Senate Bill 0789 (2014)

[Smokepole]

With credit to Kaeto for the find.
Senate Bill 0789 (2014)

Sponsors
Michael Green - (primary)Thomas Casperson, Jack Brandenburg, John Moolenaar, David Robertson, Phillip Pavlov, Patrick Colbeck, James Marleau, John Pappageorge, Michael Kowall

Categories Weapons, licensing; Weapons, concealed; State agencies (existing), state; Counties, other

Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).


Senate Bill 0789 (2014) (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28w3jp5fvrb3i5qj55nsr05i45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2014-SB-0789)

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2014-SB-0789)
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 2/18/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
SB 0790 of 2014 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2014-SB-0790)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 2/18/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[Kaeto]

Tallbear beat me to posting a better link.

[Roundballer]

There is a couple of things I don't like, and I am not so sure about giving so much power to the County Clerk.

I don't like the training certificate expiring after 5 years or that if you let the CPL expire and not renew for 5 years, you start all over again and buy another class.

[DV8r]

There is a couple of things I don't like, and I am not so sure about giving so much power to the County Clerk.

I don't like the training certificate expiring after 5 years or that if you let the CPL expire and not renew for 5 years, you start all over again and buy another class.
And I don't like the need to get a CPL or to register my handguns and I don't like any of the existing federal laws. But alas what I don't like doesn't seem to make any difference. YMMV :)

[Magnum Man]

There is a couple of things I don't like, and I am not so sure about giving so much power to the County Clerk.

I don't like the training certificate expiring after 5 years or that if you let the CPL expire and not renew for 5 years, you start all over again and buy another class.

What are we gaining if anything?

[langenc]

Keep watching as I will and some legal eagle will summarize the whole situation..

[Roundballer]

What are we gaining if anything?
The only things that I see in there that could be considered a "gain" are:

Codifying that the application and pictures are the ONLY things that you have to submit, no additional forms from the county.

The time from when the finger prints are taken, until you get your license is cut to 45 days. After that they have to issue a temp.

Codify the requirements for either a laminated or plastic card, and the photo, with what might be acceptable charges, with conditions.

They lower the initial cost to $90.00.

Codifying that monies remaining with the clerk are to be used for improvements and staffing for the licensing process.

Yeah, they are not really a "gain" over constitutional carry, but could be improvements over the existing situation.

[andoerin]

[QUOTE=Roundballer]The only things that I see in there that could be considered a "gain" are:

They lower the initial cost to $90.00.

QUOTE]

I had the same feeling when I read the bill... I was like what gives? Wisconsin runs the same NICS FBI check and only charges license holders 40 bucks for the permitting process. The Government is turning a surplus year after year, so if they are proping up the MSP General fund that is a bad thing. I did see in the bill section 5X created a concealed carry license fund and prohibits spending the fund on anything but the administration and enforcement of the bill... I am thinking this means a continued decrease in fees into the future?

The bill does basically specify that without direct evidence from the MSP check, or a county prosecutor making a case, that the count clerk must issue the permit.

The only provision that scares me, and it already existed under the previous law, page 14 line 4. "shall not be disclosed to any person except for purposes of this act or for law enforcement purposes." There is quite a bit of hoopla that can be passed off as law enforcement purposes. Hopefully some other state statute prevents releasing the data to federal agencies in bulk, and maybe prevents state use of the bulk data for link analysis. It is one thing to have a suspect and look the see if they own a pistol/have a carry permit, it's quite another thing to have a dump database of all permit holders to start crossing names off of.

[luckless]

It would be nice to know exactly where the bottleneck is in the fight to roll back gun regs. We need a few pro gun legislators to identify the culprits, regardless of their party affiliation. Personally, I don't think we'll see any significant improvement until there is a change in legislative leadership. The current crop of "leaders" are taking our votes for granted. That, and Snyder sucks for gun rights.

[Jared1981]

This bill does a lot in the due process arena.

Unless I overlooked something, it removes the sheriffs from the equation and it gets rid of A-hole gun boards (ie. Macomb County).

The bill is clearly a net positive.

[bradymsu]

This bill does a lot in the due process arena.

Unless I overlooked something, it removes the sheriffs from the equation and it gets rid of A-hole gun boards (ie. Macomb County).

The bill is clearly a net positive.

Exactly. People don't understand how God awful a number of county gun boards have been in the CPL issuing process over the past decade. There are some good ones. But then there's ones like Kent Co.

[Tallbear]

Exactly. People don't understand how God awful a number of county gun boards have been in the CPL issuing process over the past decade. There are some good ones. But then there's ones like Kent Co.

And the Kent County Clerk has a problem with processing the paperwork in a timely manner.

[fbuckner]

Livingston county has been quick with permits but last i knew had another piece of paper to sign basically giving them access to medical/mental health records. I hope this will eliminate the adding hoops to jump thru that some boards have managed to slip in.

[luckless]

Why should we have to give so much to the antis just to get help with CPL issuance? The antis didn't have to give us anything in return for ammo control or jacking up our hunting licenses. It would seem that our politicians value the anti gun vote more than our's. The new regs never get rolled back. Just like the registration laws they passed did nothing but lower the liability and expense for the government, yet they kept the same control. They are jerking us around, legislatively speaking.

[Leader]

Livingston county has been quick with permits but last i knew had another piece of paper to sign basically giving them access to medical/mental health records. I hope this will eliminate the adding hoops to jump thru that some boards have managed to slip in.

Between initial and renewals for my wife & myself, "quick" has been in excess of 90 days every time.
Maybe my refusal to sign that extra form had something to do with it or training cert being over 1 yr old but I still want the county cut OUT of the process.
This should be handled by the SoS.

[bradymsu]

And the Kent County Clerk has a problem with processing the paperwork in a timely manner.

Exactly. The clerk and the gun board in Kent County often cover each others' backs. The clerk, though a Republican, has a history of animosity toward gun owners. One of the benefits of eliminating county gun boards will be to help end the delays and other negative impacts these local political networks have on gun owners.

[Smokepole]

Exactly. The clerk and the gun board in Kent County often cover each others' backs. The clerk, though a Republican, has a history of animosity toward gun owners. One of the benefits of eliminating county gun boards will be to help end the delays and other negative impacts these local political networks have on gun owners.
Why hasn't something already been done about local county clerks, gun boards, etc. that obstruct the current law?

And, how will handing more power to someone like Hollinrake in Kent county, eliminate a problem that she largely created?

:?

[WelshAmerican]

Why hasn't something already been done about local county clerks, gun boards, etc. that obstruct the current law?
I'm hoping that what I do paying memberships in MGO and NRA means that I'm doing something.
Beyond that, I've had a talk with the Kent County GOP Committee Chair about the issue. I hope to see him accept my invitation to join a walk on March 2 in remembrance of the assault to which Jeffert was subject, and his unlawful detention.

[Raggs]

I'm hoping that what I do paying memberships in MGO and NRA means that I'm doing something.
Beyond that, I've had a talk with the Kent County GOP Committee Chair about the issue. I hope to see him accept my invitation to join a walk on March 2 in remembrance of the assault to which Jeffert was subject, and his unlawful detention.

Deffert, Johann Deffert. Question would the class certificates of people prior to this bill being passed signed etc be grand fathered? I do not see why the certs should not be lifetime as I understand they are now. Well except to make CPL instructors a bit of money of course.

[bradymsu]

Why hasn't something already been done about local county clerks, gun boards, etc. that obstruct the current law?

And, how will handing more power to someone like Hollinrake in Kent county, eliminate a problem that she largely created?

:?

Smokepole, how long have you been involved in gun rights activism in Michigan?

[Tallbear]

Exactly. The clerk and the gun board in Kent County often cover each others' backs. The clerk, though a Republican, has a history of animosity toward gun owners. One of the benefits of eliminating county gun boards will be to help end the delays and other negative impacts these local political networks have on gun owners.

I fail to see how putting complete control of the process the hands of the Clerks office will fix this.

The bill will help many other counties, but make things worse in Kent. IMO

[RayMich]

Although I agree that anyone who possesses a firearm should have some type of training, I feel that requiring Michigan citizens to take such a class as a requirement for obtaining a Michigan Concealed Pistol License is discriminatory and highly hypocritical. For starters, open carry does not require a license to carry or any training at all in this state.

Additionally, Michigan honors concealed carry licenses issued by every state in the union to their own citizens. But many states, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania have no such training requirement and yet their licensees can legally carry a concealed handgun in Michigan. This law places an unrealistic burden on Michigan resident not required of residents from other states and should be repealed.

If we weren't so beholden to the anti-gun crowd, this training could be provided as part of the school curriculum just like any other vocational training available today. In fact, I would make this training a requirement from middle school on up. (Millions of Russian students already get their firearms training in school.)

But I do realize that I am preaching to the choir here.

[Smokepole]

Although I agree that anyone who possesses a firearm should have some type of training, I feel that requiring Michigan citizens to take such a class as a requirement for obtaining a Michigan Concealed Pistol License is discriminatory and highly hypocritical. For starters, open carry does not require a license to carry or any training at all in this state.

Additionally, Michigan honors concealed carry licenses issued by every state in the union to their own citizens. But many states, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania have no such training requirement and yet their licensees can legally carry a concealed handgun in Michigan. This law places an unrealistic burden on Michigan resident not required of residents from other states and should be repealed.

If we weren't so beholden to the anti-gun crowd, this training could be provided as part of the school curriculum just like any other vocational training available today. In fact, I would make this training a requirement from middle school on up. (Millions of Russian students already get their firearms training in school.)

But I do realize that I am preaching to the choir here.
You're absolutely correct on that point, and I've been preaching that for decades.

My firearms training started at about 9 years of age, when my dad started taking me up to the VFW hall on Greenfield and Schoolcraft to shoot the BB gun he had as a kid.The hall had a series of targets set up under their stage with hinged doors that opened up, and we all shot on mats that were on the floor.

After that, we started on a .22 single shot with "shorts."

In Boy Scouts, marksmanship was required as you ascended in rank, with merit badges.

That "education" then continued in my mid teens when my dad and I used to go up to the Pontiac range, and we used a Trius trap bolted to the spare wheel of the car to launch clay pigeons.

I learned to shoot "clays" with my dad's Remington 870 that had a fixed full choke.Once I mastered the eye hand coordination, I was "grinding them up."
...My dad never bothered to tell what a fixed choke was all about!

First time I ever shot actual skeet was at Ft. Bragg NC.

For fifty cents, you got a Winchester pump 12 gauge with heat shield over the barrel, a box of Winchester shells, and a round of skeet.

Problem is that these days, kids aren't raised the same way I was, and that's unfortunate because some of the best times I ever had with my dad was when we were shooting together.

It's also unfortunate that our educational system is derelict in not teaching responsible and competent firearm use.

"IMHO" it's just as important as sex education, driver's education, and academics.

[Smokepole]

Smokepole, how long have you been involved in gun rights activism in Michigan?

...Answer the questions!

[1911lover]

You're absolutely correct on that point, and I've been preaching that for decades.

My firearms training started at about 9 years of age, when my dad started taking me up to the VFW hall on Greenfield and Schoolcraft to shoot the BB gun he had as a kid.The hall had a series of targets set up under their stage with hinged doors that opened up, and we all shot on mats that were on the floor.

After that, we started on a .22 single shot with "shorts."

In Boy Scouts, marksmanship was required as you ascended in rank, with merit badges.

That "education" then continued in my mid teens when my dad and I used to go up to the Pontiac range, and we used a Trius trap bolted to the spare wheel of the car to launch clay pigeons.

I learned to shoot "clays" with my dad's Remington 870 that had a fixed full choke.Once I mastered the eye hand coordination, I was "grinding them up."
...My dad never bothered to tell what a fixed choke was all about!

First time I ever shot actual skeet was at Ft. Bragg NC.

For fifty cents, you got a Winchester pump 12 gauge with heat shield over the barrel, a box of Winchester shells, and a round of skeet.

Problem is that these days, kids aren't raised the same way I was, and that's unfortunate because some of the best times I ever had with my dad was when we were shooting together.

It's also unfortunate that our educational system is derelict in not teaching responsible and competent firearm use.

"IMHO" it's just as important as sex education, driver's education, and academics.

Good post. Many here have no experience in how it used to be. Nor do the majority of people in this country. From teaching basic gun safety and marksmanship to being allowed to take guns to school so we could hunt after classes were over.

Sad. Now people are so damn brainwashed that many parents will not allow their kids to visit friends' homes where the parents own guns....guns are evil and the people that own them are crazed wanna be killers, blah, blah, blah.

