would hurt us more than help us, and I do not want my words used against me by the anti's. You need to not worry about what I think, as I am not the one you are fighting. The anti's don't have any of the knowledge I do that leads me to my conclusions on the subject. I will do what the MGO membership wills. Once this legislation is drafted, it will be quoted in a poll that will be a straight "yes" or "no" vote. No "other" will be listed, and you may only vote once in the poll. This thread will be closed for comment. Those results will be the basis that determines how I represent (fiduciary responsibility to MGO withstanding), not my own personal views or opinions. Is that "neutral" enough for you?

Now, back to changing the minds of those who feel we need additional training...

[emt232004]

Stupid question but what happened to keeping it simple?

This is from 2007

HOUSE BILL No. 4759 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2007-HIB-4759.htm)

May 15, 2007, Introduced by Reps. Acciavatti, Hoogendyk, Horn, Stahl, Opsommer, Meltzer and Meekhof and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

HOUSE BILL No. 4759

A bill to amend 1927 PA 372, entitled


"An act to regulate and license the selling, purchasing,
possessing, and carrying of certain firearms and gas ejecting
devices; to prohibit the buying, selling, or carrying of certain
firearms and gas ejecting devices without a license or other
authorization; to provide for the forfeiture of firearms under
certain circumstances; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide immunity from civil liability under certain circumstances;
to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol; to make
appropriations; to prescribe certain conditions for the
appropriations; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts
inconsistent with this act,"

by amending section 5c (MCL 28.425c), as amended by 2002 PA 719;

and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 5c. (1) A license to carry a concealed pistol shall be in
a form, with the same dimensions as a Michigan operator license,
prescribed by the department of state police. The license shall
contain all of the following:

(a) The licensee's full name and date of birth.
(b) A photograph and a physical description of the licensee.
(c) A statement of the effective dates of the license.
(d) An indication of exceptions authorized by this act
applicable to the licensee.
(e) An indication whether the license is a duplicate.

(2) Subject to section 5o and except Except as otherwise
provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by
the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee
to do all of the following:

(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person
anywhere in this state.
(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not
concealed, anywhere in this state.

Enacting section 1. Section 5o of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425o, is
repealed.

As seen on mgo here Bill to remove Pistol Free zones introduced (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=19996)

[cmike]

Hello All,

I will be serving as the new Legislative Director for MGO. I would like to thank Mike Theide for doing it for all these years, and I hope I can do the same. We have a lot in the works right now. I met yesterday with Senator Mike Green, as well as with the heads of MOC, MCRGO, SAFR, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and our NRA State representative, Al Herman. We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

Good job. I completely agree.

[cmike]

I'm dizzy now...Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know is on third base? LOL

1) Barrettone (the individual and instructor) - PPOTH should be taught as THE class for standard CPL issuance and for PFZ's right out of the gate, and PPITH should just be a standard first-time gun owner class so that they can adequately defend themselves and their family INSIDE THEIR HOME just as the class title suggests. PPITH should NOT be a prerequisite for PPOTH as it currently is. Additionally, I feel that certain aspects of NRA DEFENSIVE PISTOL should be incorporated into PPOTH to add some dynamic shooting into the class to help simulate stress. Alas, the NRA will not change their class criteria accepted currently in 50 states to make the MGO folks happy on some state-level legislation. Therefore, we are gonna have to deal with what they give us. People who like my idea need to petition the NRA for that change, and it is not likely to happen due to little 'ol SB-59.

2) Barrettone (on the general opinion of John Q. Public) - They (JQP-the "sheeple") think we shouldn't be allowed to carry in schools under any circumstances. HOWEVER, under the guise of "enhanced training", and the mystical powers included therein, they would be able to stomache the idea, as it gives it more legitimacy in their feeble eyes. Do you like it...OF COURSE NOT!!! Is it reality...yup. Do we need to pacify JQP to get this passed...yup. Do gun owners care what JQP thinks...nope. Should we...yup, if we want to get this passed. Am I going to get flamed for wanting to pander to these cretens...yup. Are you happy with me for suggesting we have to placate them...nope. Is the messenger getting killed here...yup. Can I please everybody...nope. Do I care if I can only please the majority and not a very vocal minority...nope. Would I rather be shooting up north at my cottage, four wheeling, hunting, and fishing and not in this position representing MGO on an issue I'm sure to piss some people off and get hate mail for the rest of my life from them because they didn't get everything on their SB-59 wish list...ya you betchya (insert yooper dialect here).

3) Barrettone (the MGO PRESIDENT) - We should support whatever the MAJORITY of MGO Members think about PFZ carry.

Are we now clear on how all three of my alter-egos feel on this issue? Gawd I hope so...it's late, and I'm going to bed.
Agreed.

Gov. Snyder's objection was the public school issue. If you take that objection away he may sign it.

I think it's a very good idea.

I want to be able to carry concealed in PFZs.

[cmike]

Good news for gun owners from Lansing today eh? :)

Which was?

[Tallbear]

Which was?

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1896675&postcount=16

[Roundballer]

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1896675&postcount=16
If you are going to reference a single post in that thread, this would be a better one:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1896380&postcount=15

But then again, the whole thread is not that long:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1896675#post1896675

[detroit_fan]

Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.



Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

I'm confused about this part. Are you saying the PFZ exemption would only be may-issue?

[G22]

I'm confused about this part. Are you saying the PFZ exemption would only be may-issue?

May issue for schools only. That's how I read it.

[71commander]

youre saying Barrettone wouldnt profit from this if it was passed, requiring more training? he is currently the most 'vocal' about what this bill needs (more training, specifically PPOtH) which he teaches. i guess he wont be charging anyone for this extra training...

(sorry Jeff, i dont mean to single you out but, this is already 7 pages long and i cant go back through all of these individual posts)...

I've known Jeff ( Barrettone) for years. He puts his effort into the cause 10 X's the amount he takes out.

[SteakNEggs]

May issue for schools only. That's how I read it.

Terrible idea.

[woody-99]

I vote for Constitutional carry. Enough of this political b.s.

[ltdave]

I vote for Constitutional carry. Enough of this political b.s.


amen...

[45/70fan]

I vote for Constitutional carry. Enough of this political b.s.


Good luck with that in the current political climate.
I'd like a night in the hay with a hot blond too with the wife watching which is probably more likely to happen than you getting constitutional carry in Michigan anytime soon.

[detroit_fan]

May issue for schools only. That's how I read it.
ok, now i'm really confused. so would there be 3 different levels of CPL?

1- Standard CPL, no carry in PFZ
2- Enhanced CPL level 1- carry in all PFZ's except schools
3- Enhanced CPL level 2- Carry in all PFZ's?

[SADAacp]

ok, now i'm really confused. so would there be 3 different levels of CPL?

1- Standard CPL, no carry in PFZ
2- Enhanced CPL level 1- carry in all PFZ's except schools
3- Enhanced CPL level 2- Carry in all PFZ's?

Pretty much. We would/will end up with:

1. CPL holders with no exemption to OC or CC in all PFZ's

2. CPL holders who are currently exempt under 28.425o, Subsection (5), (a) - (j), will not be required to obtain an Enhanced CPL and will continue to be permitted to carry in all PFZ's.

3. CPL holders who complete a class meeting the requirement for an Enhanced CPL who will be permitted (non-posted property) to carry (CC only) in the PFZ's, except for schools. Schools will be allowed to "opt-in" per administration, but we all know that will go over like a lead balloon - ain't gonna happen.

ETA: Re-introduction of an SB59 or introduction of a similar Bill needs to be assassinated ASAP.

[45/70fan]

Seems to be a whole bunch of hyperbole:bs: about the reintroduction of SB 59 and the new bill isn't even written.

[G22]

There are several groups providing input for this legislation.
These are the lead players who will be instrumental in writing this new legislation.

Please feel free to politely contact them with your concerns:

Senator Mike Green
Phone: (517) 373-1777
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/ima_form.asp?name=COMMENT31&form_path=E:/webforms/rep

Representative Joel Johnson
Phone: (517) 373-8962
joeljohnson@house.mi.gov


Everybody's concerns about this new legislation will be MUCH better served by contacting the above people personally.

Respectfully tell them what you want, or don't want.

Ready....GO

So, has anyone put in their :twocents: with these guys yet?

I have.

[SADAacp]

Seems to be a whole bunch of hyperbole:bs: about the reintroduction of SB 59 and the new bill isn't even written.

If SB59 is re-introduced, it doesn't have to pass for us to know what's in it. Other than that, we're just going by what we're told - don't shoot the messenger.

[Debbie]

Can you get a cpl if you have been diagnosed with depression?

[71commander]

Can you get a cpl if you have been diagnosed with depression?


Debbie
Junior Participant
Forum Member

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2

What's your agenda?

[Raggs]

could it be to get a CPL?


What's your agenda?

[71commander]

could it be to get a CPL?



Or to run to democrat underground and say that MI allows crazy people to own guns.


Unusual 2nd post.

[Smokepole]

Her question was answered in another forum.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1900154#post1900154

[detroit_fan]

Pretty much. We would/will end up with:

1. CPL holders with no exemption to OC or CC in all PFZ's

2. CPL holders who are currently exempt under 28.425o, Subsection (5), (a) - (j), will not be required to obtain an Enhanced CPL and will continue to be permitted to carry in all PFZ's.

3. CPL holders who complete a class meeting the requirement for an Enhanced CPL who will be permitted (non-posted property) to carry (CC only) in the PFZ's, except for schools. Schools will be allowed to "opt-in" per administration, but we all know that will go over like a lead balloon - ain't gonna happen.

ETA: Re-introduction of an SB59 or introduction of a similar Bill needs to be assassinated ASAP.
wow, what a horrible idea. i will contact the people listed and express my concern with this. this is a disaster waiting to happen, we can not have 3 different levels of CPLs

[emt232004]

wow, what a horrible idea. i will contact the people listed and express my concern with this. this is a disaster waiting to happen, we can not have 3 different levels of CPLs

Just like the last 59 they are both chit go back to my post showing one introduced in 2007 was simple and to the point.
Post #168

[SteakNEggs]

http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2013/01/state_senator_resurrects_contr.html#incart_river_d efault


Green said the new bill also would give authority to superintendents to hand-pick licensed citizens that would be allowed to carry concealed weapons on a school campus.

Other officials would be allowed similar power including administrators at hospitals and churches, he said.

NO!

What we have now is better then messing with preemption in any way, or giving signage more legal power (debated)!!!

[Leader]

Green said the new bill also would give authority to superintendents to hand-pick licensed citizens that would be allowed to carry concealed weapons on a school campus.

Other officials would be allowed similar power including administrators at hospitals and churches, he said.

Why not allow supers & admin to RESTRICT hand picked people WITH CAUSE that can not carry? All others CAN carry.

[45/70fan]

Why not allow supers & admin to RESTRICT hand picked people WITH CAUSE that can not carry? All others CAN carry.

Because of that silly thing called the constitution would be infringed upon. A civil rights violation when you deny to one what is available to all.
I'm not a lawyer but I do believe that is what would be applied.

[Leader]

Because of that silly thing called the constitution would be infringed upon. A civil rights violation when you deny to one what is available to all.
I'm not a lawyer but I do believe that is what would be applied.

That's why I said someone could be restricted "FOR CAUSE".
There would have to be a GOOD reason other then "He had a GUN!".