I don't foresee it ever getting better. We have to fight losses of rights constantly while giving them up almost as fast. Lack of common sense, especially with the libs, and far too many rinos (spelled progressives) are causing the destruction of this country and I'm afraid it will continue in one form or another, slowly, like thousands of knife cuts until this country is bled out from corruption, greed for money and power. :( :poed:

[bradymsu]

I fail to see how putting complete control of the process the hands of the Clerks office will fix this.

The bill will help many other counties, but make things worse in Kent. IMO

This is my concern as well. I would have preferred to see the counties completely cut out of the CPL process and have the full authority go to either SOS or MSP with the fees going to the state. However, it's my understanding that the county clerks (as an association) want to retain involvement in the process and neither MSP or SOS want to completely take it over.

The thought about eliminating county gun boards is that it will speed up the process by eliminating one of the parties involved in the process (county gun boards). While we all may doubt the truthfulness of it, the Kent Co. Clerk routinely blames the county gun board for the four months delay in issuing licenses. The gun board says it usually processes them in under a month from the time it receives them. With the gun board out of the picture, the clerk can no longer blame the gun board. If Barry County is issuing licenses in four weeks and Kent County is issuing licenses in four months, both are going through the same MSP approval process and the only difference is the different clerk's offices, it take's away any excuses the Kent County Clerk may have and make it easier to hold them politically accountable (in theory).

Unfortunately in the case of Kent Co., the county large enough that it makes political accountability more difficult. If the same clerk was operating in Barry County, she'd likely be out of office by now in the same way that Dar Leaf forced the previous hostile sheriff out of office in that county.

[Tallbear]

So with no more gun board meeting once or twice a month, the Clerk would be "required" to issue on a daily basis?

[luckless]

I just don't see how we gain more than we lose with this piece of legislation. Who is insisting on all the crap about expired training certificates?

[Leader]

This is my concern as well. I would have preferred to see the counties completely cut out of the CPL process and have the full authority go to either SOS or MSP with the fees going to the state. However, it's my understanding that the county clerks (as an association) want to retain involvement in the process and neither MSP or SOS want to completely take it over.

The thought about eliminating county gun boards is that it will speed up the process by eliminating one of the parties involved in the process (county gun boards). While we all may doubt the truthfulness of it, the Kent Co. Clerk routinely blames the county gun board for the four months delay in issuing licenses. The gun board says it usually processes them in under a month from the time it receives them. With the gun board out of the picture, the clerk can no longer blame the gun board. If Barry County is issuing licenses in four weeks and Kent County is issuing licenses in four months, both are going through the same MSP approval process and the only difference is the different clerk's offices, it take's away any excuses the Kent County Clerk may have and make it easier to hold them politically accountable (in theory).

Unfortunately in the case of Kent Co., the county large enough that it makes political accountability more difficult. If the same clerk was operating in Barry County, she'd likely be out of office by now in the same way that Dar Leaf forced the previous hostile sheriff out of office in that county.

I thought the SoS & MSP worked for us.
It was my understanding that we (the citizens of MI) told THEM what to do not them telling us what they want to do.

[Jared1981]

Have people actually read the bill?

Here are some of the things it does besides getting the sheriff's and gun boards out of the process.

It makes the 1,000's of misdemeanor disqualifications only applicable for repeat offenders.

It gets rid of the moronic "must notify" provision and only requires disclosure if directly asked by a peace officer.

It reduces the fee to $90.

It gets rid of the village idiot clause.


While the expired training certificate part should be amended out, it's typical for Michigan Gunowners to complain about a bill that advances things forward... no other state or territory has a gun board.

[Divegeek]

Actually, the disqualifying violations are still the same. They have just been rewritten to be up to date with changes in other sections of the MCL's.

It clarifies the disclosure requirement. It got rid of the "immediately disclosure" when stopped language, and replaced it with the requirement to disclose when asked for "identification". Much less gray area to trip people up.

I couldn't find a "village idiot" clause.

[bradymsu]

While the expired training certificate part should be amended out, it's typical for Michigan Gunowners to complain about a bill that advances things forward... no other state or territory has a gun board.

Amen to that. People bitched endlessly about SB 59. Then they said it would never pass. And then when it did pass and was vetoed they were really pissed.

The "no compromise" people that tried and failed for nearly a decade to get shall-issue through bitched at MCRGO, Sen. Green and the Republican Legislature when they were finally successful in passing that.

Those same people who sit on their butts griping on forums are now complaining about Green's SB 789.

[kpearce]

Amen to that. People bitched endlessly about SB 59. Then they said it would never pass. And then when it did pass and was vetoed they were really pissed.

The "no compromise" people that tried and failed for nearly a decade to get shall-issue through bitched at MCRGO, Sen. Green and the Republican Legislature when they were finally successful in passing that.

Those same people who sit on their butts griping on forums are now complaining about Green's SB 789.

I find the majority of those who bitch almost never get off their a_s and show up or help out with anything. I've said it a hundred times on here the "all or nothing crowd" will always end up with nothing. Even in the days of our founding fathers they all didn't get all they wanted. Human nature and politics will always require the acceptance of something's you don't like in order to get a few things you like.

My dad was a very successful businessman and played around in politics. He always used to tell us kids that " if you don't have anything positive to do or say, then shut up and get out of the way" he always looked for the positive things in legislation or how he could make it more positive. He had no use for negativity or naysayers.

We need to always look to move forward as a group in a positive direction. Baby steps sometimes but still forward. I miss my dad.

[Roadblock]

And the Kent County Clerk has a problem with processing the paperwork in a timely manner.

Is it just processing new applications they have issues with? I got my first CPL in another county and it only took 28 days to get it IN hand.

I turned my renewal in here in Kent before the 60 days and then went and got my receipt stamped after the 60 was up expecting a long wait. It showed up in the main a couple weeks after got my receipt stamped.

I was expecting 4~6 months was barely over 2, 2 1/2 or so?

[Jared1981]

Actually, the disqualifying violations are still the same. They have just been rewritten to be up to date with changes in other sections of the MCL's.

It clarifies the disclosure requirement. It got rid of the "immediately disclosure" when stopped language, and replaced it with the requirement to disclose when asked for "identification". Much less gray area to trip people up.

I couldn't find a "village idiot" clause.

Maybe I'm just over-tired and the words are meshing together, but I thought the bill requires 2 or more so if you get 1 reckless driving, you still retain your right to defend yourself.

I'll re-read it tomorrow morning.

[Raggs]

Amen to that. People bitched endlessly about SB 59. Then they said it would never pass. And then when it did pass and was vetoed they were really pissed.

The "no compromise" people that tried and failed for nearly a decade to get shall-issue through bitched at MCRGO, Sen. Green and the Republican Legislature when they were finally successful in passing that.

Those same people who sit on their butts griping on forums are now complaining about Green's SB 789.

Not everyone who was against SB-59 was a no compromise person.

[RDak]

Can someone explain what this means:

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed
4 pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device
5 that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped
6 by a peace officer shall UPON REQUEST BY THAT PEACE
7 OFFICER disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a
8 pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption
9 technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her
10 vehicle.
11

[Raggs]

Can someone explain what this means:

(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed
4 pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device
5 that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped
6 by a peace officer shall UPON REQUEST BY THAT PEACE
7 OFFICER disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a
8 pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption
9 technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her
10 vehicle.
11

If you are stopped by a cop he has to ask if you are carrying as opposed to you having to tell him the way it is now.

[Jared1981]

Actually, the disqualifying violations are still the same. They have just been rewritten to be up to date with changes in other sections of the MCL's.

It clarifies the disclosure requirement. It got rid of the "immediately disclosure" when stopped language, and replaced it with the requirement to disclose when asked for "identification". Much less gray area to trip people up.

I couldn't find a "village idiot" clause.

I re-read the bill, some of the disqualifies like reckless driving would now require 2 or more convictions.

[Leader]

If you are stopped by a cop he has to ask if you are carrying as opposed to you having to tell him the way it is now.

That alone is worth supporting this version.
This bill is much better then the old SB59.

So far I haven't found where we are loosing anything in this.
Small gains but it is better then existing law.

[Jared1981]

That alone is worth supporting this version.
This bill is much better then the old SB59.

So far I haven't found where we are loosing anything in this.
Small gains but it is better then existing law.

But if we keep fixing laws then people won't have anything to bitch about.

[Leader]

But if we keep fixing laws then people won't have anything to bitch about.

I'm one of the ones that bitched about SB-59 and cheered when Snyder vetoed it.

It truly sucked when compared to the original.

[Jared1981]

I'm one of the ones that bitched about SB-59 and cheered when Snyder vetoed it.

It truly sucked when compared to the original.

I remember, but you had a valid concern, you didn't want to lose OC in PFZ's

[Leader]

I remember, but you had a valid concern, you didn't want to lose OC in PFZ's

I was more concerned about the extra cost of another class & yet another special license.
The way the law ended up, it didn't eliminate PFZ's, it just allowed places to allow carry in them.

Whatever... that was GARBAGE, this is better even though it smells.

Elimination of registration should be the subject of a single bill as should elimination of PFZ's.
Don't try to cram too much into any bill, a little at a time that is positive is better then small steps forward with big steps back.

[luckless]

I want to know why we want our training certificates to expire. I can't support a CPL law that makes it illegal for me to get a CPL. I called Senator Green's office to find out why he wants that. I will try again, later.

[RDak]

If you are stopped by a cop he has to ask if you are carrying as opposed to you having to tell him the way it is now.

Thanks.

That's how it reads but I was suspicious for some reason.

[WelshAmerican]

Here are some of the things it does besides getting the sheriff's and gun boards out of the process.

It makes the 1,000's of misdemeanor disqualifications only applicable for repeat offenders.

It gets rid of the moronic "must notify" provision and only requires disclosure if directly asked by a peace officer.
I summarized these points to State Senator Dave Hildenbrand, and I asked if he would support Senator Green's bill. He said: "I am supportive of Senator Green's bill and will be working with him to get this passed."
I'm hopeful.
I don't like the idea of someone saying "I've got a gun" and getting a new hole in his head. It's better to have the LEO begin the conversation topic and have you nod your head or say yes. The potential for misunderstanding "yes" is very limited.

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

DATE: Tuesday, March 4, 2014

TIME: 2:00 p.m.

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

PHONE: Tony Mosesso (373-5323)
Committee Clerk



AGENDA


SB 789 Sen. Green Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and
transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. **TESTIMONY ONLY**

SB 790 Sen. Green Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing
guidelines; update.
**TESTIMONY ONLY**

[appliancebrad]

There are a lot of unfounded concerns about this Bill. And a bunch of misunderstanding. Is it perfect? Not by a darn sight. Does it bring about improvements in the process? Most definitely.

First, the cost for renewals goes down. And the maximum a sheriff can charge for prints is $15.

County Clerks have 45 days from the time your prints are taken to issue a license or they are required to issue a temporary license.

Clerks are required to mail you your license. No more going in to apply then having to go back to pick it up.

Yes, training certificates will expire after 5 years. However, you only need your certificate once when you apply the first time. Some people believe you will need to retake the training every 5 years. That is incorrect. If you don't apply within 5 years of taking the class, you will need to take another one. Laws change, skills perish. I believe you shouldn't need a class in the first place (or a permit for that matter). However, the law says you do. I can't say it's unreasonable that if you don't apply within 5 years of taking the class you should have to retake it considering we require you to spend 2 hours of reviewing the law plus range time in order to renew.

My county clerk is good. My last renewal turned around in about 20 days. Without needing the gun board to review my application it probably would have taken 5. If all 83 counties worked like that, we wouldn't need these changes. However, they are not and this will correct a bunch of issues.

[GLOCKME]

There are a lot of unfounded concerns about this Bill. And a bunch of misunderstanding. Is it perfect? Not by a darn sight. Does it bring about improvements in the process? Most definitely.

First, the cost for renewals goes down. And the maximum a sheriff can charge for prints is $15.

County Clerks have 45 days from the time your prints are taken to issue a license or they are required to issue a temporary license.

Clerks are required to mail you your license. No more going in to apply then having to go back to pick it up.

Yes, training certificates will expire after 5 years. However, you only need your certificate once when you apply the first time. Some people believe you will need to retake the training every 5 years. That is incorrect. If you don't apply within 5 years of taking the class, you will need to take another one. Laws change, skills perish. I believe you shouldn't need a class in the first place (or a permit for that matter). However, the law says you do. I can't say it's unreasonable that if you don't apply within 5 years of taking the class you should have to retake it considering we require you to spend 2 hours of reviewing the law plus range time in order to renew.

My county clerk is good. My last renewal turned around in about 20 days. Without needing the gun board to review my application it probably would have taken 5. If all 83 counties worked like that, we wouldn't need these changes. However, they are not and this will correct a bunch of issues.

What if someone lapses their license,forgets their renewal date, like lots of people have done for their driver licenses?

Will they have to take another class since they have not had the class within 5 years and have "no permit" ?