[ezerharden]

I say this as an instructor for the NRA. The current training for CPL holders is not adequate for carrying in PFZ's. We are teaching you PPITH (Personal Protection IN the Home). You are getting a license to carry out in public, yet we do not address holster/carry method selection, drawing from concealment, or dealing with situational awareness in a public setting. Quite frankly, I don't feel comfortable with cutting anybody loose in the schools without PPOTH (Person Protection OUTSIDE the Home). You may say, "Well that's the NRA's problem!". Maybe it is, but the fact remains that we need to show proficiency in the environment you are being licensed to carry in. Additionally, legislators and the general public are not going to go for the idea of letting current CPL holders carry in ANY PFZ's without additional training. It would be a deal breaker to even attempt such a proposal. That is the reality, and no amount of vocalization or protesting is going to change that.

Bottom line is guys and gals, that it is easy to get mad and yell "NO COMROMISE!!!". Fact is, that we need to increase our gun rights the same way they try to take them away...incrementally. If you think taking an "all or nothing" approach is going to gain us any ground, you are sadly mistaken. Nobody likes compromising anything, but I can only fight on so many issues being one of 6-8 people in the room. I stood my ground on breaking the schools out as long as the schools still had the ability to "opt in". I also don't want to compromise OC in the schools, so it is not on the table...initially. My third wishlist item was to break it up into two bills, and I was shot down on that. Maybe that will change before the bill is introduced. I am just letting you guys know the general direction that this thing is going in. This is the last thing I am going to say about this until it goes to draft. At that point, we can re-address things, as we'll have something in writing to critique. I will still be watching and noting your comments though!!!

Funny how standing and retired Judges are "safe" carrying in PFZ's without additional training.

[luckless]

Funny how standing and retired Judges are "safe" carrying in PFZ's without additional training.
That's because we are all equal in the eyes of the law. It is just that some of us are more equal than the rest.

[detroit_fan]

That's because we are all equal in the eyes of the law. It is just that some of us are more equal than the rest.
http://www.honorofkings.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/All-animals-are-equal.jpg

[dab102999]

I found this on another gun site i am on. Found it a bit of an intesting read. Not my words but he stated this is what he sent to our senators.



Senator,

I originally sent this as an email a number of months ago; I fax a revised version now. *I see that SB 59 is being reintroduced again this session, and Mlive reports this morning, "Lt. Gov. Brian Calley reports if the governor’s objections are addressed, 'the conversation could be opened again to accommodate the reasons the governor vetoed it in the first place'.”

Gov. Snyder's stated reasons for vetoing SB 59 are that a) it made no provision for schools, in particular, and other public facilities to ban carry, and b) he personally objects to the idea of carrying in public because of guilt he still carries related to a 30 year old murder. *

But let's look at what the effect would have been if the language he desires HAD been included:

1) Like it or not, open carry in a pistol free zone (PFZ) is currently legal with a CPL. *Schools and other public facilities (such as the state capital building) cannot prevent someone from carrying in that fashion. *A teacher currently has the right to provide for his or her own defense - and that of their students - by carrying openly at this time if they so choose. *The amendment demanded by Gov. Snyder to SB 59 would have done away with that completely by eliminating open carry entirely and encouraging schools to declare themselves off-limits to ALL carry.

2) While on the one hand SB 59 would seemingly give greater latitude to carry concealed, it also would have given "gunbuster" signs the force of law and actually encouraged more schools and businesses to declare themselves to be PFZ's. *Those of us in the carry community are already dealing with this difficulty - SB 59 actually had the potential to magnify*that difficulty significantly.

3) By mandating nine more hours of class - and the expenses associated with those classes - as a condition for applying for an exemption, we would have only incrementally increased the number of carriers who would have been eligible to carry in a PFZ; the additional cost alone would have been prohibitive for many.

The result? *SB 59 would have had the effect of banning firearms carry in public simply by making it too difficult to carry.**The bill that was being touted as increasing carry would have actually been a trojan horse - stealthily banning carry in public without explicitly outlawing it. *The language demanded by Gov. Snyder in SB 59 (and will demand in the new version of this bill) would have, as a practical consideration, restricted carry and given "gunbuster" signs the force of law. It would have been a masterful stroke of gun control legislation - and no one would have been able to blame the anti-carry community for doing it; pro-Second Amendment legislators would have inadvertently made it possible.

This is why I have been warning legislators about the applicability of the 2012 federal appeals case Woollard v. Sheridan. *Woollard*states that it is unconstitutional to limit the enumerated right to carry simply by making that right more difficult to exercise -by piling on more and more requirements as a condition of exercising that right. *As Judge Legg wrote in his opinion,*

Quote: A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered "reasonably adapted" to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be….Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the*right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. "[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner." Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464-65 (1980).

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification ("satisfactory justification" means that the danger posed by the exercise of a right can be quantified - the data must be objective and quantifiable; a right cannot legally be infringed based on what someone is afraid could or might possibly happen - added) anda sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government`s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs. (emphasis added)

So two issues are at play here.

First, SB 59 would have added another level of difficulty to the Constitutionally enumerated right of firearms carry. *Gov. Snyder's remarks following his veto of the bill make it clear that he personally sees no value in carrying in public places -especially schools. *He was out to make firearms carry as difficult as possible, and when he was unable to get ALL of the restrictive language he wanted included in the bill, he vetoed it. *Woollard says that this approach is unconstitutional because it is*not "'reasonably adapted' to a government interest..."

Second, SB 59 would have outlawed a method of carry that is currently legal, yet at no time has the government enunciated a substantial justification for either doing away with the right to openly carry in public or to limit the right to carry concealed, as SB 59 would have effectively done. *Gov. Snyder saying that he finds no value in it or referring to a murder that occurred 30 years ago, committed by a man who had already violated several existing laws in order to facilitate that murder, does not meet the legal standard necessary to limit the exercise of this Constitutionally enumerated right. *A reason that would have met that standard would have been the publication of objective data conclusively demonstrating that the public is in greater danger from those legally carrying in Michigan because legal carriers commit more crimes while doing so. *As we know, those data do not exist. *The numbers of carriers who are involved in illegal activity of ANY kind, let alone firearm-related illegal activity, in Michigan are statistically ZERO.

Any changes made to the bill to accommodate Gov. Snyder's sensitivities will result in a bill that has the net effect of severely limiting our right to carry a firearm for our own defense at a time when law enforcement across the state is diminishing. *

• Doing away with open carry is simply not an option. * • Eliminating our current right to carry in public places is not an option. * • Giving schools and other public facilities the specific legal authority to "ban guns" (to use Gov. Snyder's phrase) is not an option. * • Giving "gun buster" signs the force of law is not an option. * • Requiring more class time in order to receive an exemption to carry concealed in a gun free zone while open carry is legal without additional training is not an option. *

Here is what such accommodations boil down to: *at a time in which law enforcement across the state continues to diminish, this is a dangerous idea. *According to information I received in a phone call with the Grand Rapids Police Department's Crime Prevention office in my role as a neighborhood watch coordinator, the average response time to a 911 call is around 18 minutes, and with the expected loss of 17 more officers and the re-deployment of most of the remaining officers to the overnight shift, they expect the response time to lengthen to 20 minutes or more. *That is not protection; that is cleaning up the bodies after the damage has been done. *As to carrying in public places and schools, THOSE are the places where mass shootings are taking place. *Giving these places specific authority to ban firearms has prevented nothing. With a diminishing police force, it is counter-intuitive to tell people that they may not protect themselves wherever they may legally be, and it is dangerous to allow businesses to impose their own beliefs regarding carry as an ineffective means of self defense on the public at-large, as was clearly demonstrated in the mall and theater shootings that occurred last year. *

Britain has been held up as an example of what gun control can do for the country, but while they have successfully lowered the number of firearm-related murders, murders committed using other methods has actually increased, and Britain's overall incidence of violence has increased to the point where it has been declared the most violent nation in Europe (The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online). *The US has an incidence of violent crime of a little over 400 per 100,000 population. *The latest data indicates that Britain, on the other hand, has an incidence of over 2,000 *per 100,000 population; that number has steadily increased in the years that have followed Britain’s own gun ban. *In taking away the citizens' right to defend themselves, they have turned themselves into a nation of victims.

That is exactly what accommodating Gov. Snyder on this issue will accomplish. *It will make legal firearms carry more difficult and it will fail to deter anything. *In fact, as our own history (and that of Britain) from the last 20 years has definitively demonstrated, it will embolden*criminals.

We need to be focusing instead on the mental health picture. *Before every mass shooting there were clear signs of danger that were ignored by mental health professionals and school counselors, signs which, had they been followed by warnings to the appropriate authorities, would have prevented these events. *But I don't see anyone calling for the individuals who failed to issue these warnings being called into account. Instead, legal firearm owners are being demonized. *THAT is where our focus needs to be. *Enforce the laws we already have, and hold those who are in positions to issue timely warnings accountable for their failure to do so.

I urge you to reject any changes in language Gov. Snyder would require that would limit or eliminate our right to carry in any way, shape, or form. The price of accommodation that he will require is too high. Getting this legislation passed will require a veto-proof majority. I will do everything I can do to generate the necessary support.

Sincerely,

We need to bring enough pressure to bear on our state legislators to get enough votes to get this legislation through without any of the amendments Gov. Snyder will require as a condition for his signature; we need a veto-proof majority. Nothing less will work this time.

CONTACT THE LEGISLATORS FROM YOUR DISTRICT ASAP!!! TELL THEMTHERE CANBE NO COMPROMISE THIS TIME AROUND!!!

[71commander]

Nice but long.

If the point isn't made by the 2nd paragraph, it usually ends up in the round circular file.

[ezkl2230]

I faxed the following letter to several legislators on 1/25/13:


Senator,

I originally sent this as an email a number of months ago; I fax a revised version now. I see that SB 59 is being reintroduced again this session, and Mlive reports this morning, "Lt. Gov. Brian Calley reports if the governor’s objections are addressed, 'the conversation could be opened again to accommodate the reasons the governor vetoed it in the first place'.”

Gov. Snyder's stated reasons for vetoing SB 59 are that a) it made no provision for schools, in particular, and other public facilities to ban carry, and b) he personally objects to the idea of carrying in public because of guilt he still carries related to a 30 year old murder.

But let's look at what the effect would have been if the language he desires HAD been included:

1) Like it or not, open carry in a pistol free zone (PFZ) is currently legal with a CPL. Schools and other public facilities (such as the state capital building) cannot prevent someone from carrying in that fashion. A teacher currently has the right to provide for his or her own defense - and that of their students - by carrying openly at this time if they so choose. The amendment demanded by Gov. Snyder to SB 59 would have done away with that completely by eliminating open carry entirely and encouraging schools to declare themselves off-limits to ALL carry.

2) While on the one hand SB 59 would seemingly give greater latitude to carry concealed, it also would have given "gunbuster" signs the force of law and actually encouraged more schools and businesses to declare themselves to be PFZ's. Those of us in the carry community are already dealing with this difficulty - SB 59 actually had the potential to magnify that difficulty significantly.

3) By mandating nine more hours of class - and the expenses associated with those classes - as a condition for applying for an exemption, we would have only incrementally increased the number of carriers who would have been eligible to carry in a PFZ; the additional cost alone would have been prohibitive for many.

The result? SB 59 would have had the effect of banning firearms carry in public simply by making it too difficult to carry. The bill that was being touted as increasing carry would have actually been a trojan horse - stealthily banning carry in public without explicitly outlawing it. The language demanded by Gov. Snyder in SB 59 (and will demand in the new version of this bill) would have, as a practical consideration, restricted carry and given "gunbuster" signs the force of law. It would have been a masterful stroke of gun control legislation - and no one would have been able to blame the anti-carry community for doing it; pro-Second Amendment legislators would have inadvertently made it possible.

This is why I have been warning legislators about the applicability of the 2012 federal appeals case Woollard v. Sheridan. Woollardstates that it is unconstitutional to limit the enumerated right to carry simply by making that right more difficult to exercise - by piling on more and more requirements as a condition of exercising that right. As Judge Legg wrote in his opinion,


A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered "reasonably adapted" to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be….Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. "[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner." Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464-65 (1980).

At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification ("satisfactory justification" means that the danger posed by the exercise of a right can be quantified - the data must be objective and quantifiable; a right cannot legally be infringed based on what someone is afraid could or might possibly happen - added) and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government`s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs. (emphasis added)

So two issues are at play here.

First, SB 59 would have added another level of difficulty to the Constitutionally enumerated right of firearms carry. Gov. Snyder's remarks following his veto of the bill make it clear that he personally sees no value in carrying in public places - especially schools. He was out to make firearms carry as difficult as possible, and when he was unable to get ALL of the restrictive language he wanted included in the bill, he vetoed it. Woollard says that this approach is unconstitutional because it is not "'reasonably adapted' to a government interest..."

Second, SB 59 would have outlawed a method of carry that is currently legal, yet at no time has the government enunciated a substantial justification for either doing away with the right to openly carry in public or to limit the right to carry concealed, as SB 59 would have effectively done. Gov. Snyder saying that he finds no value in it or referring to a murder that occurred 30 years ago, committed by a man who had already violated several existing laws in order to facilitate that murder, does not meet the legal standard necessary to limit the exercise of this Constitutionally enumerated right. A reason that would have met that standard would have been the publication of objective data conclusively demonstrating that the public is in greater danger from those legally carrying in Michigan because legal carriers commit more crimes while doing so. As we know, those data do not exist. The numbers of carriers who are involved in illegal activity of ANY kind, let alone firearm-related illegal activity, in Michigan are statistically ZERO.

Any changes made to the bill to accommodate Gov. Snyder's sensitivities will result in a bill that has the net effect of severely limiting our right to carry a firearm for our own defense at a time when law enforcement across the state is diminishing.

• Doing away with open carry is simply not an option.
• Eliminating our current right to carry in public places is not an option.
• Giving schools and other public facilities the specific legal authority to "ban guns" (to use Gov. Snyder's phrase) is not an option.
• Giving "gun buster" signs the force of law is not an option.
• Requiring more class time in order to receive an exemption to carry concealed in a gun free zone while open carry is legal without additional training is not an option.

Here is what such accommodations boil down to: at a time in which law enforcement across the state continues to diminish, this is a dangerous idea. According to information I received in a phone call with the Grand Rapids Police Department's Crime Prevention office in my role as a neighborhood watch coordinator, the average response time to a 911 call is around 18 minutes, and with the expected loss of 17 more officers and the re-deployment of most of the remaining officers to the overnight shift, they expect the response time to lengthen to 20 minutes or more. That is not protection; that is cleaning up the bodies after the damage has been done. As to carrying in public places and schools, THOSE are the places where mass shootings are taking place. Giving these places specific authority to ban firearms has prevented nothing. With a diminishing police force, it is counter-intuitive to tell people that they may not protect themselves wherever they may legally be, and it is dangerous to allow businesses to impose their own beliefs regarding carry as an ineffective means of self defense on the public at-large, as was clearly demonstrated in the mall and theater shootings that occurred last year.

Britain has been held up as an example of what gun control can do for the country, but while they have successfully lowered the number of firearm-related murders, murders committed using other methods has actually increased, and Britain's overall incidence of violence has increased to the point where it has been declared the most violent nation in Europe, The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online. The US has an incidence of violent crime of a little over 400 per 100,000 population. The latest data indicates that Britain, on the other hand, has an incidence of over 2,000 per 100,000 population; that number has steadily increased in the years that have followed Britain’s own gun ban. In taking away the citizens' right to defend themselves, they have turned themselves into a nation of victims.

That is exactly what accommodating Gov. Snyder on this issue will accomplish. It will make legal firearms carry more difficult and it will fail to deter anything. In fact, as our own history (and that of Britain) from the last 20 years has definitively demonstrated, it will embolden criminals.

We need to be focusing instead on the mental health picture. Before every mass shooting there were clear signs of danger that were ignored by mental health professionals and school counselors, signs which, had they been followed by warnings to the appropriate authorities, would have prevented these events. But I don't see anyone calling for the individuals who failed to issue these warnings being called into account. Instead, legal firearm owners are being demonized. THAT is where our focus needs to be. Enforce the laws we already have, and hold those who are in positions to issue timely warnings accountable for their failure to do so.

I urge you to reject any changes in language Gov. Snyder would require that would limit or eliminate our right to carry in any way, shape, or form. The price of accommodation that he will require is too high. Getting this legislation passed will require a veto-proof majority. I will do everything I can do to generate the necessary support.

Sincerely,

To this letter I add the following. IF room to compromise is needed, then I would put forward a suggestion from John Speck, owner of Your Best Shot CPL training and a man who has had significant input in developing the laws that expanded concealed carry. He suggested that we consider instituting a system for CC in a PFZ similar to that used for first-time drivers license recipients. For the first five years of CPL, retain the prohibition against carrying in a PFZ. If there are no legal reasons to prohibit it, at renewal an exemption to CC in a PFZ will be automatically added to the CPL. This provides a five year probationary period during which the holder proves they can be trusted to CC in a PFZ.

We need to bring enough pressure to bear on our state legislators to get enough votes to get this legislation through without any of the amendments Gov. Snyder will require as a condition for his signature; we need a veto-proof majority. Nothing less will work this time.

CONTACT THE LEGISLATORS FROM YOUR DISTRICT ASAP!!! TELL THEM THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE THIS TIME AROUND!!!

[ezkl2230]

sorry. was thinking something else, now I can't delete it.

[DRSpaulding]

I can't get on board with this. SOS on a different bill yes, but taking schools out of the equation is ********!!! Elimination of PFZ's with proper training should mean ALL PFZ's!!!

[libertarian623]

Good letter EZ thanks for taking the time . I think if SB 59 is reintroduced then it needs to strictly solve the SOS problem, and be unfettered of all this other crap. We can always come back and address the PFZ's later. All the deal making has made this into a real stinker.

[JJ1989]

I'm going to qualify all of this beforehand by stating that John Lott is the ONLY author/researcher whose information is peer reviewed and has met the stringent standards of such as to be included into all of the top end research databases. His work is no fluke and has validated through over 30 years of research.

QJ8L7nqL1rs

So why do we need extra training?
Answer found at 8 minutes and 2 seconds.

Note: The 2 million times is a reference to the number of times firearms are used in self defense every year, it's mentioned earlier in the video.

So, for all of you asking, the effect extra training will have is basically to increase our kill ratio. Yes we have to pay for extra training but if you look at recidivism rates and the cost of paying to keep a prisoner for the rest of their lives you'll likely find we'll be returned the money we paid for the training and then some back in the form of slowed tax rate hikes, road and public service improvements, etc. It's a good investment and despite that most reading this here don't need the extra training we have to apply the standard equally across the board.

Really though, I think it would be better if we could offer a test out option - a course of fire/written test for a reduced fee at the state run ranges you can use for free.

Why should we eliminate gun free zones?

Answer found at 36 seconds.

Why are guns good in schools?

Answer found at 7 minutes 36 seconds.

[JJ1989]

On another note, when Mr. Snyder gives the guys a hard time about "focusing" on firearms instead of whatever else he would like them to they can politely inform Mr. Snyder that, just as he does, they answer to the voter's and are basing their actions and priorities off their constituent's feedback.

[shoxroxice]

THIS!
Roundballer has said exactly what I would like to see happen:

I also agree with emt232004, that restaurant's should not be a PFZ. If someone is planning on drinking, leave it at home... but if people go in somewhere to eat with their family, or to lunch and it's an establishment that serves, why should they be forced to leave it in the car?

Absolutely agree to separate legislation out so that we can pick and choose our battles and 'Keep It Simple Stupid.'

[G22]

I also agree with emt232004, that restaurant's should not be a PFZ. If someone is planning on drinking, leave it at home... but if people go in somewhere to eat with their family, or to lunch and it's an establishment that serves, why should they be forced to leave it in the car?

Because the government should not be able to tell you, or anyone else, what they can and cannot allow on their own property.

Vote with your feet and eat somewhere else.

[Quaamik]

Barrettone, would you agree that if there is a 20+ year record of millions of legal CC'ers around the nation carrying in public, with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of incidents of self-defense with a gun (ending in lethal force or stopping short of lethal force), then we should look to that record as the authoritative guide on how adequately or inadequately legal CC'ers are doing when it comes to CC and use of self-defense in public?

What does that record suggest to you?

+1, <Like> and :yeahthat:

[Quaamik]

Opinion that i would like to express is that an active shooter is not the same as the usual hold-up or home invasion. The active shooter has planned and intends shoot a lot of people. Many more guns and ammo. Robber may not even be seriously interested in shooting as most cases the robber runs if confronted with a gun. A school is a magnet for an active shooter at this time.

That's absolutly true. Yet we have several cases on public record where an average person with a concealed pistol responded to an "active shooter" and either stopped the shooting or helped stop it with no shots fired. At the same time we have multiple incidents on public record where LEOs, who are allowed to carry in schools, have shot multiple bystanders when confronting a single armed felon who was not an "active shooter".

I think history shows that the average person carrying concealed for personal protection is safe to have confront an active shooter.

[Quaamik]

What happened with all the people that could carry everywhere before 2001 when there where no PFZ and they had no training?
+1, like and :yeahthat:

[Quaamik]

Oh... That's easy.
The sheriff had complete control of who he gave a permit to and ONLY picked the very best & brightest marksmen . Those above reproach such as cops.
:bs: :bs:
Not even in the most restrictive counties. Even there people who were freinds or had politicly supported the local sherriff & prosecutor could get a CPL. In places like Macomb, everyone could get them, the training was no greater than it is now, and there were no problems

[Quaamik]

....
Gov. Snyder's objection was the public school issue. If you take that objection away he may sign it.

I think it's a very good idea.

I want to be able to carry concealed in PFZs.

If it was just eliminating schools from the discussion, I might agree. But that is not what was or is proposed. What is proposed would allow individual school districts to ignor preemption. Not only would OC with a CPL be prohibited in ALL PFZs, but schools could individualy decide to not allow concealed carry as well.

Lets look at a practicle example of what that would mean.

---I have my CPL. My CPL currently allows me to conceal in a school parking lot ONLY if I'm dropping of or picking up my kid. So I know that if I need to change a flat, or pull over to take a cell call, I can't pull into a school parking lot to do it even when on vaction in the summer (when school is not in session) unless I uncover the pistol and stay outside the car (kinda hard when driving into the lot - but for the flat, I can get out of the car and have my wife drive it into the parking lot). If I take my dog into a fenced in area up north, I can uncover my pistol just in case it is owned by the local school district and be legal.