[luckless]

Your training expires 5 years after your last cpl expires. You could have gotten your certificate 20 yes ago and it will still be valid as long as you don't let your license lapse more than five years.

[Roundballer]

And how does writing something into law make the training invalid?

You learned as a child that 5+5=10. You will retain that knowledge forever.

Your initial training doesn't go away, and the requirement in the current law for a renewal that you have reviewed the course material (including the laws) is still there, so why does the certificate "expire"?

I know that there are counties around that are placing "limits" on the age of the training, and something needs to be done to get them in line. It would be better to declare that the certificate NEVER expires, but the applicant swears that they have reviewed the necessary information within the last six months anytime they submit an application, not just at a "renewal".

[Leader]

And how does writing something into law make the training invalid?

You learned as a child that 5+5=10. You will retain that knowledge forever.

Your initial training doesn't go away, and the requirement in the current law for a renewal that you have reviewed the course material (including the laws) is still there, so why does the certificate "expire"?

I know that there are counties around that are placing "limits" on the age of the training, and something needs to be done to get them in line. It would be better to declare that the certificate NEVER expires, but the applicant swears that they have reviewed the necessary information within the last six months anytime they submit an application, not just at a "renewal".

It falls under the same logic as your high school diploma expiring.
Or maybe why you must go back to college if you don't use your degree for a few years.

But really you should be asking some of these instructors, they are the ones that stress how important they are and that anyone allowed to touch a gun without their training will kill someone.

[luckless]

The fault lies with key republicans that won't advance the legislation without an expiration. I just don't think the instructors have enough political influence to affect legislative wording. If they did, retired LEOs would be taking the class.

[bradymsu]

And how does writing something into law make the training invalid?

You learned as a child that 5+5=10. You will retain that knowledge forever.

Your initial training doesn't go away, and the requirement in the current law for a renewal that you have reviewed the course material (including the laws) is still there, so why does the certificate "expire"?

This is a common disagreement among CPL holders. On one hand, many of us believe a license (and training) shouldn't be required to carry concealed. On the other hand, many people agree that the training currently required is inadequate to really prepare someone to carry (and potentially use) a concealed pistol in public. I agree with both.

Things being as they are, we do have a license to carry concealed and training is part of that. A significant part of that training is Michigan gun law which isn't as simple as 5+5=10. That training certainly goes away when people aren't constantly being reminded and updated about it. I often see CPL holders asking very basic questions about Michigan gun law that should have been covered in their class and/or which they should have read in "Firearms Laws of Michigan" when they got their CPL.

A CPL renewal requires a review of Michigan gun law as part of the application. Many CPL holders are constantly getting that review by reading and discussing the law on sites like this. But a person who got their certificate 5+ years ago yet never got CPL, never put the law into action by actually carrying. The likelihood of them retaining knowledge of Michigan gun law is minimal. We remember 5+5=10 because we use it every day. We remember our PFZs and the reasons we can use a firearm to stop a threat because we carry every day. That's not the case for someone who doesn't.

The upside of the five year requirement is that it will hopefully encourage more people to get their CPLs once they complete pistol safety training. The current lifetime limit on certificates encourages people to put off getting their CPLs indefinitely until they feel they need them, which is often AFTER they or someone close to them has been a crime victim.

[45/70fan]

This is a common disagreement among CPL holders. On one hand, many of us believe a license (and training) shouldn't be required to carry concealed. On the other hand, many people agree that the training currently required is inadequate to really prepare someone to carry (and potentially use) a concealed pistol in public. I agree with both.

Things being as they are, we do have a license to carry concealed and training is part of that. A significant part of that training is Michigan gun law which isn't as simple as 5+5=10. That training certainly goes away when people aren't constantly being reminded and updated about it. I often see CPL holders asking very basic questions about Michigan gun law that should have been covered in their class and/or which they should have read in "Firearms Laws of Michigan" when they got their CPL.

A CPL renewal requires a review of Michigan gun law as part of the application. Many CPL holders are constantly getting that review by reading and discussing the law on sites like this. But a person who got their certificate 5+ years ago yet never got CPL, never put the law into action by actually carrying. The likelihood of them retaining knowledge of Michigan gun law is minimal. We remember 5+5=10 because we use it every day. We remember our PFZs and the reasons we can use a firearm to stop a threat because we carry every day. That's not the case for someone who doesn't.

The upside of the five year requirement is that it will hopefully encourage more people to get their CPLs once they complete pistol safety training. The current lifetime limit on certificates encourages people to put off getting their CPLs indefinitely until they feel they need them, which is often AFTER they or someone close to them has been a crime victim.

Well said.

[RayMich]

And how does a certificate expiring affect an Indiana concealed license holder who was never required to get any training by his state and may also have one of Indiana's "LIFETIME" licenses? - Yet that Indiana resident can carry in Michigan everywhere a Michigan CPL holder may carry, without worrying about his license or training certificate expiring.

Ultimately, it is all plain and simple. As the old saying goes,

"FOLLOW THE MONEY."

[GLOCKME]

Your training expires 5 years after your last cpl expires. You could have gotten your certificate 20 yes ago and it will still be valid as long as you don't let your license lapse more than five years.

Thanks for that clarification..
I would be up for a lifetime certification if made available,I don't believe that has even been tossed around for MI..

[langenc]

Why should we have to give so much to the antis just to get help with CPL issuance? The antis didn't have to give us anything in return for ammo control or jacking up our hunting licenses. It would seem that our politicians value the anti gun vote more than our's. The new regs never get rolled back. Just like the registration laws they passed did nothing but lower the liability and expense for the government, yet they kept the same control. They are jerking us around, legislatively speaking.


Gunners votes go to all the wrong people so many times..

IE--Carl and Debbie and who knows at the state level..How many posters on this site voted for Carl several times???


Of all the things discussed here, how many posters have ever discussed 'face to face' your likes dislikes w/ any syaye legislator.. Tell em what we want and follow up. Emails are just like postcards to legislators used to be--nearly worthless.
We will be forced to vote for "after the election Land" (getting CPLs thru the SoS).

Then there is the legislature that wont force the SoS to do iot since they are in the same party..

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2014-SB-0789)
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 3/4/2014 Analysis File Added
SB 0790 of 2014 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2014-SB-0790)
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 3/4/2014 Analysis File Added

[luckless]

Who is demanding that civilian training credentials expire? What lawmakers are demanding this restriction? I have made a few calls but no luck finding anything out. Must be a problem with leadership somewhere. Why else is it so hard to get anything progun passed? We are being given crumbs from the legislative table. Most of this bill is OK but if presidence is a predictor of future performance, the only thing left in this bill by the time it gets to Snyder will be the training expiration and a new tax they will have to add to get him to sign it.

[bigt8261]

Who is demanding that civilian training credentials expire? What lawmakers are demanding this restriction? I have made a few calls but no luck finding anything out. Must be a problem with leadership somewhere. Why else is it so hard to get anything progun passed? We are being given crumbs from the legislative table. Most of this bill is OK but if presidence is a predictor of future performance, the only thing left in this bill by the time it gets to Snyder will be the training expiration and a new tax they will have to add to get him to sign it.

Snyder indicated that he was happy with the process reform portion of SB 59, it was the PFZ stuff he had a problem with. SB 789 takes from SB 213 which took from SB 59. I see Snyder signing this without a problem.

[RayMich]

Today I received an email from MCRGO containing this...


CPL REFORM & ELIMINATION OF PISTOL FREE ZONES
MCRGO's other two legislative priorities for this legislative session are the elimination of county gun boards/reform of the concealed pistol licensing process and the elimination of pistol free zones. Senate Bills 789 & 790 which would achieve CPL reform will be up for a second hearing and vote in Senate Judiciary Committee very soon -possibly as soon as this week.
I quickly scanned the language in both bills and cannot find anything about "Elimination of Pistol free Zones."

Can someone shed some light on this?

I apologize if this has been covered here already and I missed it.

Thank you.

[SADAacp]

Today I received an email from MCRGO containing this...


I quickly scanned the language in both bills and cannot find anything about "Elimination of Pistol free Zones."

Can someone shed some light on this?

I apologize if this has been covered here already and I missed it.

Thank you.

IMO, they're just saying 789 and 790 will eliminate the county gun boards and too include in their priorities, the elimination of the concealed PFZ's.

[RayMich]

IMO, they're just saying 789 and 790 will eliminate the county gun boards and too include in their priorities, the elimination of the concealed PFZ's.

I believe that unless the language to eliminate PFZs is specifically spelled out in the bill, it would be a huge leap of faith to think that. I see no sense in leaving it up to someone's interpretation of the "intent" of the law. This is why we end up with so many LEO confrontations that shouldn't be if the law was clear in its wording.

[Divegeek]

Ray, you need to re-read that email. Part one says MCRGO'S priorities are the elimination of county gun boards, and the elimination of criminal empowerment zones. Part two says SB789 & 790 would achieve the first priority.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[RayMich]

Here is a direct quote from the above mentioned email.


CPL REFORM & ELIMINATION OF PISTOL FREE ZONES
MCRGO's other two legislative priorities for this legislative session are the elimination of county gun boards/reform of the concealed pistol licensing process and the elimination of pistol free zones. Senate Bills 789 & 790 which would achieve CPL reform will be up for a second hearing and vote in Senate Judiciary Committee very soon -possibly as soon as this week.

Well, then the email is not very well worded, because it is my understanding that Michigan pistol free zones were created as part of the Shall Issue CPL law passed in 2001. So I see elimination of the pistol free zones as part of the CPL law.

That email is very misleading. Particularly when they mention TWO priorities and then go and list TWO Senate Bills.

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

DATE: Tuesday, March 25, 2014

TIME: 2:30 p.m.

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

PHONE: Tony Mosesso (373-5323)
Committee Clerk



AGENDA


SB 789 Sen. Green Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and
transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks.

SB 790 Sen. Green Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing
guidelines; update.

SB 834 Sen. Pavlov Weapons; licensing; firearm records; clarify exemption under the
freedom of information act.

SB 881 Sen. Hansen Weapons; licensing; firearms records; clarify what records are exempt
under the freedom of information act.

HB 4155 Rep. Nesbitt Weapons; licensing; certain firearm licensing information; exempt from
freedom of information act.

HB 5325 Rep. Crawford Weapons; licensing; definition of firearms records; provide for.

HB 5327 Rep. Rendon Weapons; licensing; firearms records; exempt from freedom of
information act and provide for disclosure only under certain
circumstances. **TESTIMONY ONLY**


HB 5328 Rep. Cotter Weapons; licensing; firearm records; clarify what is exempt under the
freedom of information act.

[bradymsu]

Here is a direct quote from the above mentioned email.



Well, then the email is not very well worded, because it is my understanding that Michigan pistol free zones were created as part of the Shall Issue CPL law passed in 2001. So I see elimination of the pistol free zones as part of the CPL law.

That email is very misleading. Particularly when they mention TWO priorities and then go and list TWO Senate Bills.

Michigan's shall-issue CPL law is made up of numerous sections. The section that contains pistol free zones, MCL 28.425o, is not amended by SB 789. SB 790 is simply a sentencing guideline bill that goes along with SB 789. Both of the bills can be found at michiganlegislature.org (official Legislative site) or michiganvotes.org (very helpful site run by the Mackinac Chapter).

The e-mail from MCRGO says that the elimination of pistol free zones is one of MCRGO's priorities for the year. It says that SB 789 deals with CPL reform. It does not say SB 789 would amends pistol free zones. If it did, it would have said that explicitly in the e-mail. To make it clear, SB 789 does not affect pistol free zones. If Senate Bill 789 did amend pistol free zones, it would be collecting dust like SB 213.

[Jared1981]

Michigan's shall-issue CPL law is made up of numerous sections. The section that contains pistol free zones, MCL 28.425o, is not amended by SB 789. SB 790 is simply a sentencing guideline bill that goes along with SB 789. Both of the bills can be found at michiganlegislature.org (official Legislative site) or michiganvotes.org (very helpful site run by the Mackinac Chapter).

The e-mail from MCRGO says that the elimination of pistol free zones is one of MCRGO's priorities for the year. It says that SB 789 deals with CPL reform. It does not say SB 789 would amends pistol free zones. If it did, it would have said that explicitly in the e-mail. To make it clear, SB 789 does not affect pistol free zones. If Senate Bill 789 did amend pistol free zones, it would be collecting dust like SB 213.

Brady,

This is spot on. As we slowly take issues off the table by making less than major fixes, not only are incrementally winning, but it will make it easier to focus our efforts in simple bills that are not major omnibus packages like SB 59 was.

Also, the county sheriff's and gun boards are problems for a lot of people in the state. Just because their may be a fantastic gun board up in the UP somewhere doesn't mean this issue should be ignored. If that was the case then by that logic California's carry law should stay as is because people in Sutter County get permits on a shall-issue basis, without restriction, even if you are 18 years old.

[zigziggityzoo]

Am I reading this right? http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2014-SIB-0789.htm


(vi) A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF SECTION 167
(DISORDERLY PERSON), OR A VIOLATION OF SECTION 174 (EMBEZZLEMENT),
SECTION 218 (FALSE PRETENSES WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD), SECTION 356
(LARCENY), SECTION 356D(2) (SECOND DEGREE RETAIL FRAUD), SECTION
359 (LARCENY FROM A VACANT BUILDING OR STRUCTURE), SECTION 362
(LARCENY BY CONVERSION), SECTION 362A (LARCENY – DEFRAUDING
LESSOR), SECTION 377A (MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY), SECTION
380 (MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF REAL PROPERTY), SECTION 535
(RECEIVING OR CONCEALING STOLEN PROPERTY), OR SECTION 540E
(MALICIOUS USE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE OR DEVICE) OF THE
MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.167, 750.174, 750.218,
750.356, 750.356D, 750.359, 750.362, 750.362A, 750.377A, 750.380,
750.535, AND 750.540E.

Is that a second or subsequent violation of ALL of these, or just the first enumerated item?

It looks like they've completely revamped the misdemeanor disqualifiers, some to just update MCLs, others eliminated entirely.

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 3/26/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 3/26/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[TheQ]

I'm told no gun bills will make it off of the Senate floor (other than 610 and the NRA's FOIA package) until after the elections. Why? Snyder is holding them back -- "gun bills don't poll well with women".

What a crock of ***** from a piece of ***** poor excuse for a Republican governor.

[dmd7765]

I'm told no gun bills will make it off of the Senate floor (other than 610 and the NRA's FOIA package) until after the elections. Why? Snyder is holding them back -- "gun bills don't poll well with women".

What a crock of ***** from a piece of ***** poor excuse for a Republican governor.

+1

[TheQ]

We need to get 500 women to come to Lansing and stand in front of the Romney building -- all having a rifle slung over their shoulder.

[luckless]

I'm told no gun bills will make it off of the Senate floor (other than 610 and the NRA's FOIA package) until after the elections. Why? Snyder is holding them back -- "gun bills don't poll well with women".

What a crock of ***** from a piece of ***** poor excuse for a Republican governor.
Apparently he doesn't want the gun owner vote. So far I am voting "none of the above" when it comes to governor.

[45/70fan]

Apparently he doesn't want the gun owner vote. So far I am voting "none of the above" when it comes to governor.

same here, Snyder can take a hike, I am not going to support him. So we get a Democrat govenor, can't be any worse than what we have. The trick is to maintain a conservative legislature which will control the govenor and not do what the Gov wants.

[Smokepole]

Apparently he doesn't want the gun owner vote. So far I am voting "none of the above" when it comes to governor.

Agreed!

It's just unfortunate that we can't vote "No Confidence" instead.

I will NOT be voting for Snyder, nor his democratic opponent.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil, and having my vote taken for granted, because of that long held perspective.

[Smokepole]

same here, Snyder can take a hike, I am not going to support him. So we get a Democrat govenor, can't be any worse than what we have. The trick is to maintain a conservative legislature which will control the govenor and not do what the Gov wants.

Correct.

We may very well be better off with a democrat governor, that is constantly opposed by a republican legislature, than to have the same legislature blindly kiss everything a RINO governor advances.

[Flash-hider]

same here, Snyder can take a hike, I am not going to support him. So we get a Democrat govenor, can't be any worse than what we have. The trick is to maintain a conservative legislature which will control the govenor and not do what the Gov wants.

As this scenario presents itself, re-electing Synder to get dribs and drabs of pro gun legislation or a Dem and be assured of getting nothing. Kindof puts a fella between the rock and the hard place.

[Raggs]

We need to get 500 women to come to Lansing and stand in front of the Romney building -- all having a rifle slung over their shoulder.

Would love to see this happen.

[DEVIL DOG]

There's an OC march in Lansing on Apr. 29. We all have wives, girlfriends. mothers, etc.

[Jared1981]

Agreed!

It's just unfortunate that we can't vote "No Confidence" instead.

I will NOT be voting for Snyder, nor his democratic opponent.

I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil, and having my vote taken for granted, because of that long held perspective.

Be careful, some of the uneducated half-wits on here will berate you for not being a republican lap dog.

[TheQ]

There's an OC march in Lansing on Apr. 29. Many of us have wives, girlfriends. mothers, etc.

"FIFY"

That being said -- most of them won't come. Possibly because their husband's never ask them or impress the importance of their attendance on them.

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 3/27/2014 Analysis File Added

[MI_XD]

:onthemic:

I think what we REALLY need to do, is strongly impress upon our individual legislators, "That unless you can get these stalled bills passed BEFORE the elections, you can start looking for a new job!" Enough of this "after the election" garbage! Results first, THEN get sent back to Lansing.

MI_XD

[Leader]

We need to get 500 women to come to Lansing and stand in front of the Romney building -- all having a rifle slung over their shoulder.


Am I reading this wrong or are you advocating LGOC ?

[TheQ]

Rumor has it, this bill is up on General Orders today.

[CircuitRider]

Rumor has it, this bill is up on General Orders today.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/michigan-support-comprehensive-concealed-pistol-license-reform-in-senate.aspx

[Kaeto]

Sent an E-Mail off to Senator Hopgood asking him to vote yes on this.

[TheQ]

Sent an E-Mail off to Senator Hopgood asking him to vote yes on this.

Sorry to disappoint...

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=932912d10e

Note: he's in the "No" column along with every other Michigan Senate Democrat (except for Ananich who was absent)

[Jared1981]

WOW, more no votes than I thought. It's not veto proof. I hope the governor doesn't veto it.

[bradymsu]

WOW, more no votes than I thought. It's not veto proof. I hope the governor doesn't veto it.

Almost all the no votes were Democrats. The two Republicans who voted no appear to be acting in the interest of their county sheriffs who don't like losing discretionary authority by having county gun boards eliminated. These are the sheriffs who still don't understand what shall-issue means.

I've used the term "veto proof" before but we should clarify that it doesn't actually exist. A bill can pass the House and Senate unanimously and still be vetoed by the governor. A bill is only veto proof is both the House and Senate leadership are willing to allow a vote to override the veto. Our current Republican controlled House and Senate aren't willing to do that to a Republican governor. Snyder will likely go an entire 8 years without any of his vetoes facing an override vote.

[DEVIL DOG]

So for now it's up to the House to move this bill?

[bradymsu]

So for now it's up to the House to move this bill?

Yes sir. That likely won't be until after the general election.

[Jared1981]

Almost all the no votes were Democrats. The two Republicans who voted no appear to be acting in the interest of their county sheriffs who don't like losing discretionary authority by having county gun boards eliminated. These are the sheriffs who still don't understand what shall-issue means.

I've used the term "veto proof" before but we should clarify that it doesn't actually exist. A bill can pass the House and Senate unanimously and still be vetoed by the governor. A bill is only veto proof is both the House and Senate leadership are willing to allow a vote to override the veto. Our current Republican controlled House and Senate aren't willing to do that to a Republican governor. Snyder will likely go an entire 8 years without any of his vetoes facing an override vote.

Well aware of that, the majority of republicans in the legislature are gutless hacks. They are an embarrassment. Kansas had this problem in the late 1990's. After they got rid of the trash, their gun laws did a 180 for the better. Even with a few veto overrides in there.

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 6/10/2014 referred to Committee on Judiciary

SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 6/10/2014 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[Mia'sUncle]

Yes!

[WelshAmerican]

Yeas on Roll Call No. 407, passing SB 789:
Brandenburg, Casperson, Caswell, Colbeck, Emmons, Green, Hansen, Hildenbrand, Hune, Jansen, Jones, Kahn, Kowall, Marleau, Meekhof, Moolenaar, Pappageorge, Pavlov, Proos, Richardson, Rocca, Schuitmaker, Walker
Nays
Anderson, Bieda, Booher, Gregory, Hood, Hopgood, Hunter, Johnson, Nofs, Smith, Warren, Whitmer, Young
Excused
Ananich

[RayMich]

It is NO surprise that not a single democrat voted yes on this bill...

[TheQ]

Yeas on Roll Call No. 407, passing SB 789:
Brandenburg, Casperson, Caswell, Colbeck, Emmons, Green, Hansen, Hildenbrand, Hune, Jansen, Jones, Kahn, Kowall, Marleau, Meekhof, Moolenaar, Pappageorge, Pavlov, Proos, Richardson, Rocca, Schuitmaker, Walker
Nays
Anderson, Bieda, Booher, Gregory, Hood, Hopgood, Hunter, Johnson, Nofs, Smith, Warren, Whitmer, Young
Excused
Ananich



Is there an echo in here?

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=932912d10e

;)

[luckless]

Does this bill still include an expiration of training certificates? Apparently, they put it in to gain the support of some wishy-washy sheriffs that aren't supporting the bill, anyway. No need to give them something for nothing.

[langenc]

Although I agree that anyone who possesses a firearm should have some type of training, I feel that requiring Michigan citizens to take such a class as a requirement for obtaining a Michigan Concealed Pistol License is discriminatory and highly hypocritical. For starters, open carry does not require a license to carry or any training at all in this state.

Additionally, Michigan honors concealed carry licenses issued by every state in the union to their own citizens. But many states, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania have no such training requirement and yet their licensees can legally carry a concealed handgun in Michigan. This law places an unrealistic burden on Michigan resident not required of residents from other states and should be repealed.

If we weren't so beholden to the anti-gun crowd, this training could be provided as part of the school curriculum just like any other vocational training available today. In fact, I would make this training a requirement from middle school on up. (Millions of Russian students already get their firearms training in school.)

But I do realize that I am preaching to the choir here.


Parts of this post remind me of a 'meeting' I attended at Jays-Clare about 2000. Mas Ayoob was the featured speaker sponsored by the old MCRGO and the lawyer that ran it at the onset.

Mas comented to the effect "....here I am a non res of MI and I can carry and most of you residents (probably 100 attending) cant carry in your own state."

[langenc]

Let us get this passed and then go after REGISTRATION!! Hitlers favorite.

Yes 5+5+still equals 10. With Obama around Im not sure if it will survive.,

Ive had on line argumets the we even have registration in MI. One fellow thought Id smoked/drank too much to make a statement like that..

[Jared1981]

Let us get this passed and then go after REGISTRATION!! Hitlers favorite.

Yes 5+5+still equals 10. With Obama around Im not sure if it will survive.,

Ive had on line argumets the we even have registration in MI. One fellow thought Id smoked/drank too much to make a statement like that..

With Snyder, registration will not go away. The quickest way to abolish it is to elect republicans to the house and senate and vote democrat for governor, that way the gutless republicans will override a democratic veto, something they are unwilling to do for Snyder.

Otherwise, it will be 5 years at a minimum

[45/70fan]

The stupid regulations are not going to even take into consideration the oldest rifle/pistol cartridge the 44WCF aka: 44-40. This round was being used to take deer long before the DNRC 's great grandfather's were even born. I tried to get it considered to no avail had the discussion remained before the legislature we could be hunting deer in zone three with original Win 1873s.

[Jared1981]

The stupid regulations are not going to even take into consideration the oldest rifle/pistol cartridge the 44WCF aka: 44-40. This round was being used to take deer long before the DNRC 's great grandfather's were even born. I tried to get it considered to no avail had the discussion remained before the legislature we could be hunting deer in zone three with original Win 1873s.

I am not a hunter, I have had hunters tell me that Michigan has some of the worst hunting laws in the country. A few have mentioned that even Illinois and New York are more friendly to hunters.

Could you shed some light on this for folks like myself who are ignorant of the nuances and details of Michigan's gaming laws?

[Smokepole]

I am not a hunter, I have had hunters tell me that Michigan has some of the worst hunting laws in the country. A few have mentioned that even Illinois and New York are more friendly to hunters.

Could you shed some light on this for folks like myself who are ignorant of the nuances and details of Michigan's gaming laws?

That would be interesting information, but it deserves its own thread.

The topic of this thread is SB789.

[45/70fan]

That would be interesting information, but it deserves its own thread.

The topic of this thread is SB789.
I was reading the postings on the use of a rifle in zone three and posted my thoughts there, how my comments found their way to this section is beyond me.

[radiogoon]

Any more word on where this bill is in the process?

[TheQ]

It's in the House last I knew. Word on the street is it will get moved in Lame Duck.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Thursday, December 4, 2014

TIME: 8:30 AM

PLACE: Room 521, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
SB 964 (Sen. Pavlov) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 8.3t; modify.

SB 965 (Sen. Hune) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in the Michigan penal code; modify.