---Under the proposed law, I get an enhanced license. Assume my local schools do NOT prohibit carry (fat chance). On vacation, I get in either of those situations. Little do I know, the local school prohibits carry. I figure this out when a cop approaches me and I show them my CPL. I am promptly in deep do-do.

On top of it, how many prosecutions do you think will happen with regard to people accidentaly displaying their pistol in what is now a PFZ? I know the bill spells out that only "intentional" display is banned, but do you honestly think an anti gun prosecutor in a place like Detroit, Flint, or Lansing is going to not prosecute because of that?

Lastley, how many of the PFZs will decide to allow concealed carry when they can ban it and their signs will carry the force of law? Remember - other than schools they are all PRIVATE PROPERTY. Schools would be given that right, and I doubt more than a handfull would fail to exercise it.

Sports arenas? It's a given most would ban guns. The loopehole in thier rules before shall issue that allowed them was intended for police, bodyguards and high profile people - the public got to enjoy it because they didn't have any issues happen and let sleeping dogs lie. Now that it has become a more public issue they will address it.

Hospitals? Same situation.

Movie theaters might allow it as they don't have the draw they once did and can't afford to ailienate potential customers - but the big chains are not going to make a special change in their rulls for Michigan.

Casinoes? Many ban non uniformed LEOs from carrying (the off duty cop who committed suicide on the gaming floor in Detroit ensured that).

[JJ1989]

For what it's worth, here are some statistics from John Lott on some of the things you guys are talking about.

First off, firearms are used about two million times a year in self defense.

About one out of every thousand results in the wrong-doer being killed by the firearm being used in self defense.

About seven or eight times out of a thousand results in the wrong-doer being injured by the firearm being used in self defense.

A quarter of active shooters in schools are stopped by armed civilians.

[emt232004]

About one out of every thousand results in the wrong-doer being killed by the firearm being used in self defense.

About seven or eight times out of a thousand results in the wrong-doer being injured by the firearm being used in self defense.


Of these numbers how many have had "advanced" classes or an "enhanced" level of cpl?

[Leader]

Of these numbers how many have had "advanced" classes or an "enhanced" level of cpl?

And how many are from states that don't have any training at all?

[JJ1989]

So how about instead of requiring advanced training they require a completed course of fire test? That is, to show you are proficient in the handling of your firearm. Their would be an easier test just for your basic CPL and no class for that either. $20 for the test at any of the state ranges or at a private range from a certified instructor at the same price plus standard range fees, and $20 for them to print you out a license. Perhaps a small multiple choice/true-false test ensuring you comprehend things like ability, opportunity, intent and the different mindsets of awareness i.e. white/yellow/orange/red, stuff like that.

Personally, I'm a better shot than a majority of the police I work with who don't have to go through any training to carry and are exempt from PFZ's as well as a host of other places. That really grinds my gears.

I do agree that the constitution was written at a time when firearms were just muskets and you had to be point blank range to kill someone and most of the times you would at best injure the other person. We now have firearms that are lethal out to farther distances, have a much higher probability of killing someone, carry more rounds, etc.

Keep all the guns of whatever types you want to keep at home, but to carry you should have to be more proficient, and I think if it were an affordable proficiency test and not a couple worthless courses things would improve. I also think half the cops out there should have their pistols taken away with the way they shoot until they improve.

[Leader]

So how about instead of requiring advanced training they require a completed course of fire test? That is, to show you are proficient in the handling of your firearm. Their would be an easier test just for your basic CPL and no class for that either. $20 for the test at any of the state ranges or at a private range from a certified instructor at the same price plus standard range fees, and $20 for them to print you out a license. Perhaps a small multiple choice/true-false test ensuring you comprehend things like ability, opportunity, intent and the different mindsets of awareness i.e. white/yellow/orange/red, stuff like that.

Personally, I'm a better shot than a majority of the police I work with who don't have to go through any training to carry and are exempt from PFZ's as well as a host of other places. That really grinds my gears.

I do agree that the constitution was written at a time when firearms were just muskets and you had to be point blank range to kill someone and most of the times you would at best injure the other person. We now have firearms that are lethal out to farther distances, have a much higher probability of killing someone, carry more rounds, etc.

Keep all the guns of whatever types you want to keep at home, but to carry you should have to be more proficient, and I think if it were an affordable proficiency test and not a couple worthless courses things would improve. I also think half the cops out there should have their pistols taken away with the way they shoot until they improve.

I'm sitting here wondering what your thoughts are on drivers licenses?
Who should be allowed, what skill level etc.
Keep in mind they didn't even have cars back when the BoR was written and the deaths that are caused by them each year.

[Bikenut]

So how about instead of requiring advanced training they require a completed course of fire test? That is, to show you are proficient in the handling of your firearm. Their would be an easier test just for your basic CPL and no class for that either. $20 for the test at any of the state ranges or at a private range from a certified instructor at the same price plus standard range fees, and $20 for them to print you out a license. Perhaps a small multiple choice/true-false test ensuring you comprehend things like ability, opportunity, intent and the different mindsets of awareness i.e. white/yellow/orange/red, stuff like that.

Personally, I'm a better shot than a majority of the police I work with who don't have to go through any training to carry and are exempt from PFZ's as well as a host of other places. That really grinds my gears.

I do agree that the constitution was written at a time when firearms were just muskets and you had to be point blank range to kill someone and most of the times you would at best injure the other person. We now have firearms that are lethal out to farther distances, have a much higher probability of killing someone, carry more rounds, etc.

Keep all the guns of whatever types you want to keep at home, but to carry you should have to be more proficient, and I think if it were an affordable proficiency test and not a couple worthless courses things would improve. I also think half the cops out there should have their pistols taken away with the way they shoot until they improve.So many people fall for the lie that gun control is "acceptable" as long as the restrictions are "reasonable".

But once folks start thinking in that fashion then any restriction that appears "reasonable" becomes "acceptable".

Yet the whole thing is based upon the false idea that what other people think is "acceptable" is therefor "reasonable". And what is acceptable is subject to being controlled... within reason... of course.

The slippery slope there is.... who decides what is "reasonably acceptable"... or "acceptably reasonable"? You? Me? The government?

Having a right, any right, means never having to ask if it is "reasonably acceptable" or "acceptably reasonable" to be .......... "allowed".

[Barrettone]

So how about instead of requiring advanced training they require a completed course of fire test? That is, to show you are proficient in the handling of your firearm. Their would be an easier test just for your basic CPL and no class for that either. $20 for the test at any of the state ranges or at a private range from a certified instructor at the same price plus standard range fees, and $20 for them to print you out a license. Perhaps a small multiple choice/true-false test ensuring you comprehend things like ability, opportunity, intent and the different mindsets of awareness i.e. white/yellow/orange/red, stuff like that.

Personally, I'm a better shot than a majority of the police I work with who don't have to go through any training to carry and are exempt from PFZ's as well as a host of other places. That really grinds my gears.

I do agree that the constitution was written at a time when firearms were just muskets and you had to be point blank range to kill someone and most of the times you would at best injure the other person. We now have firearms that are lethal out to farther distances, have a much higher probability of killing someone, carry more rounds, etc.

Keep all the guns of whatever types you want to keep at home, but to carry you should have to be more proficient, and I think if it were an affordable proficiency test and not a couple worthless courses things would improve. I also think half the cops out there should have their pistols taken away with the way they shoot until they improve.

You Sir, are, in my PERSONAL OPINION, wise beyond your years. Take the objectiveness out of it, make it CHEAP, but also make PERFORMANCE the litmus test for who can carry in a PFZ. I ask all those out there who are objecting to further training for ability to carry in PFZ's this simple question:

We have reciprocity with several states that have lower standards to qualify for a CPL, they also may, or may not be eligible to carry in what Michigan proclaims to be a PFZ. We have no data to support that people, who have reciprocity from other areas can or could do so safely in a PFZ, yet they would be allowed to if we opened it to ALL CPL holders, regardless of their origin. Maybe the Michigan CPL class does qualify someone to carry in a PFZ, and these "imaginary lines" shouldn't be a problem, but can you vouch for those that weren't educated here in Michigan?

A simple proficiency test would eliminate that potential Pandoras Box from being opened, while not breaking the bank. Can you hit your target, under the stress of being timed, and answer a few questions that are directly related to carry in PFZ's? If you can, you are good to go. I PERSONALLY believe this is a good idea. Does it need to be an "all day affair" class...NO, but even the police have to qualify (most departments I have dealt with anyway...but some cops do not have the skills I think they should have to carry a gun...so I think timed-fired quals would be a better idea). I don't need an 8 or 12 hour all day class that costs $125 to decide if someone could deploy and operate their firearm under duress and hit their intended target in tight confines, or with other innocents in close proximity. This is the discussion I think we need to have. Carry on, and as always, I am listening, even if I don't answer each and every post.

[Bikenut]

Is it the right to bear arms... or is it ... the privilege to bear arms only for those who "qualify"?

[Barrettone]

This is not about your RIGHT to self defense...It is about allowing you to go from playing a defensive role to playing an offensive role going after an active shooter. Will you ALWAYS need to go on offense? Maybe yes, maybe no. Will you CHOOSE to go on offense? You might have to to save lives, you might not. Might you stay in the room and just use the door as a "fatal funnel", or will you try to ambush him from behind if he/she bypasses your room and goes on to shoot others? Too many scenarios to list, but suffice to say, your CPL training was for DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. I want to see how you ENTER a fight with hostages to know if your presence will be beneficial or detrimental toward protecting kids. If you can guarantee me that all CPL holders will hold tight, and wait for it to be totally defensive and never take the fight to them (even if it is their kid in the room next door being ravaged by a lunatic) then I'll change my PERSONAL OPINION. Good luck on that. This isn't about your right to self defense, this is about making sure that those that do carry in PFZs can execute OFFENSIVELY under pressure...carry on...

[Bikenut]

This is not about your RIGHT to self defense...It is about allowing you to go from playing a defensive role to playing an offensive role going after an active shooter. Will you ALWAYS need to go on offense? Maybe yes, maybe no. Will you CHOOSE to go on offense? You might have to to save lives, you might not. Might you stay in the room and just use the door as a "fatal funnel", or will you try to ambush him from behind if he/she bypasses your room and goes on to shoot others? Too many scenarios to list, but suffice to say, your CPL training was for DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. I want to see how you ENTER a fight with hostages to know if your presence will be beneficial or detrimental toward protecting kids. If you can guarantee me that all CPL holders will hold tight, and wait for it to be totally defensive and never take the fight to them (even if it is their kid in the room next door being ravaged by a lunatic) then I'll change my PERSONAL OPINION. Good luck on that. This isn't about your right to self defense, this is about making sure that those that do carry in PFZs can execute OFFENSIVELY under pressure...carry on...

Now... unless I'm mistaken there isn't any duty or responsibility for an individual carrying a gun in a PFZ to OFFENSIVELY go after an active shooter. Or did I miss the part where carrying a gun in a school automatically makes a person a member of SWAT?

Enough of this... I think I understand your PERSONAL OPINION... that of.... Only those folks who meet some standard of training (preferably yours) are acceptable and should have the privilege of bearing an arm.... especially in PFZ's since PFZ's are more special than others. Correct?

So we aren't even talking about the right to bear arms... we are only talking about supporting infringing upon the right to bear arms.... Correct?

In MY personal opinion.... due to the current political climate where the right to bear arms is under a concentrated barrage of attacks intended to create a country where just owning, much less bearing, an arm is tightly controlled similar to places like England ... now is NOT the time to be thinking in terms of appeasing the anti gun sentiment by buying into the idea that even more restrictions and controls, including increased training requirements, are "reasonable", or "appropriate", or "acceptable".