SB 966 (Sen. Jones) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in NREPA; modify.

SB 979 (Sen. Hildenbrand) Weapons; firearms; definition of pneumatic guns; provide for, and prohibit certain regulations by local units of government.

SB 789 (Sen. Green) Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks.

SB 790 (Sen. Green) Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update.

HB 5958 (Rep. Bolger) Civil rights; religious discrimination; Michigan religious freedom restoration act; create.

[kbayless3]

Yes, indeed SB 0789 is on this mornings (12-04-14) agenda with the Judiciary Committee....keep your fingers crossed!

[silverknight674]

It looks like it was voted out of committee and passed. I think it will now go before the House for a vote.

https://www.facebook.com/MichiganOpenCarry?fref=nf

[DP425]

This is a good thing, this bill is a solid step in the right direction!!

[kbayless3]

Great news... let's hope we have the support in the house!

[DP425]

If I'm reading this correctly, it goes up for second reading on tuesday.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(lh11rt552tfg5w45i4izlhid))/documents/2013-2014/Calendar/House/pdf/2014-HC-12-09-081.pdf

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading
SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading
SB 0964 of 2014
Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 8.3t; modify. Amends sec. 3t of 1846 RS 1 (MCL 8.3t).
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading
SB 0965 of 2014
Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in the Michigan penal code; modify. Amends secs. 222 & 528a of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.222 & 750.528a).
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading
SB 0966 of 2014
Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in NREPA; modify. Amends secs. 40102 & 43503 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.40102 & 324.43503). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0979'14
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading
SB 0979 of 2014
Weapons; firearms; definition of pneumatic guns; provide for, and prohibit certain regulations by local units of government. Amends secs. 1, 2, 3 & 4 of 1990 PA 319 (MCL 123.1101 et seq.).
Last Action: 12/4/2014 referred to second reading

[DP425]

Anyone else curious if they are setting snyder up with the ability to run a pocket veto on this??? We're quickly running out of time to avoid such a possibility.

[Roundballer]

I don't think that they are setting him up, I think that they are testing the wind.

This bill, and several others may set the climate of co-operation with the executive branch for the next couple of years. The gov has gotten what he wanted, now let's see if he can give what the people want.

[DP425]

Either way, IMO, this bill NEEDS to pass; it solves so many problems inherent to the system right now. I sure hope they don't just use it as a test case and leave it up to chance. What margin did it pass the senate? Was it 2/3 or more?

[PhotoTom]

What margin did it pass the senate? Was it 2/3 or more?

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-SB-0789

PASSED ROLL CALL # 407 YEAS 24 NAYS 13 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0

[DP425]

Okay... so if the house does anything even close to similar, which I imagine they will... an over-ride would be almost a given. They better get this crap voted on and out the door before Wed!

[RayMich]

Anyone else curious if they are setting snyder up with the ability to run a pocket veto on this??? We're quickly running out of time to avoid such a possibility.
It sure is getting very suspicious...

[45/70fan]

This bill needs to be killed now, it has become nothing like it was intended, we the gun owners are the losers, the state gets more money for less effort. Let the governor take a hit on the chin for trying to raise more money.

[DP425]

This bill needs to be killed now, it has become nothing like it was intended, we the gun owners are the losers, the state gets more money for less effort. Let the governor take a hit on the chin for trying to raise more money.

Where are you getting this from?? There is NOTHING in this bill that isn't a net positive for gun owners. Lower fees, removes power from potentially abusive gun boards, mandates maximum wait times, makes unjust denials punitive to the county and state while covering the legal costs of the applicant, and lastly, refines what they mean by "mental illness".

I really don't get where you're coming up with this state gets more money thing... Perhaps they might get more of the pie, but the pie that we are providing is smaller. And the expense to the county SHOULD considerably less. You're fooling yourself if you think all that CPL money the counties were getting went into processing CPLs. No, that went into the county coffers to be used on whatever.

Tell me what is so bad about this bill. Aside from the fact that a training cert expires after five years if not used and must be re-done if there is a five or more year lapse in the license... which, I should imagine will impact VERY few people. The people it will impact are the ones that don't care very much about their CPL... and are thus, less likely to care about training. Not that it's a per-say "good thing", but it is by no means a horrible thing.

[45/70fan]

A reduction of $10.00 with a renewal every 3 years instead of 5 is a net gain for the states coffers. You are still paying for finger prints that are not being taken. Why is it that the NRA is no longer endorsing this legislation and only half of the Michigan gun groups?? Any time Snyder is involved it will cost you more in Tax (fees).

[zigziggityzoo]

So this law:

Gets rid of county licensing boards.

Makes a hard 45-day deadline. If they don't issue in 45 days, your receipt is automatically a temporary CPL.

Makes the fee for the license $90 (instead of $105).

Allows an upcharge of $10 for the plastic card if they also offer a free laminated card.

Requires they mail you the license or renewal instead of demanding an in-person pickup.

Gets rid of immediate disclosure (instead you disclose if the police officer requests to know)

Requires training within 5 years of original application. Renewals just require you swear you reviewed the law as required.

Requires the license be good for 4-5 years, same as now.

If you apply for a renewal of your license BEFORE your existing one expires, your license is automatically extended until the renewal is issued (no numbers game with the days). Keep the receipt with the license.

Updates the 8-year and 3-year disqualifiers with current MCL Citations.

Updates the "Mental Illness" statement to also include "Illenss that includes an assessment that the individual presents a danger to himself or others."

[DP425]

A reduction of $10.00 $15 ($105 down to $90) with a renewal every 3 years instead of 5 is a net gain for the states coffers. You are still paying for finger prints that are not being taken. Why is it that the NRA is no longer endorsing this legislation and only half of the Michigan gun groups?? Any time Snyder is involved it will cost you more in Tax (fees).

Three years?!? Where are you getting this from??? And what are you talking about, "paying for finger prints not being taken"??? I paid for finger prints on my first go around and they were ink. Paid on the second and they were digital... which is why I DID NOT PAY FOR PRINTS on my third time. If someone is charging you for prints that they aren't taking... you're the sucker for letting them.


It's almost like you didn't even read this bill and are just making things up so you have a reason to complain.

[luckless]

Anyone else curious if they are setting snyder up with the ability to run a pocket veto on this??? We're quickly running out of time to avoid such a possibility.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

[luckless]

Where are you getting this from?? There is NOTHING in this bill that isn't a net positive for gun owners. Lower fees, removes power from potentially abusive gun boards, mandates maximum wait times, makes unjust denials punitive to the county and state while covering the legal costs of the applicant, and lastly, refines what they mean by "mental illness".

I really don't get where you're coming up with this state gets more money thing... Perhaps they might get more of the pie, but the pie that we are providing is smaller. And the expense to the county SHOULD considerably less. You're fooling yourself if you think all that CPL money the counties were getting went into processing CPLs. No, that went into the county coffers to be used on whatever.

Tell me what is so bad about this bill. Aside from the fact that a training cert expires after five years if not used and must be re-done if there is a five or more year lapse in the license... which, I should imagine will impact VERY few people. The people it will impact are the ones that don't care very much about their CPL... and are thus, less likely to care about training. Not that it's a per-say "good thing", but it is by no means a horrible thing.
I haven't renewed because I think it is wrong to make every cpl holder a de facto suspect in every crime in the state of Michigan. Only criminals should be forced to have their fingerprints catalogued in AFIS. I think my certificates should remain valid. If this goes through, I will be issuing a certificate to students even though mine is "expired".

I haven't been able to find out who's support they lose if the certificates don't expire.

[kbayless3]

Thanks to DP425 and zigziggityzoo for your posts…While I am new to MGO I appreciate and look forward to good debates involving our 2nd amendment rights. It’s very important to have our facts correct as this forum may the only way our members learn about the bills / laws in our State and Federal governments. For those in the know, please keep the true information coming…Based on what I’ve read, I also believe SB0789 is a positive bill supporting Michigan Gun owners. SB 0789 may not be perfect but its better then what’s currently on the books.

Kevin

[DP425]

I haven't renewed because I think it is wrong to make every cpl holder a de facto suspect in every crime in the state of Michigan. Only criminals should be forced to have their fingerprints catalogued in AFIS. I think my certificates should remain valid. If this goes through, I will be issuing a certificate to students even though mine is "expired".

I haven't been able to find out who's support they lose if the certificates don't expire.

You've got valid concerns, but I'm betting you are in the small minority who haven't renewed for those reasons.
That aside, do you require occasional update training to continue to be qualified to teach the NRA course? If so, I would also assume that would revalidate your training. If not... I don't believe there is anything prohibiting you from signing your own certificate, assuming you are qualified to teach the class.

[DP425]

Because someone contacted me, making claims that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm going to post up a picture of the current H2 bill, to show that unless, another substitutions, which would be H3... is going back to the committee instead of H2 going to a third reading, the bill stands to maintain the not less than 4 years and not more than 5 which has been the standard since the last time the law was updated.

http://i62.tinypic.com/2ngy39h.png

Now it's possible there is another substitution in the works, and if that is the case and this individual has knowledge of that, he needs to share that knowledge before making unsupported claims.



For those of you who may not know, bills that change existing law will show a strike-through for language that is being removed, and BOLD for language that is inserted. Standard text indicates language that is retained. So the date information on this bill is stricken from the law because it was applicable for the previous change; since 2006 is greater than five years, it is no longer applicable and thus it is removed. The date was in for the sole purpose of having the previous update to be effective from the change forward, be maintain already issued licenses expiration date. It is simply no longer needed. The previous change moved the expiration date to your birthday instead of five years after the issue date. Thus, depending on when the license is issued, will depend on how long it is good for- it will be between 4 and 5 years. If issued two days before your birthday, it will be good for four years and two days. If two days after, four years and 354 days... so on and so fourth.

[bigt8261]

So this law:
Gets rid of immediate disclosure (instead you disclose if the police officer requests to know)


This was dropped in H-2. The MSP put up too much of a fuss

[luckless]

You've got valid concerns, but I'm betting you are in the small minority who haven't renewed for those reasons.
That aside, do you require occasional update training to continue to be qualified to teach the NRA course? If so, I would also assume that would revalidate your training. If not... I don't believe there is anything prohibiting you from signing your own certificate, assuming you are qualified to teach the class.
You just have to pay your fees and continue instructing.

[DP425]

This was dropped in H-2. The MSP put up too much of a fuss


Right there on page 54 of H-2... immediate disclosure still exists. I still do not understand how a state agency can legally lobby the legislature.

[Divegeek]

Right there on page 54 of S-2... immediate disclosure still exists. I still do not understand how a state agency can legally lobby the legislature.
Yes, in S-2 it is there. Unfortunately H-2 supersedes S-2, and it was removed in H-2. So unless the Senate demands it back in when it goes back to the Senate for reconciliation it will stay out.

[DP425]

Well, confusion on both sides lead to some misunderstanding. For some reason I wrote S-2 when I intended to write H-2... And for some reason, you didn't catch that I was saying the requirement to notify is still there.

We're in agreement.

[Divegeek]

Well, confusion on both sides lead to some misunderstanding. For some reason I wrote S-2 when I intended to write H-2... And for some reason, you didn't catch that I was saying the requirement to notify is still there.

We're in agreement.
Gotcha

[zigziggityzoo]

Update.

MSP whined and moaned about it, and now it looks like the fee is RISING to $115.

MCRGO is calling this "A good deal" for gun owners (https://www.facebook.com/mcrgo/photos/a.210828868942556.64762.188123211213122/1015698345122267/?type=1) because it makes it extra super special illegal to charge for extras like photos and laminations and hard cards (Even though all of these fees are already illegal today).

[bigt8261]

The fees are not currently illegal, they are just not enumerated, leaving room for counties to try and get away with what they can. The new language explicitly addresses this. For the vast majority of applicants, H-3 should be cheaper or at least a wash.

Is it worth it? That's up to you.

[kbayless3]

Zigziggityzoo thank you for the updates...Is it likely SB0789 will pass this week with the new updates / increased fee as requested by MSP? I am concerned this may not get done...

[zigziggityzoo]

The fees are not currently illegal, they are just not enumerated, leaving room for counties to try and get away with what they can. The new language explicitly addresses this. For the vast majority of applicants, H-3 should be cheaper or at least a wash.

Is it worth it? That's up to you.

False.

"Except for a local police agency as provided in subsection (9) [Fingerprinting], a unit of local government, an agency of a unit of local government, or an agency or department of this state shall not charge an additional fee, assessment, or other amount in connection with a license under this section. "

[zigziggityzoo]

Zigziggityzoo thank you for the updates...Is it likely SB0789 will pass this week with the new updates / increased fee as requested by MSP? I am concerned this may not get done...


It's expected to be on the governor's desk tomorrow.

[bigt8261]

False.

"Except for a local police agency as provided in subsection (9) [Fingerprinting], a unit of local government, an agency of a unit of local government, or an agency or department of this state shall not charge an additional fee, assessment, or other amount in connection with a license under this section. "

Which has been interpreted by many counties to mean they can't charge for the license but they can charge for other things. They have been doing it for years and getting away with it, which means even if your interpretation is correct, it's ineffective.

[zigziggityzoo]

Which has been interpreted by many counties to mean they can't charge for the license but they can charge for other things. They have been doing it for years and getting away with it, which means even if your interpretation is correct, it's ineffective.

And what will change in SB789 to prevent them from continuing to ignore the law?

Absolutely nothing.

[bigt8261]

I'm not trying to defend 789 overall. The fact is, H-3 makes the prohibition much stronger.

[Kaeto]

So they are trying to make it harder for low income people to get a CPL by raising the cost. Remind me just who are the Legislators and MSP working for?

[kbayless3]

It's worth it because it does away with county gun boards....

[Kaeto]

Update.

MSP whined and moaned about it, and now it looks like the fee is RISING to $115.

MCRGO is calling this "A good deal" for gun owners (https://www.facebook.com/mcrgo/photos/a.210828868942556.64762.188123211213122/1015698345122267/?type=1) because it makes it extra super special illegal to charge for extras like photos and laminations and hard cards (Even though all of these fees are already illegal today).

Zig that chart MCGRO has is a steaming load! $50 for a revue class? There is no such thing needed!

[zigziggityzoo]

Zig that chart MCGRO has is a steaming load! $50 for a revue class? There is no such thing needed!
Yep.

They had to fudge the numbers to make it seem like a good deal...

[DP425]

This is without a doubt, BS... But, if all they changed from H-2 is the fee, it's still a solid step in the right direction.

Fact of the matter is, the fee is actually still less than it was in 2003. Inflation on $105 would bring it up to $132.37 today. So, if you want to look at it as an adjustment for inflation, we come out on the winning end of this.

Unfortunately, the reality is, this adjustment as far as I know, isn't needed; I was under the impression there was money left over from every license processed as is. Does H-3 still have the requirement that all fees go into the CPL system with required accountability of those funds?

[bigt8261]

The only negative difference between H-2 and H-3 is the fee increase. At the same time, extra positives were added into H-3 as an attempted offset. Things like online renewal after a few years, better accounting by MSP, DL photo on CPL, etc.

The bill from the very beginning requires Clerks to put CPL money into a separate fund which should prevent them from using that money to subsidize other things.

[Roundballer]

It's expected to be on the governor's desk tomorrow.
I don't think that is possible, they haven't passed the house, the house is amending it, this is a Senate Bill and they will have to concur with any changes. There is also a mandatory 1 day hold.

I'm not trying to defend 789 overall. The fact is, H-3 makes the prohibition much stronger.
If what I am reading here is true, and combine it with the training certificates expiring in this bill, this is a net loss and needs to die.

It's worth it because it does away with county gun boards....
Doing away with county boards is the right thing to do, but the price is getting, has gotten too high! It is NOT acceptable to gain very little with losses at these levels.

black
Does anybody have the actual language of this "H3" amendment? It is on the order of second reading, and it is a period where amendments can be offered, but how can we advise our reps if we don't know what some nefarious persons are proposing?

black

Finally, why is MCRGO sticking their collective D**ks in this NOW, at this point in time? If this is coming from the MSP, why wasn't it done while still in the Senate?

There is something going on here. Even though this bill (as introduced, or amended to this point) didn't have my support, someone is trying to make it so odious that it will be unrepairable and unacceptable to be brought to fruition.

[bigt8261]

If what I am reading here is true, and combine it with the training certificates expiring in this bill, this is a net loss and needs to die.

Most people will save a small amount of money, or it will be a wash. I don't see a problem with the expiring cert. As long as you keep your license current, you shouldn't have an issue. Part of this deal was the 1yr window to renew. Currently many counties make you go through the process all over again if your license expires.



Does anybody have the actual language of this "H3" amendment? It is on the order of second reading, and it is a period where amendments can be offered, but how can we advise our reps if we don't know what some nefarious persons are proposing?

Yes, a rep in the house does. He will propose H-3, make a speech about making sure we look into where this money is going, and H-3 will be adopted. The House is then expected to pass SB 789 H-3.



Finally, why is MCRGO sticking their collective D**ks in this NOW, at this point in time? If this is coming from the MSP, why wasn't it done while still in the Senate?

There is something going on here. Even though this bill (as introduced, or amended to this point) didn't have my support, someone is trying to make it so odious that it will be unrepairable and unacceptable to be brought to fruition.

MCRGO and other groups have been behind SB 789 from the beginning. I will also note that both Clerks and MSP have also been behind SB 789 from the beginning and have worked very well with the sponsor.

The reason this is coming at the end is because of one person. Governor Snyder. Keep in mind, the MSP asked for money at the end, not the Clerks.

[zigziggityzoo]

Unfortunately, the reality is, this adjustment as far as I know, isn't needed; I was under the impression there was money left over from every license processed as is. Does H-3 still have the requirement that all fees go into the CPL system with required accountability of those funds?

As I understand it, more than half of the funds that end up with the MSP are allocated for uses other than processing CPLs...

That is, more than half of the money is gravy. And now we're giving them an extra $10 of gravy, multiplied by about 100k per year on average...

[TheQ]

I don't think that is possible, they haven't passed the house, the house is amending it, this is a Senate Bill and they will have to concur with any changes. There is also a mandatory 1 day hold.



House passes it today, Senate adjourns at midnight and reconvenes at 12:30 AM and the concurs. It happens in lame duck EVERY session. I've been there to watch it.... ;)

[TheQ]

As I understand it, more than half of the funds that end up with the MSP are allocated for uses other than processing CPLs...

That is, more than half of the money is gravy. And now we're giving them an extra $10 of gravy, multiplied by about 100k per year on average...

It's no question. This process is a cash cow for the MSP and now they will (very sadly) be getting more money. The Governor's office has told executive departments this: "budget cuts are coming, raise fees where you can to support your operations to help offset budget cuts."

Looks like the MSP is doing what they've been told, on the backs of taxpayers.

Personally, I'd like to see this bill sent to the Governor in the exact form it passed the House Judiciary committee, let the m-fer veto it. Failing that, I'd like to see the bill die.

This bill is also being discussed here on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/MichiganOpenCarry/permalink/802712429766709/

Personally, I've been aware of this fee increase since last Thursday but "fight club" rules have prevented me from discussing it.

[DP425]

IF... and it's a BIG IF... the law requires all money to go to the CPL system and be accounted for, I see no reason the math cannot be done in a year or two so as to determine actual costs given the excess cash... then write another bill to knock it down to $50 or something.

If there is no accountability for the money at MSP and no requirement it stay within the CPL system, then we have a big problem.



But, the fact does still remain that even with the increase, the fee is actually LESS than it was when the shall issue law originally passed (was that 2003 or 2000? I'm basing this off 2003). Accounting for inflation; had the fee been adjusted each year, we would have hit $115 in 2006. So while it seems rough, it really isn't. It could have been much worse had the original law called for an inflation adjustment. And considering the cost of a photo was $10 anyway... we are really maintaining the over-all cost, which... again... is much more affordable than it was when the law came into effect.


I don't like the fees, I'm pretty unhappy about it actually, given we know a good chunk of what we pay today doesn't go into funding the CPL system. But that said, I still believe this is a net gain. Just on the issues of straightening out the mental health clause, eliminating gun boards, and providing legal recourse for a false denial with a monetary penalty to the state and county... Granted, since we pay more in fees than the system costs, we as CPL holders ultimately end up paying for these false denials... but, nothing is perfect... and we're never going to get the dream legislation in one sitting.

[TheQ]

IF... and it's a BIG IF... the law requires all money to go to the CPL system and be accounted for, I see no reason the math cannot be done in a year or two so as to determine actual costs given the excess cash... then write another bill to knock it down to $50 or something.

If there is no accountability for the money at MSP and no requirement it stay within the CPL system, then we have a big problem.


That is why the accounting language is being added, in hopes we can use it in coming years to promote a fee decrease. Keep in mind, 789 started as a fee decrease bill. The MSP will surely oppose any fee decrease and Snyder will veto any bill the MSP opposes. It's sad, but that's simply the reality of the political landscape.

I did NOT vote for Snyder and I hope those of you that did are happy.

[G36 Shooter]

Voted Libertarian.

[radiogoon]

I can take the fee increase if it abolishes the gun boards. If I have to go sit before the gun board, I'm out another $150-$300 for a half/full day off for a county inquisition. So based on that, this bill puts myself and my wife in a better monetary position to exercise our right.

[radiogoon]

Oh, and for the record we both vote Libertarian, since John Coons run...

[DP425]

So... anything happening with this today? If not it dies right?

[partdeux]

So... anything happening with this today? If not it dies right?

It's on today's agenda... along with a few hundred other bills.

[G36 Shooter]

Hoping for passage.

[dmd7765]

Just saw this bill is in danger of dying because of opposition from sheriffs, particularly those in northern Michigan and the UP who oppose the elimination of county gun boards and their discretion over issuing CPLs. We need you to contact your state representative ASAP this afternoon asking them to support SB 789 and allow true shall-issue concealed carry in Michigan. Please don't wait! You can find your rep here: http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

[Smokepole]

I have never understood why the MSP, and local sheriffs, are allowed to have any lobbying effect on the legislative process!

This is totally inappropriate, as they are being paid by the very people they are working against.

[cmr19xx]

I have never understood why the MSP, and local sheriffs, are allowed to have any lobbying effect on the legislative process!

This is totally inappropriate, as they are being paid by the very people they are working against.

Oh, c'mon...they're protecting us from ourselves.

[_Shife_]

Just saw this bill is in danger of dying because of opposition from sheriffs, particularly those in northern Michigan and the UP who oppose the elimination of county gun boards and their discretion over issuing CPLs. We need you to contact your state representative ASAP this afternoon asking them to support SB 789 and allow true shall-issue concealed carry in Michigan. Please don't wait! You can find your rep here: http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/

Done

[zigziggityzoo]

Looks like this one won't make it, barring a late night miracle.

[DP425]

Damn it. A law needs to be passed for other gov agencies to keep their damned noses out of the legislative process unless called to testify on a bill.. Why is it the national guard and active military cannot lobby the government, but MSP and sheriff's can?

[mrpink134]

Looks like this one won't make it, barring a late night miracle.
I'm not sure if I read it right, but it looks like a late might miracle happened.

[zigziggityzoo]

I'm not sure if I read it right, but it looks like a late might miracle happened.

Yeah. Senator Green used his "Yes" vote on the sales tax hike and gas tax hike as leverage to get his bill passed in the house.

So now we have higher CPL fees and higher taxes overall as a cost to get this bill passed.

Bad deal to me.

[G36 Shooter]

Yes, but the voters will have to vote on the sales tax hike.

[Kaeto]

Actually in reading it the lic fee is $100.00 not $115.00. So while it is not the decrease that was originally planned it is a minor decrease($5.00). And no other fees can be assessed. I'd like one of the legal beagles to look it over and tell us exactly (in normal language please, not legalese) what it means.

[luckless]

Yeah. Senator Green used his "Yes" vote on the sales tax hike and gas tax hike as leverage to get his bill passed in the house.

So now we have higher CPL fees and higher taxes overall as a cost to get this bill passed.

Bad deal to me.

...and my training certificates are invalid. Thank you RINOs

[G36 Shooter]

Only if you let your CPL expire.

[zigziggityzoo]

Actually in reading it the lic fee is $100.00 not $115.00. So while it is not the decrease that was originally planned it is a minor decrease($5.00). And no other fees can be assessed. I'd like one of the legal beagles to look it over and tell us exactly (in normal language please, not legalese) what it means.

License is $100. Fingerprints cost a seperate $15.

Renewals all cost $115 (see toward the bottom of the bill).

Fee went up by $10.

[zigziggityzoo]

...and my training certificates are invalid. Thank you RINOs


Only if you let your CPL expire.

Yes.

If you let your CPL expire and don't reapply within 1 year, you will need to take the NRA course again. This is really dumb, IMO.

[silverknight674]

So what is the next step?

[G36 Shooter]

Have the Gov. sign it?

[luckless]

So what is the next step?

We wait for a pro gun house, senate and governor.

[Divegeek]

Another positive result is that you no longer have to apply for a renewal 60 days prior to the expiration date to get an automatic extension of your existing CPL. It looks like you can now apply for renewal the day before your birthday and get the extension until they issue the renewal by carrying your receipt.

Unfortunately as stated above the Immediate disclosure to LEO's is still in there.

[detroit_fan]

Can someone please tell me how Dale Zorn voted on this bill last night?