[Raggs]

That is what I thought as well. His class is great, others not so much.



Now... unless I'm mistaken there isn't any duty or responsibility for an individual carrying a gun in a PFZ to OFFENSIVELY go after an active shooter. Or did I miss the part where carrying a gun in a school automatically makes a person a member of SWAT?

Enough of this... I think I understand your PERSONAL OPINION... that of.... Only those folks who meet some standard of training (preferably yours) are acceptable and should have the privilege of bearing an arm.... especially in PFZ's since PFZ's are more special than others. Correct?

So we aren't even talking about the right to bear arms... we are only talking about supporting infringing upon the right to bear arms.... Correct?

In MY personal opinion.... due to the current political climate where the right to bear arms is under a concentrated barrage of attacks intended to create a country where just owning, much less bearing, an arm is tightly controlled similar to places like England ... now is NOT the time to be thinking in terms of appeasing the anti gun sentiment by buying into the idea that even more restrictions and controls, including increased training requirements, are "reasonable", or "appropriate", or "acceptable".

[Leader]

You Sir, are, in my PERSONAL OPINION, wise beyond your years. Take the objectiveness out of it, make it CHEAP, but also make PERFORMANCE the litmus test for who can carry in a PFZ. I ask all those out there who are objecting to further training for ability to carry in PFZ's this simple question:

We have reciprocity with several states that have lower standards to qualify for a CPL, they also may, or may not be eligible to carry in what Michigan proclaims to be a PFZ. We have no data to support that people, who have reciprocity from other areas can or could do so safely in a PFZ, yet they would be allowed to if we opened it to ALL CPL holders, regardless of their origin. Maybe the Michigan CPL class does qualify someone to carry in a PFZ, and these "imaginary lines" shouldn't be a problem, but can you vouch for those that weren't educated here in Michigan?

What date facts or research do you have to show someone qualified to carry in a crowded WalMart is not qualified to carry in a school or bar or football stadium?

A simple proficiency test would eliminate that potential Pandoras Box from being opened, while not breaking the bank. Can you hit your target, under the stress of being timed, and answer a few questions that are directly related to carry in PFZ's? If you can, you are good to go. I PERSONALLY believe this is a good idea. Does it need to be an "all day affair" class...NO, but even the police have to qualify (most departments I have dealt with anyway...but some cops do not have the skills I think they should have to carry a gun...so I think timed-fired quals would be a better idea). I don't need an 8 or 12 hour all day class that costs $125 to decide if someone could deploy and operate their firearm under duress and hit their intended target in tight confines, or with other innocents in close proximity. This is the discussion I think we need to have. Carry on, and as always, I am listening, even if I don't answer each and every post.

Why is it you feel someone without this additional training or testing should be allowed to carry at all in public?


This is not about your RIGHT to self defense...It is about allowing you to go from playing a defensive role to playing an offensive role going after an active shooter. Will you ALWAYS need to go on offense? Maybe yes, maybe no. Will you CHOOSE to go on offense? You might have to to save lives, you might not. Might you stay in the room and just use the door as a "fatal funnel", or will you try to ambush him from behind if he/she bypasses your room and goes on to shoot others? Too many scenarios to list, but suffice to say, your CPL training was for DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. I want to see how you ENTER a fight with hostages to know if your presence will be beneficial or detrimental toward protecting kids. If you can guarantee me that all CPL holders will hold tight, and wait for it to be totally defensive and never take the fight to them (even if it is their kid in the room next door being ravaged by a lunatic) then I'll change my PERSONAL OPINION. Good luck on that. This isn't about your right to self defense, this is about making sure that those that do carry in PFZs can execute OFFENSIVELY under pressure...carry on...

We are continually reminded that a CPL is NOT a badge, and does NOT give us any police powers.
Add to that the fact that police are NOT required to protect us or do anything to prevent crime.
If you or the state expects me to take on an offensive roll, you are going to have to PAY me and for my training and practice.
I don't feel that is out of line.
Other then that, I feel I am safe enough to be around my kids, grandkids, & great grandkids. And in my mind that makes me more then safe enough to be around yours in WalMart, on the street or in a school.

Again, I ask you for something to support your feelings that additional testing or training is going to make me safer in a school then I am outside that same school.

[Barrettone]

Why is it you feel someone without this additional training or testing should be allowed to carry at all in public?



We are continually reminded that a CPL is NOT a badge, and does NOT give us any police powers.
Add to that the fact that police are NOT required to protect us or do anything to prevent crime.
If you or the state expects me to take on an offensive roll, you are going to have to PAY me and for my training and practice.
I don't feel that is out of line.
Other then that, I feel I am safe enough to be around my kids, grandkids, & great grandkids. And in my mind that makes me more then safe enough to be around yours in WalMart, on the street or in a school.

In a lockdown situation, you could be "LOCKED" in this box (a school) with a rattlesnake (read: gunman). If the snake passes you by, and goes in the next room shooting kids, are you going to guarantee me that you will sit tight and not try to neutralize him? If you cannot honestly say that you (or any CPL holder for that matter) would stand by and listen to thoose agonizing cries without injecting yourself/themselves into the fight (even though you were not directly being threatened), then I will relinquish my argument. The moment you commit to saving those lives in the next room, you are on OFFENSE. What if your kid is in that next room? Will you stay on defense, or go on offense. Answer honestly now...

Again, I ask you for something to support your feelings that additional testing or training is going to make me safer in a school then I am outside that same school.

You are asking the government to allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's that are currently off limits. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it will be safe, and you have no data that proves a current CPL holder WILL BE SAFE IN A PFZ. You can only offer data that states that CPL holders can and have been safe OUTSIDE A PFZ. You are the one asking for something. YOU need to show proof. Quit turning this around on me. I am just posing the same questions to you that they ask me. I have offerred up your "data" that you've given me so far. They say: "Not good enough", and "The data is insufficient as it is data regarding non-PFZ locales". You need to show me data from places that include areas like the ones Michigan currently deems PFZ's, where CPL holders can currently carry with the same level of training that we require currently for a CPL.

And again, I reiterate, that i do not teach these advanced classes, so it is not a case of: "My class is great, and you must take it". I have taken these classes, but I am not certified to teach them. So I can only speak to them as I was a STUDENT and can appreciate the advanced training.

Now...your play.

[emt232004]

You are asking the government to allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's that are currently off limits. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it will be safe, and you have no data that proves a current CPL holder WILL BE SAFE IN A PFZ. You can only offer data that states that CPL holders can and have been safe OUTSIDE A PFZ. You are the one asking for something. YOU need to show proof. Quit turning this around on me. I am just posing the same questions to you that they ask me. I have offerred up your "data" that you've given me so far. They say: "Not good enough", and "The data is insufficient as it is data regarding non-PFZ locales". You need to show me data from places that include areas like the ones Michigan currently deems PFZ's, where CPL holders can currently carry with the same level of training that we require currently for a CPL.

And again, I reiterate, that i do not teach these advanced classes, so it is not a case of: "My class is great, and you must take it". I have taken these classes, but I am not certified to teach them. So I can only speak to them as I was a STUDENT and can appreciate the advanced training.

Now...your play.

There should be no such thing as a pfz, it is an infringement on my rights. That is the only proof I need. There is no proof these special "pfz's" are any special than the next place I am allowed to carry.

You logic of needing special training to keep my right to protect myself in public property such as a school is asinine, How is that any diffrent than being able to defend myself while at the zoo that is backed with kids on a field trip?

[JJ1989]

I'm sitting here wondering what your thoughts are on drivers licenses?
Who should be allowed, what skill level etc.
Keep in mind they didn't even have cars back when the BoR was written and the deaths that are caused by them each year.

You’re correct, the Bill of Rights was written long before motorized vehicles were around. Let’s, however, for the sake of logic and reasoning assume the Bill of Rights was written today. Let’s also be honest with ourselves - with very little exception in the United States the public transit systems are a joke. My point being is that almost without exception if you live in the United States, and if you want to have a job, you’re going to need a motorized vehicle. Why else would insurance agencies conclude that the average car travels 14,000 miles a year, 270 miles a week, and 38.5 miles daily? I promise you, it’s not entirely for leisure. The Constitution guarantees, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and almost without exception if you want happiness you’re going to need a job and therefore a car and thenceforth the right to drive would have been, without a doubt in my mind, included as an amendment.

Statistically in 2011 there were 32,367 people killed by motorized vehicles.

What restrictions do we have on motorized vehicles in public?
-speed limits
-seat belts
-3-tier driver's training
-vision requirements
-alcohol limit of 0.08BAC
-insurance at a minimum of PLPD
*Motorcycle - If you're younger than 21 you must wear a helmet without exception, if you're 21 or older you may take a motorcycle safety course/had your motorcycle endorsement for at least two years and carry additional insurance.

So following society’s logic on motorized vehicles we should absolutely have regulations on firearms, right?

I have to say I agree with you that having no laws in regards to it, and therefore it being legal anywhere, is effective. If you look across all the carry laws that states have enabled no one has ever been able to show otherwise. Out of some 30 academic peer reviewed papers 2/3 of the academic peer reviewed articles show a reduction in crime from carry laws and the last 1/3rd find no effect on crime rate. So at worst, you have no change in crime. Judge Posner from Illinois who ruled on the Illinois carry ban went through and looked at all of the studies and since not a single reputable study was able to prove adverse effects due to carry laws he ruled the ban unconstitutional. At worst, there is no effect and that was not enough for Illinois to ban carrying.

In fact right to carry laws have resulted in about a 60% drop in multiple victim public shootings where they are passed and an 80% drop in which people were injured or killed as a result thereof. Right to carry laws are the only gun laws that have ever had a positive affect on crime. Moreover, since about 1950 not just in the U.S. but in Europe in Australia in New Zealand - all but two of these multiple victim public shootings have occurred in a “gun free zone”.

So I do believe we have a God given right for self-protection. You may ask yourself, “Why do I bother with any sort of proficiency exam?” After all, as I said before no one has ever done a peer reviewed academic study that could show any sort of negative effect, which is really the unique thing about this topic because it’s the only topic where no one has ever been able to show evidence both ways in regards to any law that I'm aware of. I do it for the misguided people who are leading this state and for the voters who are electing them who aren’t informed enough to realize that this issue is unique in that aspect. What’s more, the proficiency exam can’t hurt crime, at best it will have no effect from where we are now and it’s a step in the right direction. Firearms are used 2 million times a year in self-defense and of those two million times the perpetrator is only killed 1 out of 1000 times. The perpetrator is only injured 7-8 out of 1000 times. So when you look at where you are now, we’re just talking about a step in the right direction, is it ideal – no – some small woman who isn’t proficient may find an attacker on top of her as she’s leaving one of these gun free zones and she may be raped or worse because she was unarmed and found herself in a situation where anyone could have used a firearm to their benefit, but it’s better than where we are now. On the positive side, the firearm owners who do go out and better themselves in their proficiency allowing them to pass the test may be able to get that perpetrator firearm/kill ratio up and save some money on our prison systems that are more akin to a revolving door than a reforming institution. Also, by making it proficiency based we can also make it a lot cheaper than the other proposals of extra training.