[Walther]

I haven't had time to read the bill in it's entirety, but scanned it a bit. Unless I'm taking this out of context because I missed something while scanning, it seems that extremely long waits for new licenses that people in certain counties expereinced are over with. 45 days max.


If a license or notice of statutory disqualification is not issued under subsection (13) within 45 days after the date the applicant has classifiable fingerprints taken under subsection (9), the receipt issued under subsection (9) shall serve as a concealed pistol license for purposes of this act when carried with a state-issued personal identification card or driver license and is valid until a license or notice of statutory disqualification is issued by the county clerk.

[dclark77l]

Can someone please tell me how Dale Zorn voted on this bill last night?

Voted for the bill.

See page 66 /67 : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(umwmlt55xhvoor45chcglcvv))/documents/2013-2014/Journal/House/pdf/2014-HJ-12-19-087.pdf

[detroit_fan]

Voted for the bill.

See page 66 /67 : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(umwmlt55xhvoor45chcglcvv))/documents/2013-2014/Journal/House/pdf/2014-HJ-12-19-087.pdf
thanks

[CircuitRider]

Yeah. Senator Green used his "Yes" vote on the sales tax hike and gas tax hike as leverage to get his bill passed in the house.

So now we have higher CPL fees and higher taxes overall as a cost to get this bill passed.

Bad deal to me.
We don't have higher taxes yet. The lawmakers didn't have the cajones to carry the water themselves. They put it on the backs of the voters and if it doesn't pass they can say that the condition of the roads is our fault. I WILL vote "no". They can root out the waste to find the money.

[CircuitRider]

...and my training certificates are invalid. Thank you RINOs
Why are your training certificates invalid? If you allow your CPL to expire beyond a year, you invalidate it yourself because you know the consequences.

[Roundballer]

Why are your training certificates invalid? If you allow your CPL to expire beyond a year, you invalidate it yourself because you know the consequences.

The training certificate becomes invalid by the time the initial license expires. It is an expired license LESS than one year old that will allow you to renew without repeating the training.

Now how is this fair to someone that falls on "hard times" and has to make a choice of renewing at the low low price of $115, or feeding himself and family, and then recovers a year later to have to not only spend the $115 to renew, but has to buy a new certificate?

And yes, he would merely be buying a new certificate because he would not really learn anything new having to repeat the same training. So, the price is now what? $215~$265+? Will the NRA even issue a new cert for a class that they have you on record of having already taken?

Now this does eliminate the gun boards, but they are not the major problem at the county level, the county clerks were. It was the county clerks that were making additional demands for documentation, adding fees, and dragging their feet in the processing. And this bill gives them even MORE power, they are the entity that "issues, denies, revokes and reinstates, abet under direction. But watch them drag their feet on this one!

There are other issues in there, but we have just LOST on this one. BIG TIME!

[PhotoTom]

It was the county clerks that were making additional demands for documentation, adding fees, and dragging their feet in the processing. And this bill gives them even MORE power, they are the entity that "issues, denies, revokes and reinstates, abet under direction. But watch them drag their feet on this one!

Agreed that the clerks were a BIG part of the problem (I speak of specific/credible knowledge in WAYNE Co.)…
That being said, the bill does tame their ability to cause excessive delays, etc. If they drag their feet now, you get automatic licensing until the license is ultimately issued (or denied).

Again, speaking of my specific/credible knowledge in WAYNE Co…the gun boards were mostly "in name only" since in all reality, the County Sheriff's department really made the ultimate decision to issue or deny. Now, that goes to the State Police. For the most part, the County Clerk's responsibility in the decision process remains essentially the same.

It looks like provisions are in place to make renewals directly though MSP (on the Internet) in the future.

[PhotoTom]

The training certificate becomes invalid by the time the initial license expires. It is an expired license LESS than one year old that will allow you to renew without repeating the training.

Now how is this fair to someone that falls on "hard times" and has to make a choice of renewing at the low low price of $115, or feeding himself and family, and then recovers a year later to have to not only spend the $115 to renew, but has to buy a new certificate?

And yes, he would merely be buying a new certificate because he would not really learn anything new having to repeat the same training.

On a positive note, it give the applicant up to 5 years to apply after getting the training.

As far as not learning anything new, I strongly disagree. Most everybody would pick-up some new knowledge the second time around…even if the exact same material was presented.


Rarely (if ever) does anybody retain 100% of what they are taught the first time around.
People have different perceptions of the materials presented AFTER having "practiced" what they were taught the first time around.
Laws change (like this one)…so a new prevention of the legal aspects would surely be beneficial to the previously licensed carrier.



"If you don't use it, you lose it."

As a Member of an organization that promotes education, I cannot "shoot-down" measures being put into place to clearly define time durations of "training". This is something that has been VERY unevenly applied from County to County…but yet needed to be defined.

5 years after initial training to apply for a CPL…
No more than 1 year lapse in license for it to be considered a "renewal"…

Those do not seem unreasonable to me, when considering that time limits needed to be defined…"Statewide".
IF I could have waived my "magic wand" on this…I would have said up to 5 years lapse for "renewals", as long as the review/range time was within 6 months of the renewal application.

[G36 Shooter]

I would like to see Constitutional Carry in Michigan but that is a very long shot. Getting rid of the gun boards is a plus for me.

[Smokepole]

The strategic flaw in this law is that a state law is being administered by county officials, especially the county clerks.

I have no doubt that between local anti gun LEO's, and equally obstructive county clerks, this process will continue to be frustrated in the pursuit of advancing their personal agendas.

When do they ever get it right?

[DP425]

License is $100. Fingerprints cost a seperate $15.

Renewals all cost $115 (see toward the bottom of the bill).

Fee went up by $10.

Wait, so finger prints are now required every time you renew, despite that there exists, stored, digitalized prints on record? I didn't do or pay for prints on my last renewal; is this changing?

[DP425]

Agreed that the clerks were a BIG part of the problem (I speak of specific/credible knowledge in WAYNE Co.)…
That being said, the bill does tame their ability to cause excessive delays, etc. If they drag their feet now, you get automatic licensing until the license is ultimately issued (or denied).

Again, speaking of my specific/credible knowledge in WAYNE Co…the gun boards were mostly "in name only" since in all reality, the County Sheriff's department really made the ultimate decision to issue or deny. Now, that goes to the State Police. For the most part, the County Clerk's responsibility in the decision process remains essentially the same.

It looks like provisions are in place to make renewals directly though MSP (on the Internet) in the future.

Plus, if it's over-turned by the court, your legal expenses and licensing expenses are covered; unless this was removed from H3

[Divegeek]

Wait, so finger prints are now required every time you renew, despite that there exists, stored, digitalized prints on record? I didn't do or pay for prints on my last renewal; is this changing?

No, you don't need to get reprinted for a renewal. Unfortunately you will being paying the same as someone who does need to be reprinted.

[DP425]

The strategic flaw in this law is that a state law is being administered by county officials, especially the county clerks.

I have no doubt that between local anti gun LEO's, and equally obstructive county clerks, this process will continue to be frustrated in the pursuit of advancing their personal agendas.

When do they ever get it right?



Ahhh, but see... we are one step closer to that.



Everyone is focusing on how this isn't their ideal. Guess what, you're not going to get your "ideal". That isn't how things work for the most part in our political system. Gun Boards are gone, the reins have been tightened on country clerks, with at least some possibility of repercussions for failing to follow clear statute; something we never had before. The list of offenses disqualifying have been heavily revamped, to our benefit, the mental health exclusion issue has been fixed to almost perfectly fall in-line with state and federal law for ownership of a firearm, and we have made considerable headway in the application and renewal process for timeline issues.

The expiration of certificates and the one year lapse rule kind of suck, but at least you don't have to take a test periodically for renewal. It's a non-issue for most CPL holders. The cost "increase" is arguably, not an increase at all- perhaps even a decrease. I just renewed mine and it cost me $115; $105 for the application and $10 for the photo. I didn't have to get prints done because last time they were done digitally. So, with this change, unless new prints are now mandated for every single renewal, regardless of being on file or not, it will cost me $100 next time to renew. I'm no math scholar, but I think $100.00 < $115.00. Yes, that is going upon the assumption that prints requirement hasn't changed, but photos cannot be charged for now, so even if prints have changed, I'm still at a break-even point... And consider inflation and what this cost you when the law first changed to Shall Issue. You all are forgetting the fact that the cost has decreased just by the fact that it hasn't decreased and we've had fairly high inflation. If that doesn't matter or is irrelevant, then you'd be happy to give up your COL/Inflation pay and retirement raises as well right?

And finally, again, unless it changed, financial accounting has been built into this, unlike before.



So when the music stops, we've removed one of the two entities that would always blame each-other for the problems. If problems are still not resolved in another 5 years, I would expect the push to move CPL's to the SoS to start. If the balance sheets show huge sums of cash piling up because CPL fees can only be used for CPL expenses, then I imagine you'd see a push to decrease the fee as well.

Rome wasn't built in a day; so long as we are taking steps forward, we're winning. Based on the mental health issue alone, this is a huge win. Anytime we can ensure people do not have their rights taken away based upon vaguely worded language and the discretion of mostly unelected individuals (gun board), we're moving ahead and winning. I think some of you under-estimate just what kind of impact that mental health stipulation had upon many people, not only in terms of stress and difficulty, but often monetarily to pay a lawyer to represent them to a gun board just to explain that their erectile dysfunction, foot fetish, or OCD shouldn't exclude them from having a CPL.

[DP425]

No, you don't need to get reprinted for a renewal. Unfortunately you will being paying the same as someone who does need to be reprinted.

I thought someone said it's $100 for the license, $15 for prints. That sure makes it sound like they are separate fees... and I'm not sure how they could get away with charging for a service that isn't provided.

[luckless]

Why are your training certificates invalid? If you allow your CPL to expire beyond a year, you invalidate it yourself because you know the consequences.

Well, my license has been expired for a while now and this law is supposed to take immediate effect (last time I checked it). So the certs for me and my wife were good yesterday and now they are worthless.

[luckless]

I thought someone said it's $100 for the license, $15 for prints. That sure makes it sound like they are separate fees... and I'm not sure how they could get away with charging for a service that isn't provided.

Haven't you been following the road tax debate? They have been charging for services they don't provide for a long time.

[luckless]

On a positive note, it give the applicant up to 5 years to apply after getting the training.

As far as not learning anything new, I strongly disagree. Most everybody would pick-up some new knowledge the second time around…even if the exact same material was presented.


Rarely (if ever) does anybody retain 100% of what they are taught the first time around.
People have different perceptions of the materials presented AFTER having "practiced" what they were taught the first time around.
Laws change (like this one)…so a new prevention of the legal aspects would surely be beneficial to the previously licensed carrier.



"If you don't use it, you lose it."

As a Member of an organization that promotes education, I cannot "shoot-down" measures being put into place to clearly define time durations of "training". This is something that has been VERY unevenly applied from County to County…but yet needed to be defined.

5 years after initial training to apply for a CPL…
No more than 1 year lapse in license for it to be considered a "renewal"…

Those do not seem unreasonable to me, when considering that time limits needed to be defined…"Statewide".
IF I could have waived my "magic wand" on this…I would have said up to 5 years lapse for "renewals", as long as the review/range time was within 6 months of the renewal application.

Is it reasonable to make a person retake drivers education if his drivers license lapses for a year?

Will retired LEOs be forced to get their certificates if they fail to get their CPLs within one year of retirement? Wouldn't that be just as reasonable?

Is it reasonable to expect someone who can't afford a renewal to now pay for a class as well? What if it is a married couple in this situation?

On a positive note, I can still teach the class....

[Roundballer]

I thought someone said it's $100 for the license, $15 for prints. That sure makes it sound like they are separate fees... and I'm not sure how they could get away with charging for a service that isn't provided.
For the initial license, that is the way that they list it, $100 for the application plus $15 for the prints. For a renewal, it is $115, period. The cost for either is $115 no matter how you look at it.

That wall of text you posted above this has some real misconceptions.
The ONLY good things in this are:

Doing away with Gun Boards
They will use the digital photo from you drivers license or state ID with no other cost for photos
Deployed Military can renew by mail.

Just about every thing else is either a major loss or so benign as to resemble little more that a text formatting change.


Well, my license has been expired for a while now and this law is supposed to take immediate effect (last time I checked it). So the certs for me and my wife were good yesterday and now they are worthless.
You are not the only person in that boat, but that portion of the law doesn't take effect until Oct of '15. Maybe they can fix this crap law by then. I doubt it, but that is the line we are always fed, pass it NOW, fix it LATER!

[G36 Shooter]

Lets all take a breath, no one is forcing us to get a CPL, if I could I would move to a Con. carry state.

[Roundballer]

Is it reasonable to make a person retake drivers education if his drivers license lapses for a year?