Barrettone, if you have enough pull with these people then show them these facts. Aside from the car stuff the rest came from: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-appearance-on-c-spans-washington.html it’s a video with John Lott and I know there are a few people who say they’ve refuted his studies, but they themselves have all been refuted and ultimately his studies have only been reconfirmed. As I said before, all studies were positive or neutral at worst. Logically, there is no reason for any of this training or the proficiency exams except to appease the uneducated and perhaps get a few more criminals off the streets and into body bags.

Edit to Add: I listed those PFZ statistics above but I forgot to list one more, in regards to schools specifically - about a quarter of school shootings are stopped by an armed civilian.

[Leader]

You are asking the government to allow CPL holders to carry in PFZ's that are currently off limits. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it will be safe, and you have no data that proves a current CPL holder WILL BE SAFE IN A PFZ. You can only offer data that states that CPL holders can and have been safe OUTSIDE A PFZ. You are the one asking for something. YOU need to show proof. Quit turning this around on me. I am just posing the same questions to you that they ask me. I have offerred up your "data" that you've given me so far. They say: "Not good enough", and "The data is insufficient as it is data regarding non-PFZ locales". You need to show me data from places that include areas like the ones Michigan currently deems PFZ's, where CPL holders can currently carry with the same level of training that we require currently for a CPL.

And again, I reiterate, that i do not teach these advanced classes, so it is not a case of: "My class is great, and you must take it". I have taken these classes, but I am not certified to teach them. So I can only speak to them as I was a STUDENT and can appreciate the advanced training.

Now...your play.

Barrettone,... First of all understand I am not attacking you.
I am just trying to understand why you believe what you do.
You have stated repeatedly that these are your personal feelings & beliefs and not to be confused with what you will lobby for as a representative of MGO.
At this point I am not asking the government to do anything, I am just asking why you think someone that the law says is safe to be armed at a puppet show with 2000 kids but needs more training or a proficiency test before they can go into a building with 15 different rooms seating 2502 adults watching adult films?
Why someone would be safe to walk along the sidewalk in front of a school at recess but a danger to the children if they set foot inside that school without advanced training?
I offer as an example the state of Vermont where no testing or training is required and carry without a permit is allowed in bars, sports stadiums and all but schools & courts of our PFZ's with NO adverse effects.
I also offer as an example the city of Chicago with pretty much a total ban on firearms and one of the highest rates of violent crime and deaths by guns in the entire United States of America.
I don't understand your belief that additional training is required to carry at my sons day care center but not at the WalMart where the class goes for a field trip.
And I am not asking you to lobby for the government to give me anything, only to give back that which they can not justify taking away in the first place.

[Bikenut]

Barrettone,... First of all understand I am not attacking you.
I am just trying to understand why you believe what you do.
You have stated repeatedly that these are your personal feelings & beliefs and not to be confused with what you will lobby for as a representative of MGO.
At this point I am not asking the government to do anything, I am just asking why you think someone that the law says is safe to be armed at a puppet show with 2000 kids but needs more training or a proficiency test before they can go into a building with 15 different rooms seating 2502 adults watching adult films?
Why someone would be safe to walk along the sidewalk in front of a school at recess but a danger to the children if they set foot inside that school without advanced training?
I offer as an example the state of Vermont where no testing or training is required and carry without a permit is allowed in bars, sports stadiums and all but schools & courts of our PFZ's with NO adverse effects.
I also offer as an example the city of Chicago with pretty much a total ban on firearms and one of the highest rates of violent crime and deaths by guns in the entire United States of America.
I don't understand your belief that additional training is required to carry at my sons day care center but not at the WalMart where the class goes for a field trip.
And I am not asking you to lobby for the government to give me anything, only to give back that which they can not justify taking away in the first place.
Barrettone... and also JJ1989... although my manner of commenting is rather abrasive I too am not attacking either of you personally.

I simply do not understand the logic where requiring additional training or testing will result in a better outcome. It might... it might not but one thing it will do is make those who set the standards "feel" like they accomplished something.

However... I do understand that the required training and/or testing will most certainly result in a segment of the population who go to PFZ's not being able to afford the training and/or not pass the testing not only leaving that segment of the population at risk just because they didn't/couldn't measure up to someone's arbitrarily chosen standard but also will eliminate any possibility of that person being able to respond to a shooter and save lives.

And for those folks... instead of them being able to respond to a shooter and saving lives, because they didn't have the required training/didn't pass the arbitrary test, they will die right along with the other victims.

Look guys... it is the right to bear arms... not the privilege to carry a gun in certain places that some think are more special than others according to the standards set by whoever wants to "feel" like people are qualified.

Let me ask....

If there was an active shooter in the next room with your kid wouldn't you want someone... anyone... regardless of the amount of training/testing or lack thereof... to respond with a gun? Or would you prefer everyone waited until someone with the requisite training/testing showed up?

[Leader]

Barrettone... and also JJ1989... although my manner of commenting is rather abrasive I too am not attacking either of you personally.

I simply do not understand the logic where requiring additional training or testing will result in a better outcome. It might... it might not but one thing it will do is make those who set the standards "feel" like they accomplished something.

However... I do understand that the required training and/or testing will most certainly result in a segment of the population who go to PFZ's not being able to afford the training and/or not pass the testing not only leaving that segment of the population at risk just because they didn't/couldn't measure up to someone's arbitrarily chosen standard but also will eliminate any possibility of that person being able to respond to a shooter and save lives.

And for those folks... instead of them being able to respond to a shooter and saving lives, because they didn't have the required training/didn't pass the arbitrary test, they will die right along with the other victims.

Look guys... it is the right to bear arms... not the privilege to carry a gun in certain places that some think are more special than others according to the standards set by whoever wants to "feel" like people are qualified.

Let me ask....

If there was an active shooter in the next room with your kid wouldn't you want someone... anyone... regardless of the amount of training/testing or lack thereof... to respond with a gun? Or would you prefer everyone waited until someone with the requisite training/testing showed up?

Maybe we should first post a guard at the door to ensure the responders have passed the required tests & have the proper licenses before we allow them in with the children to look for the active shooter that is in YOUR childs classroom.

[Barrettone]

Wow...lot's to respond to. First of all, Leader, I appreciate your candor, and your quest to understand "why" I feel the way I do. Now, as to your question. I will answer it by answering bikenuts question of:

Let me ask....

If there was an active shooter in the next room with your kid wouldn't you want someone... anyone... regardless of the amount of training/testing or lack thereof... to respond with a gun? Or would you prefer everyone waited until someone with the requisite training/testing showed up?

No, I would not, and I'll explain why. I'd take my chances that the shooter wouldn't kill my son or daughter, as criminals by and large SUCK at shooting. I don't want a cowboy going in there and creating "collateral damage" that can cause the deaths of innocents. I want a "highly trained", lethal killing machine to take that idiot out with precise shooting under duress. I want someone who can play "offense", not someone only trained in defensive shooting. Second reason I want highly trained people is that it will REALLY take that target off PFZ's for bad guys. They don't like resistance, and if they not only know that someone in that school has a gun, but that they REALLY know how to use it in a multitude of ways that include tactical advantages (read: fatal funnels, etc) and can use those learned tactics against me, then I REALLY don't want to be a bad guy shooting up that PFZ.

Remember, this is like cameras for theft prevention. Someone is not always watching them to catch you, BUT THEY COULD BE!!! Now add to that, that the level of training on that Enhcanced CPL holder is very high, and that aura and mystique is elevated as to the security of the place. Additionally, one of the things I am trying to get schools to do is to treat an active shooter situation like a "fire drill" instead of a "tornado drill". I want them evacuated out using plans that have been pre-developed. Waiting in place is more dangerous IMO. I would rather my kids be a moving target than sitting ducks. A locked door doesn't stop that bad guy from entering (we found that out first-hand).

Now, if my kids have the choice of a "cowboy" trained in defensive situations only responding with a gun, or putting my kids on the move through a rehearsed evacuation plan regarding active shooters, I'll take the latter thank you. This is about comprehensive overhaul of the system we currently have in place. That will make the mission successful. Highly trained CPL holders is only one ingredient to that recipe. As I said, it is not all about you...it is about the mission.

Let me give you an example:

You have been transported back to the old west. You are given a pair of .41 Winchester revolvers, with a belt and holsters. You have no money, but there are two banks in town (the only two which have money you can steal). One is often guarded by a Pinkerton cop or two. The other is often protected by none other than Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Which bank are you choosing to rob? Sounds corny, but it illustrates my point. Pinkertons have some level of proficiency for protecting peoples goods, but the other two guys I mentioned were VERY adept at using their firearms in a multitude of situations both in offensive and defensive situations.

Now before you go saying "This isn't the OK Corral"...you're right, but the premise of my point hasn't changed. Bad guys travel the "perceived" route of least resistence. Let's make the perception that they can't win much greater. This isn't about you. It's about protecting people in PFZ's. So get that attitude out of your head. You're thinking about the wrong variable in the equation. IMO, it is selfish to reduce this to "your rights". It is about the mission. We don't train our military men trench warfare techniques when they they are being deployed for urban warfare. The training needs to meet the mission's objectives. PPITH does not meet those mission objectives IMO.

You can rail all you want about your rights, but the fact is, that the people in that room making the legislation are focused on the people in the PFZ's...not you. I can't change that reality unfortunately try as I might (and trust me, I have tried repeatedly). I hope this clarifies my position. I'm just trying to get a "win" here. Give me something more to take to them. I like some of Leaders comments on Illinois, and West Virginia. I will try to put that information in their heads. First, though, the focus needs to somehow shift from child safety to individual rights, and I'm having a tough time getting them off that. Part of it has to do with Govenor Snyders stance. So, do we want a "partial win", or resounding defeat while maintaining our postion?

[emt232004]

Wow...lot's to respond to. First of all, Leader, I appreciate your candor, and your quest to understand "why" I feel the way I do. Now, as to your question. I will answer it by answering bikenuts question of:

Let me ask....

If there was an active shooter in the next room with your kid wouldn't you want someone... anyone... regardless of the amount of training/testing or lack thereof... to respond with a gun? Or would you prefer everyone waited until someone with the requisite training/testing showed up?

No, I would not, and I'll explain why. I'd take my chances that the shooter wouldn't kill my son or daughter, as criminals by and large SUCK at shooting. I don't want a cowboy going in there and creating "collateral damage" that can cause the deaths of innocents. I want a "highly trained", lethal killing machine to take that idiot out with precise shooting under duress. I want someone who can play "offense", not someone only trained in defensive shooting. Second reason I want highly trained people is that it will REALLY take that target off PFZ's for bad guys. They don't like resistance, and if they not only know that someone in that school has a gun, but that they REALLY know how to use it in a multitude of ways that include tactical advantages (read: fatal funnels, etc) and can use those learned tactics against me, then I REALLY don't want to be a bad guy shooting up that PFZ. remember, this is like cameras for theft prevention. Someone is not always watching them to catch you, BUT THEY COULD BE!!! Now add to that, that the level of training on that Enhcanced CPL holder is very high, and that aura and mystique is elevated as to the security of the place.

Let me give you an example:

You have been transported back to the old west. You are given a pair of .41 Winchester revolvers, with a belt and holsters. You have no money, but there are two banks in town (the only two which have money you can steal). One is often guarded by a Pinkerton cop or two. The other is often protected by none other than Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Which bank are you choosing to rob? Sounds corny, but it illustrates my point. Pinkertons have some level of proficiency for protecting peoples goods, but the other two guys I mentioned were VERY adept at using their firearms in a multitude of situations both in offensive and defensive situations.