Will retired LEOs be forced to get their certificates if they fail to get their CPLs within one year of retirement? Wouldn't that be just as reasonable?

Is it reasonable to expect someone who can't afford a renewal to now pay for a class as well? What if it is a married couple in this situation?

On a positive note, I can still teach the class....
They changed that one too, for court exemptions and retired LEO, no proof of anything is needed, they just have to be.

[Smokepole]

I asked my Representative, Bruce Rendon, why he voted "no" on this bill, and this was his reply:

Another reason why LEO's, the MSP, etc. should have no lobbying voice in these matters.


Dear Bxxxx,

I voted no on this legislation because I feel that our local sheriffs have the best knowledge of our local residents and not the state of Michigan. Please know that I am a strong supporter of the NRA and gun rights for our citizens and will continue to ensure that the Second Amendment is protected.

Respectfully in service,

Bruce R. Rendon

State Representative, 103rd District

[kbayless3]

Once again a great debate ...not everything we wanted but for us here in Macomb County doing away with the Gun Board is a big deal. Many thanks to those in the know that kept the rest of us updated. Do I understand this bill goes into effect next week?

[Roundballer]

If the Gov signs it, only a small portion goes into effect before next fall.



http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/Roundballer/Bumps/bug_screen2_zpsuajdlzer.gif

[Divegeek]

If the Gov signs it, only a small portion goes into effect before next fall.

So does the part where they have to mail licenses go into immediate effect? That would be nice since my renewal is pending and Monroe county requires in person pick up.

[PhotoTom]

So does the part where they have to mail licenses go into immediate effect? That would be nice since my renewal is pending and Monroe county requires in person pick up.

Pretty sure..."no".

[dmd7765]

October 2015

[DP425]

For the initial license, that is the way that they list it, $100 for the application plus $15 for the prints. For a renewal, it is $115, period. The cost for either is $115 no matter how you look at it.

That wall of text you posted above this has some real misconceptions.
The ONLY good things in this are:

Doing away with Gun Boards
They will use the digital photo from you drivers license or state ID with no other cost for photos
Deployed Military can renew by mail.

Just about every thing else is either a major loss or so benign as to resemble little more that a text formatting change.


You are not the only person in that boat, but that portion of the law doesn't take effect until Oct of '15. Maybe they can fix this crap law by then. I doubt it, but that is the line we are always fed, pass it NOW, fix it LATER!

Can you show me where it says that? I scanned over the bill as passed and couldn't find anything that would indicate as such.

[Kaeto]

It's on page 63 of the S-3 Pdf.

[.41maganiac]

Did this thing even pass? or is it tie-barred to the road tax bill? The last entries on the web site state it was passed by the House with changes and sent to the Senate.

[zigziggityzoo]

Did this thing even pass? or is it tie-barred to the road tax bill? The last entries on the web site state it was passed by the House with changes and sent to the Senate.

It did.

The secretary acts slowly during lame duck because there's so much action packed into the last 24-48 hours.

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/19/2014 Analysis File Added
SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 12/19/2014 Analysis File Added

[Roundballer]

Did this thing even pass? or is it tie-barred to the road tax bill? The last entries on the web site state it was passed by the House with changes and sent to the Senate.
2014-SB-0789 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2014-SB-0789) It looks like the Senate concured with the changes H3 before the House even voted. That is the order it is listed in, it all happened the same day

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/19/2014 Analysis File Added
SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 12/19/2014 Analysis File Added

That analysis is of the H2 - S1 levels. They claim that the fees will be reduced, and a few other lies.

It is depressing to see the wide range in the chart at the bottom. Counties claim that their funding is as high as a $30 profit, or as low as a $170 loss per license. Either everyone is lying about their costs/profits, or some of these counties are extremely wasteful.

[PhotoTom]

It is depressing to see the wide range in the chart at the bottom. Counties claim that their funding is as high as a $30 profit, or as low as a $170 loss per license. Either everyone is lying about their costs/profits, or some of these counties are extremely wasteful.

Or…there's simply no consistency in how they calculate the costs involved...

[DP425]

It's on page 63 of the S-3 Pdf.

WTF?!?!?!?

I thought for sure you guys were reading this wrong. That is beyond jacked up.

Granted, it still comes out the same total fee wise, but it's absolute BS

[Kaeto]

It's just the MSP wanting more money that they won't have to account for. Since all the fees above the $26.00 that the county gets will be put into the general fund for the credit of the MSP. I think the budget of the MSP should be reduced by the amount that will be credited.

As soon as I can talk to Sen Hopgood in person, I'm going to ask him to put forth a bill to forbid the polices agency's from lobbying on bills.

[Smokepole]

Or…there's simply no consistency in how they calculate the costs involved...

That would be my bet, for sure.

Anybody know the fees for professions that require background checks, finger printing, etc?

[DEVIL DOG]

It's just the MSP wanting more money that they won't have to account for. Since all the fees above the $26.00 that the county gets will be put into the general fund for the credit of the MSP. I think the budget of the MSP should be reduced by the amount that will be credited.

As soon as I can talk to Sen Hopgood in person, I'm going to ask him to put forth a bill to forbid the polices agency's from lobbying on bills.

Good idea Kaeto, I'll be calling him too.

[appliancebrad]

That would be my bet, for sure.

Anybody know the fees for professions that require background checks, finger printing, etc?

Back in the old May Issue days you wrote 2 checks, one ot the FBI and one ot MSP. I believe it was $45 and $20. You then paid for your permit when it was issued at the County Clerk's office.

[Jared1981]

Does anyone know if Bloomberg Jr. (Snyder) promised Sen. Green that he would sign it if he voted for the tax issue? Or was that deal just made with the house?

[luckless]

Does anyone know if Bloomberg Jr. (Snyder) promised Sen. Green that he would sign it if he voted for the tax issue? Or was that deal just made with the house?
Yes. There was a deal. If the tax increase passes, a 16% sales tax increase is the price we pay for this legislation. Your new CPL will cost you the same as the old one plus 1% of the value of all goods purchased in Michigan. That is a steap price to pay for legislation that simply shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic. I just don't see a "win" here when you take in the big picture. I don't know if Snyder promised to sign it but Green promised to vote for higher taxes in the Senate if Bolger brought this up for a vote in the House.

I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest otherwise.

[Smokepole]

Back in the old May Issue days you wrote 2 checks, one ot the FBI and one ot MSP. I believe it was $45 and $20. You then paid for your permit when it was issued at the County Clerk's office.

Actually, what I'm referring to is other professions, such as teachers, day care workers, nursing home workers,etc.

I'm curious if these other professions that require fingerprints, and background checks, jump through the same "hoops" that CPL applicants do, have as many hassles, and pay the same fees?

In addition to that, what other states have had "gun boards"?

[zigziggityzoo]

Actually, what I'm referring to is other professions, such as teachers, day care workers, nursing home workers,etc.

I'm curious if these other professions that require fingerprints, and background checks, jump through the same "hoops" that CPL applicants do, have as many hassles, and pay the same fees?

In addition to that, what other states have had "gun boards"?

My wife had to pay $60 to get her electronic fingerprints taken at the same machine I got mine for my CPL (And she had to do it again for her CPL eventually). This was for her teaching certification.

[Super Trucker]

That would be my bet, for sure.

Anybody know the fees for professions that require background checks, finger printing, etc?
$86.00 for a truck driver to get printed/background check for a haz mat enforcement on their license (every 4 years).

[RayMich]

For those living in counties that have been problematic, most of the problem was caused by the county clerk, so they will still have that road block to contend with in this new bill.

For those of us living in gun-friendly counties, and I would be willing to bet they are the majority of counties, this gains us nothing.

Looking at the overall picture, the fee for the initial CPL and the renewals once every 5 years is peanuts compared to the HUGE 17% increase in the sales tax on EVERYTHING we buy each and every day of the year.

This is just another excuse by tax and spend politicians to further hijack our wallets and is NOT good for Michigan residents.

What is going to happen if the voters vote NO on the sales tax hike?

Eaton County just slapped every property owner in the county with a tax for road repairs. What is going to happen to that money if the state gets the proposed sales tax hike? I seriously doubt this tax will ever go away.

I see this as a NET LOSS for everyone.

[Jared1981]

Yes. There was a deal. If the tax increase passes, a 16% sales tax increase is the price we pay for this legislation. Your new CPL will cost you the same as the old one plus 1% of the value of all goods purchased in Michigan. That is a steap price to pay for legislation that simply shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic. I just don't see a "win" here when you take in the big picture. I don't know if Snyder promised to sign it but Green promised to vote for higher taxes in the Senate if Bolger brought this up for a vote in the House.

I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest otherwise.

So the deal wasn't just with the house, it was also with the governor?

[Divegeek]

So the deal wasn't just with the house, it was also with the governor?
The governor is the one that was causing the hold up in the house in the first place. Richardville and Bolger were keeping things from passing that Snyder didn't like so he wouldn't have to veto them. He is the one that Richardville called to make the deal with Sen. Green. Snyder then have Bolger the okay to proceed with this bill. So, I really truly doubt Snyder will veto it or he will lose his water carriers in the legislature.

[45/70fan]

14 years ago we were promised improvements in the cpl process, changes to the pfz limitations, another empty promise made in order to get us to swallow poor legislation.

[DP425]

For those living in counties that have been problematic, most of the problem was caused by the county clerk, so they will still have that road block to contend with in this new bill.

For those of us living in gun-friendly counties, and I would be willing to bet they are the majority of counties, this gains us nothing.

Looking at the overall picture, the fee for the initial CPL and the renewals once every 5 years is peanuts compared to the HUGE 17% increase in the sales tax on EVERYTHING we buy each and every day of the year.

This is just another excuse by tax and spend politicians to further hijack our wallets and is NOT good for Michigan residents.

What is going to happen if the voters vote NO on the sales tax hike?

Eaton County just slapped every property owner in the county with a tax for road repairs. What is going to happen to that money if the state gets the proposed sales tax hike? I seriously doubt this tax will ever go away.

I see this as a NET LOSS for everyone.

That was enacted by the voters through direct vote. Blame your fellow citizens if you're upset with it.

[gjgalligan]

I just went through several pages of this thread and it is clear as mud!
Can someone give me the complete (Cliff notes) on this bill? I picked up bits and pieces, just enough to be totally confused.

[Kaeto]

I asked for a legal beagle to translate the legalese into English and got ignored.

[PhotoTom]

I just went through several pages of this thread and it is clear as mud!
Can someone give me the complete (Cliff notes) on this bill? I picked up bits and pieces, just enough to be totally confused.


I asked for a legal beagle to translate the legalese into English and got ignored.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billanalysis/House/pdf/2013-HLA-0789-65A7B35C.pdf

[Kaeto]

That only goes up to Substitute H2 and they did up to H3 It still has the fees dropping to $90.00 and not the $115.00 it is with what they sent to the Gov.

[Tallbear]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/19/2014 returned to Senate
SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 12/19/2014 returned to Senate

[Jared1981]

SB 0789 of 2014
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/19/2014 returned to Senate

SB 0790 of 2014
Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update. Amends sec. 11b, ch. XVII of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 777.11b). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0789'14
Last Action: 12/19/2014 returned to Senate


I thought this bill was enrolled and sent to the governor? If it went back to the senate and stayed there then it would be dead.

[.41maganiac]

Early this morning, Senate Bills 789 and 790 passed in the Michigan House of Representatives and received a prompt concurrence vote in the state Senate. In the state House, SB 789 passed by an 84 to 26 vote and SB 790 passed by an 85 to 25 vote. These bills will create a more efficient, consistent and expedient concealed pistol licensing process through the creation of a true “shall issue” licensing system for all statutorily eligible Michiganders. The text of Senate Bill 977, which will provide active duty military personnel who are residents of Michigan with on duty orders outside of the state with the option to renew their CPL through the mail, was amended into SB 789. Senate Bills 789 and 790 have been sent to Governor Rick Snyder (R) for his consideration. Please contact Governor Snyder and ask him to sign into law SB 789 and SB 790.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/12/michigan-update-2013-2014-legislative-session-adjourns.aspx

[G36 Shooter]

e-mail sent.

[Walther]

Done.

[Kaeto]

E-mail sent.

[dmd7765]

Placed phone call

[gjgalligan]

Does the new version only give one year on class certificates? If so, when does that go into effect?

[PhotoTom]

Does the new version only give one year on class certificates? If so, when does that go into effect?

Original application must be within 5 years of certificate date.
Renewals must be within 1 year of previous license expiration...or it is no longer considered a renewal and you have to retake the class and get a new certificate.

[luckless]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billanalysis/House/pdf/2013-HLA-0789-65A7B35C.pdf
Thanks for the link!

Still looking for the silver lining to this one.