Now before you go saying "This isn't the OK Corral"...you're right, but the premise of my point hasn't changed. Bad guys travel the "perceived" route of least resistence. Let's make the perception that they can't win much greater. This isn't about you. It's about protecting people in PFZ's. So get that attitude out of your head. You're thinking about the wrong variable in the equation. IMO, it is selfish to reduce this to "your rights". It is about the mission. We don't train our military men trench warfare techniques when they they are being deployed for urban warfare. The training needs to meet the mission's objectives. PPITH does not meet those mission objectives IMO. I hope this clarifies my position.

I get it now, you want special powers like a mall cop. Let me keep it simple extra training to be able to carry in a "pfz" is just plain bullchit and a denial of my rights and yes this is about rights.

If you want someone "highly trained" to take out the active shooter than someone with a cpl you can wait for leo's or military to respond but taking away my option is a load of crap.


Second reason I want highly trained people is that it will REALLY take that target off PFZ's for bad guys.
Look into the history of those with cpl/ even those who OC that have preventing criminal activity.



Bad guys travel the "perceived" route of least resistence.
Once again basic cpl holders have proven a level up on the least resistance path that you speak of that these criminals either end their spree of off themselves when met with any armed resistance regardless of their training level.

Once more if you want to take all this advanced chit to feel safe go right ahead but forcing me to do so when I am competent with current standards.


I don't need an advanced drivers license to drive in the snow, on the highway or in school zones.

[Barrettone]

I get it now, you want special powers like a mall cop. Let me keep it simple extra training to be able to carry in a "pfz" is just plain bullchit and a denial of my rights and yes this is about rights.

Not to them.

If you want someone "highly trained" to take out the active shooter than someone with a cpl you can wait for leo's or military to respond but taking away my option is a load of crap.

But you are the one requesting permission to carry in a PFZ. It is up to you to show why they should let you <devils advocate mode on>.

Look into the history of those with cpl/ even those who OC that have preventing criminal activity.

It's not up to me or them to do your research for your argument. It is up to you.

Once again basic cpl holders have proven a level up on the least resistance path that you speak of that these criminals either end their spree of off themselves when met with any armed resistance regardless of their training level.

Nice testimonial. Will you take a day off work and come up to Lansing and testify to this?

Once more if you want to take all this advanced chit to feel safe go right ahead but forcing me to do so when I am competent with current standards.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are being disallowed as it currently stands.

I don't need an advanced drivers license to drive in the snow, on the highway or in school zones.

Not yet anyway.






Well, your "Rebel Yell" is going to fall on deaf ears up in Lansing. This is about "baby steps" and protecting people in PFZ's...not your rights (according to them and what they say they can get passed). Once your theory is proven, they may well entertain opening it up. Until then, they will, IMO, tell you to eat chit. Don't kill the messenger, I am only pointing out the reality.

[emt232004]

Well, your "Rebel Yell" is going to fall on deaf ears up in Lansing. This is about "baby steps" and protecting people in PFZ's...not your rights (according to them and what they say they can get passed). Once your theory is proven, they may well entertain opening it up. Until then, they will, IMO, tell you to eat chit. Don't kill the messenger, I am only pointing out the reality.

Baby steps my ass. I am ****ing tired of hearing baby steps. These ****ed up mental ill clowns are taking away my rights in huge steps faster than your baby steps keeps and gets them back. Matching their force is the way to get things done or give up your rights.

[Barrettone]

Baby steps my ass. I am ****ing tired of hearing baby steps. These ****ed up mental ill clowns are taking away my rights in huge steps faster than your baby steps keeps and gets them back. Matching their force is the way to get things done or give up your rights.

I share your frustration, but the only way to get our rights back is the same way they took them...incrementally. Don't hate the player...hate the game. The antigunners are very adept at chipping away at us. I've tried taking large swaths back before, and it always ended badly. That is why I also want SB59 broken up. I think it is asking for too much all at once, just as many have pointed out (one of which being our past Legislative Director). He understands their mindset up at the capital. I wish we could take it back in hunks, but as they say, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Sit back for even a brief period, and they'll rob you blind. Revolution is the only way to get large chunks back.

[Bikenut]

The thing that is being lost in all this stuff about ...

-Never mind rights... think of the children! Extra training is for the children!-

is the more folks who are able to exercise the right to bear arms equates to more people that have the ability to take out an active shooter who is............... shooting kids.

The thing is...

"The Children!" need to be protected from the shooter who is killing kids.... not protected from the parent who is shooting the shooter!

And the right to bear arms provides for lots of parents carrying guns and each could have the ability to take out the shooter but requiring training (you know, yet another "infringement") will only reduce the amount of parents carrying guns enabling a shooter to......... shoot more kids.

I would rather have a totally untrained person interrupt the shooter's OODA loop and shoot the shooter than to just sit and hope there is someone around who took the extra training. I would rather have a couple of kids shot accidentally by an untrained person taking out the shooter than to have a multitude of kids shot by an unopposed shooter shooting kids on purpose. It's all tragic but at least the number of tragic deaths/injuries was reduced.

But I'm beginning to understand how this works....

Legislators say they will might "allow" folks to carry in schools if certain requirements (infringements) are met....

And many folks see the carrot of being granted yet another special "privilege".. an opportunity to join an elite group.. and, in their haste to become "special", will not only ignore that the whole scheme is just another way for the government to gain more control (infringe) over the right to bear arms.... they will even trash talk the right itself.

But if a person really has the welfare and safety of the children as a priority they would want even more parents carrying guns.... not limiting that number to only those who meet some criteria that makes those in control... in control.

Edited to add....

I get so tired of hearing the word "rights" used when talking about "permits"....

There is no way that supporting even more restrictions .. more control.. through a "permit" system has anything to do with regaining the right to bear arms. It doesn't incrementally regain gun rights.... it only strengthens the government's power to control who is, and who ISN'T, allowed to bear arms.

Anything... anything at all... that supports the permit system is nothing more than going against "shall not be infringed" simply because the permit itself IS the freaking infringement.

[DP425]

I understand the concept of babysteps, and I realize our political environment in Michigan is not likely to be at a position anytime in the near future to make those giant leaps we want (ex. blanket lifting of PFZ for CPL holders without conditions). BUT....

This idea that you can take a day or two day class and be ready and proficient at entering and clearing a room with an active shooter in it is encouraging someone to play russian roulette with 3 out of 6 cylinders loaded. This is a bad idea for anyone who has not trained for this sort of thing with the intensity and time invested as if it's your career. CPL holders, even with one additional NRA class... are not SWAT members. They do not have on body armor, they likely have very little experience in rapid target identification, strong pointing, point shooting, and shooting from the move or abnormal positions. That isn't to say it's impossible for them to be successful, but given a shooter already owns the real-estate in that room and you're trying to take it back... being lacking in these areas tends to be very detrimental. You can't stop a shooter if you're dead on the floor 3 feet inside the door. For the vast majority of people, the answer should be waiting for the shooter to come out of the room.

I'm a life long gun owner, shooter and hunter, I support CC and OC and I feel the class as is, is enough to be able to carry anywhere you want. But when I start to feel the hair on my neck go up as someone is talking about a CCer going "on the offensive" and "clearing a room". If it's doing that to me, what do you think it's doing to middle of the road people? It is advocating a civilian do what most cops are not trained to do and will not do. John Q Public can watch the news and see that regular old cops, who they assume to be much better trained than someone with a CPL do not enter active shooter environments; they set-up a perimeter and wait for the swat team to arrive. What this kind of talk does is justify their fears that a CPL holder will get into something they are not capable of controlling, accidentally kill more children, and end up dead themselves; having done nothing more than add to the body count.

A day or two class one time is not even close to enough training to be talking about taking on offensive room entry and clearing scenarios and it will freak people out to no end who are not as on board with PFZ elimination as we are. This is exactly how they paint us as crazies.



Okay all of that out of the way- I do support CPL holders getting more training; good training has never been a negative. So in that respect, I wouldn't object to requiring an additional class to carry in PFZ's. At the same time, I also don't support it as a necessary step for safety; anyone safe enough to carry everywhere else in public is safe enough to carry in PFZ's. But I understand we have to compromise on this- and that even with a compromise, we are still moving forward.

Now, this argument that anyone has to PROVE we would be safe in PFZ's is idiotic. I'm sorry to say it, but just like everyone else has said- there is no reason that the current statistics on CPL holders cannot be used to support expanding the rights into PFZ's. Common sense and logic go a long way... Anti-gunners are always talking about "common sense laws"... Common sense dictates that people carrying safely in 95% of society will also carry safely in the other 5%. Fact is, with our history now, we DO have the upper hand. We need to challenge the opposition to come up with answers. We have the data and statistics of over a decade of safe CC; if you cannot come up with a logical reason why those statistics would not transfer over to PFZ's, the argument against it is illogical and strictly emotional.

And we can drive the final nail in the coffin with the track record of safety which all of the schools in the US who allow CC currently have. Of course they will argue human interaction, attention and caution in Arizona is somehow different than Michigan... but that's nothing more than death rattle.

[Barrettone]

The thing that is being lost in all this stuff about ...

-Never mind rights... think of the children! Extra training is for the children!-

is the more folks who are able to exercise the right to bear arms equates to more people that have the ability to take out an active shooter who is............... shooting kids.

The thing is...

"The Children!" need to be protected from the shooter who is killing kids.... not protected from the parent who is shooting the shooter!

And the right to bear arms provides for lots of parents carrying guns and each could have the ability to take out the shooter but requiring training (you know, yet another "infringement") will only reduce the amount of parents carrying guns enabling a shooter to......... shoot more kids.

I would rather have a totally untrained person interrupt the shooter's OODA loop and shoot the shooter than to just sit and hope there is someone around who took the extra training. I would rather have a couple of kids shot accidentally by an untrained person taking out the shooter than to have a multitude of kids shot by an unopposed shooter shooting kids on purpose. It's all tragic but at least the number of tragic deaths/injuries was reduced.

But I'm beginning to understand how this works....

Legislators say they will might "allow" folks to carry in schools if certain requirements (infringements) are met....

And many folks see the carrot of being granted yet another special "privilege".. an opportunity to join an elite group.. and, in their haste to become "special", will not only ignore that the whole scheme is just another way for the government to gain more control (infringe) over the right to bear arms.... they will even trash talk the right itself.

But if a person really has the welfare and safety of the children as a priority they would want even more parents carrying guns.... not limiting that number to only those who meet some criteria that makes those in control... in control.

Edited to add....

I get so tired of hearing the word "rights" used when talking about "permits"....

There is no way that supporting even more restrictions .. more control.. through a "permit" system has anything to do with regaining the right to bear arms. It doesn't incrementally regain gun rights.... it only strengthens the government's power to control who is, and who ISN'T, allowed to bear arms.

Anything... anything at all... that supports the permit system is nothing more than going against "shall not be infringed" simply because the permit itself IS the freaking infringement.

You put it quite succinctly, and I agree with everything you are saying. HOWEVER, under the current framework I have to work with, expanding "permitted rights" is all I have available to me, particularly at the state level. You eloquently stated my frustrations, and I wish I knew how to fight this mentality at the capital. They use the "carrot and donkey" concept a lot. They want to give us a nugget, make US prove that the method is viable, and ONLY THEN will they loosen up restrictions. In exchange for this added ability to carry in PFZ's (the carrot), they are making us (the donkey) go through extra training to continue the experiment in the hopes that later, they will relinquish more areas for regular CPL holders to carry.

[Bikenut]

You put it quite succinctly, and I agree with everything you are saying. HOWEVER, under the current framework I have to work with, expanding "permitted rights" is all I have available to me, particularly at the state level. You eloquently stated my frustrations, and I wish I knew how to fight this mentality at the capital. They use the "carrot and donkey" concept a lot. They want to give us a nugget, make US prove that the method is viable, and ONLY THEN will they loosen up restrictions. In exchange for this added ability to carry in PFZ's (the carrot), they are making us (the donkey) go through extra training to continue the experiment in the hopes that later, they will relinquish more areas for regular CPL holders to carry.
Therein lies the rub.... because the "donkey and carrot" is nothing more than a game. A rigged game because as long as the donkey is dumb enough to keep on lusting after the carrot the fat arse riding in the cart keeps on steering the cart, the carrot.......... and especially the donkey. All the while the stupid fish (dum bass) donkey keeps on playing the same rigged game.

One thing that needs to be understood.... the guy in the cart will NEVER give up any control over the donkey. He might change the type of harness... he might even get a new harness... but as long as the donkey thinks he is getting some kind of carrot, or worse yet foolishly thinks he can prove he deserves two carrots, he is destined to always be harnessed to and pulling a cart with some government guy controlling the reins.

I believe it is time to cut to the chase. Think outside of the game. Go back to the original premise and fight to regain....

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

because as long as we play the game of thinking in terms of restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms as being "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" then "we the people" will always be nothing more than an ass pulling the cart called government control.

But the first step on that journey is to stop thinking that there is such a thing as a "reasonably acceptably appropriate" restriction on the right to bear arms. Once that change in perspective is accomplished the how to get out of the harness will come from better minds than mine.

Edited for spmelding errrers.

Edited to add...

There is one thing that can be done to regain the right to bear arms....

Stop compromising.

[Leader]

Tthank you for continuing this discussion.
Now my comments in blue.


Wow...lot's to respond to. First of all, Leader, I appreciate your candor, and your quest to understand "why" I feel the way I do. Now, as to your question. I will answer it by answering bikenuts question of:

Let me ask....

If there was an active shooter in the next room with your kid wouldn't you want someone... anyone... regardless of the amount of training/testing or lack thereof... to respond with a gun? Or would you prefer everyone waited until someone with the requisite training/testing showed up?

No, I would not, and I'll explain why. I'd take my chances that the shooter wouldn't kill my son or daughter, as criminals by and large SUCK at shooting.
You say this in the wake of a shooter that KILLED 26 out of the 26 he engaged. There were NO WOUNDED at Sandy Hook.
At least that is what we are expected to believe.
I don't want a cowboy going in there and creating "collateral damage" that can cause the deaths of innocents.
I really take offence at being labeled a "cowboy" as I am sure most CPL holders would. You do admit YOU are included in that discription don't you?
I want a "highly trained", lethal killing machine to take that idiot out with precise shooting under duress.
This sounds like the only thing that would satisfy you would be a private specially trained armed operator. I don't think any of our local or state police will qualify. Do you expect the tax payers to pay for this Special Armed Guard for your child?
I want someone who can play "offense", not someone only trained in defensive shooting. Second reason I want highly trained people is that it will REALLY take that target off PFZ's for bad guys.
Seems to me that just allowing teachers & parents and visitors to carry in any school would do that as well as it does in the places we are allowed to carry now.
They don't like resistance, and if they not only know that someone in that school has a gun, but that they REALLY know how to use it in a multitude of ways that include tactical advantages (read: fatal funnels, etc) and can use those learned tactics against me, then I REALLY don't want to be a bad guy shooting up that PFZ.
I think they would play the odds if you make it so hard for anyone to get a special license to carry in PFZ's . They already know their chances of meeting armed resistance is very slim and with your requirements it would be almost zero. And the chance of meeting ONE armed person as opposed to maybe half the teachers & other employees in the school, .... well... just look at the marksmanship police show the public.
Remember, this is like cameras for theft prevention. Someone is not always watching them to catch you, BUT THEY COULD BE!!!
But under your restrictions, the chance of there being someone that has passed all the special training and testing brings the chances of that down to almost nothing. Certinally not enought to worry about.
Now add to that, that the level of training on that Enhcanced CPL holder is very high, and that aura and mystique is elevated as to the security of the place.
See above.
Additionally, one of the things I am trying to get schools to do is to treat an active shooter situation like a "fire drill" instead of a "tornado drill". I want them evacuated out using plans that have been pre-developed. Waiting in place is more dangerous IMO. I would rather my kids be a moving target than sitting ducks. A locked door doesn't stop that bad guy from entering (we found that out first-hand).
This has nothing to do with allowing CPL holders to carry in PFZ's
Now, if my kids have the choice of a "cowboy" trained in defensive situations only responding with a gun, or putting my kids on the move through a rehearsed evacuation plan regarding active shooters,Which they don't. I'll take the latter thank you. This is about comprehensive overhaul of the system we currently have in place. That will make the mission successful. Highly trained CPL holders is only one ingredient to that recipe. As I said, it is not all about you...it is about the mission.
I guess this is something I didn't understand. In the lass I took, nothing was mentioned about the "mission" I was about to undertake. In fact, it was emphasized over & over that we were NOT any kind of LEO or vigilante and law enforcement was NOT our function.

Let me give you an example:

You have been transported back to the old west. You are given a pair of .41 Winchester revolvers, with a belt and holsters. You have no money, but there are two banks in town (the only two which have money you can steal). One is often guarded by a Pinkerton cop or two. The other is often protected by none other than Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday. Which bank are you choosing to rob? Sounds corny, but it illustrates my point. Pinkertons have some level of proficiency for protecting peoples goods, but the other two guys I mentioned were VERY adept at using their firearms in a multitude of situations both in offensive and defensive situations.
In this situation, I would go to the local general store & offer my services as a salesman, janitor, or anything else I could do to earn a meal & place to stay. If turned down there, I would try the next business place along the way. I don't think robbing the bank would have entered my mind.Maybe offer my services as an additional guard at one or both of them.
Now before you go saying "This isn't the OK Corral"...you're right, but the premise of my point hasn't changed. Bad guys travel the "perceived" route of least resistence.
Exactally, and just being armed seems to be as effective as being armed & having extra training that the bad guy doesn't know you have. We have no evidence in any form that suggests bad guys are more afriad of MI CPLers then someone from VT where they have NO training. And no evidence that they fear a MI CPLer less then an ex soldier that had extra training.
Let's make the perception that they can't win much greater. This isn't about you. It's about protecting people in PFZ's.
And no it isn't about protecting others in a PFZ, it IS about ME being allowed to protect MYSELF. If in the process, your kid is left unharmed, well... thats ok too.
So get that attitude out of your head. You're thinking about the wrong variable in the equation. IMO, it is selfish to reduce this to "your rights". It is about the mission. We don't train our military men trench warfare techniques when they they are being deployed for urban warfare. The training needs to meet the mission's objectives. PPITH does not meet those mission objectives IMO.
Again, I sure didn't sign up for any "MISSION" and I don't think anyone else did either.
It's hard for me to distinguish between your thoughts & feelings and "theirs" but, I don't think most legislators think in term of the "MISSION" that CPLers are on as opposed to self protection and in some cases being able to protect others *IF* the situation is right.

You can rail all you want about your rights, but the fact is, that the people in that room making the legislation are focused on the people in the PFZ's...not you. I can't change that reality unfortunately try as I might (and trust me, I have tried repeatedly). I hope this clarifies my position. I'm just trying to get a "win" here. Give me something more to take to them. I like some of Leaders comments on Illinois, and West Virginia. I will try to put that information in their heads. First, though, the focus needs to somehow shift from child safety to individual rights, and I'm having a tough time getting them off that. Part of it has to do with Govenor Snyders stance. So, do we want a "partial win", or resounding defeat while maintaining our postion?

Again, my question was to YOU personally not to you the MGO rep. I am not interested in presenting evidence to change any ones mind at this time, I just want to understand why YOU think I need extra training and testing to stand next to your grandson in a school and not in WalMart.

[Barrettone]

Well Leader, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. My personal opinion is that PPITH alone doesn't make you good enough to handle the potential threat scenarios in a PFZ. Bottom line for me is that, if that is the total sum of your training, then you're not good enough to have a gun around my kids in a school.

[emt232004]

Well Leader, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. My personal opinion is that PPITH alone doesn't make you good enough to handle the potential threat scenarios in a PFZ. Bottom line for me is that, if that is the total sum of your training, then you're not good enough.
There is nothing special about a magic "pfz" other than labeling it a "pfz" Should be allowed to carry there just like anyplace else with any other standard training and that was one of the points of this bill to get rid of "pfz's" with no compromise.

[Leader]

Ok.. we'll disagree.
I can safely handle the exact same scenario at WalMart that I can't at a school or private day care center.
And if I can handle it at my local small theater, I can't at a bigger city mega theater.
I just don't understand.
I also don't understand why you would want your child and God knows how many others killed by some nut rather then let me or his/her teacher that you trust them with 6 hrs a day stop him.

[Barrettone]

Ok.. we'll disagree.
I can safely handle the exact same scenario at WalMart that I can't at a school or private day care center.
And if I can handle it at my local small theater, I can't at a bigger city mega theater.
I just don't understand.
I also don't understand why you would want your child and God knows how many others killed by some nut rather then let me or his/her teacher that you trust them with 6 hrs a day stop him.

I will let them...with extra training. No additional training? No dice. Sorry, PPITH isn't enough training to make me feel comfortable. You are entitled to your opinion, but where my kids are involved, you wouldn't be good enough with just PPITH.

[Barrettone]

There is nothing special about a magic "pfz" other than labeling it a "pfz" Should be allowed to carry there just like anyplace else with any other standard training and that was one of the points of this bill to get rid of "pfz's" with no compromise.

And I contend it is different thing altogether. Different scenario, different skill levels required. You can say it over and over again, but it won't change my personal opinion. Sorry.

[Bikenut]

I will let them...with extra training. No additional training? No dice. Sorry, PPITH isn't enough training to make me feel comfortable. You are entitled to your opinion, but where my kids are involved, you wouldn't be good enough with just PPITH.And there it is....

[ltdave]

... PPITH alone doesn't make you good enough to handle the potential threat scenarios in a PFZ. Bottom line for me is that, if that is the total sum of your training, then you're not good enough to have a gun around my kids in a school.

boy Jeff...

you would just absolutely crap yourself if constitutional carry was adopted in the state wouldnt you? ALL of those UNTRAINED (completely since PPitH wouldnt be required) people around your kids in a school...

what if someone only has PPitH and happens to be at the zoo while your kids are on a field trip? or at the DIA or any OTHER non-pfz? sure would like to be your shrink! i could get RICH dealing with your phobia/paranoia/mania...

[Leader]

boy Jeff...

you would just absolutely crap yourself if constitutional carry was adopted in the state wouldnt you? ALL of those UNTRAINED (completely since PPitH wouldnt be required) people around your kids in a school...

what if someone only has PPitH and happens to be at the zoo while your kids are on a field trip? or at the DIA or any OTHER non-pfz? sure would like to be your shrink! i could get RICH dealing with your phobia/paranoia/mania...

He would want you to stay away, he would rather his child & any other people around be killed then an untrained person intervene and stop the shooter.