View Full Version : SB 0034 eliminate gun board
Tallbear
01-27-2015, 01:19 PM
SB 0034 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2015-SIB-0034.htm)
Tallbear
01-27-2015, 01:20 PM
COMMITTEE: Judiciary
DATE: Tuesday, January 27, 2015
TIME: 3:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933
PHONE: Corey Woodby (517) 373-1721
Committee Clerk
** UPDATED 1/27/2105 **
AGENDA
SB 28 Sen. Bieda Crimes; animals; penalties for crimes against animals; enhance, and make other revisions.
SB 29 Sen. Jones Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for crimes of animal cruelty; enact and amend.
SB 34 Sen. Green Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks.
SB 35 Sen. Green Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update.
DP425
01-27-2015, 01:41 PM
Looks like the same bill as SB 0789 but with the PPO issue removed. I only scanned it, but that is the only difference I found.
I thought the plan was now to move it to the SOS? Did Green scrap that idea?
langenc
01-27-2015, 01:52 PM
Sounds like the 'controversial gun bill' I heard about on the radio!!
mikeb32
01-27-2015, 01:54 PM
The Government really confuses me!!
Lbox88
01-27-2015, 02:17 PM
:popcorn:
DEVIL DOG
01-27-2015, 02:17 PM
As long as they removed the language that caused Snyder to veto it, it should pass through without issue.
DP425
01-27-2015, 03:02 PM
As long as they removed the language that caused Snyder to veto it, it should pass through without issue.
Well, that is what they are testing.
Keep in mind, this does retain the fix on mental health disorders... someone will latch onto that; "this bill allows crazy people with domestic violence tendencies to kill their spouse!" or "Its too late to make the determination that someone who's crazy is dangerous after he's already killed 5000 children!!!"
They WILL latch onto anything that reinstates gun rights for those whom it has been wrongly taken.
Leader
01-27-2015, 03:15 PM
This bill SUCKS and is a net LOSS for gun owners in MI.
Roundballer
01-27-2015, 03:36 PM
This bill SUCKS and is a net LOSS for gun owners in MI.
Yes, it sucks wind like the Holland tunnel. It has all of the expired training, price raises, and other junk that the previous one had. And it still leaves the drag in processing in place, the County Clerk!
After the Gov screwed them the first time around, they drop off ONE thing and resubmit it. There are 23 out of 38 Senators signed on as co-sponsors, and it is already scheduled for hearings. Bad juju for this being good for anything in the Senate.
Time to write to the new Rep and put them on notice!
2015-SB-0035 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035)
kbayless3
01-27-2015, 05:15 PM
Not going to fool me anymore…I'm not holding my breath on any pro-gun bills this year… I don’t mean to be negative, but It’s become obvious to me that the pro-gun lobby in our state is not strong enough to stand up to the media and outside influences…here’s hoping we get to keep what little we have left of our “may – issue “ CPL’s and our 2nd amendment rights. Am I off base here?
Not going to fool me anymore…I'm not holding my breath on any pro-gun bills this year… I don’t mean to be negative, but It’s become obvious to me that the pro-gun lobby in our state is not strong enough to stand up to the media and outside influences…here’s hoping we get to keep what little we have left of our “may – issue “ CPL’s and our 2nd amendment rights. Am I off base here?
No.
You did leave out that our governor is anti gun though.
luckless
01-28-2015, 07:03 AM
Notice they removed language that offended the anti-gunners, but all the language that offends gun owners remains.
That kinda makes it a gun control bill in my book.
45/70fan
01-28-2015, 08:10 AM
Notice they removed language that offended the anti-gunners, but all the language that offends gun owners remains.
That kinda makes it a gun control bill in my book.
Pretty well sums it up.
Yes, it sucks wind like the Holland tunnel. It has all of the expired training, price raises, and other junk that the previous one had. And it still leaves the drag in processing in place, the County Clerk!
After the Gov screwed them the first time around, they drop off ONE thing and resubmit it. There are 23 out of 38 Senators signed on as co-sponsors, and it is already scheduled for hearings. Bad juju for this being good for anything in the Senate.
Time to write to the new Rep and put them on notice!
2015-SB-0035 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035)
This is an easy one for me. I can just kick back and let my anti gun rep do his thing!
Roundballer
01-28-2015, 12:35 PM
It is even worse than suspected, they are already pushing this ahead with a substitution S-1
2015-SCVBS-0034-385.PDF (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zfb2weat2j1wpkbqqjwd0045))/mileg.aspx?page=CurrentVersionAmendment&cvFileName=2015-SCVBS-0034-385.PDF)
Keep track here:
2015-SB-0034 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0034), 2015-SB-0035 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035).
Both bills have been reported out of committee, and returned to the Senate Floor.
I also noticed in these bills, they took out a lot of the "MAY" and put in "SHALL", completely removing discretion of the courts. There is also one place where the court is bypassed and a license is suspended on the word of a LEO.
This bill has gone to the point of removing the right of due process, on top of the taxation of a right.
gjgalligan
01-28-2015, 01:26 PM
I called Mike Green's office today and told them I could not support this bill and how disappointed I am in Mike for even offering it.
bigt8261
01-28-2015, 02:58 PM
There is also one place where the court is bypassed and a license is suspended on the word of a LEO.
What part is that?
ninjatoth
01-28-2015, 03:13 PM
I like that in the app they want to update the mental health question, and add that you have to be diagnosed as being a danger to yourself and others in addition to have a mental illness, rather than just "mental illness", because the way the definition of mental illness is now is way too broad, the update makes more sense.
DEVIL DOG
01-28-2015, 03:30 PM
I called Mike Green's office today and told them I could not support this bill and how disappointed I am in Mike for even offering it. If this guy can't be trusted, then who can we trust?
DP425
01-28-2015, 04:03 PM
FOR
19 APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2015, IF THE COURT
20 DETERMINES THAT THE NOTICE OF STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION, FAILURE
21 TO PROVIDE A RECEIPT THAT COMPLIES WITH SECTION 5B(1) OR (9) OR
22 5l(3), OR FAILURE TO ISSUE A LICENSE WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, THE
23 COURT MAY ORDER AN ENTITY TO REFUND ANY FILING FEES THE APPLICANT
24 INCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL, ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF
25 RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT ENTITY.
I don't particularly care for that. They should HAVE to pay the fees! Lawyer costs as well!
BUT, next page it says the same thing except erroneous is substituted for arbitrary and capricious... "may" is changed to "shall" and attorney costs are tossed in. So that's a plus I suppose.
I do see on page 56, the fines for license violations are no longer discretionary by the court. They removed "may" and put in "shall"
Page 62, license suspension, "May" is changed to "shall" and "not more than" is removed. Essentially telling the court that they WILL suspend the license for 3 years. Also does the same for a fine; changes "may" to "shall" and removes "not more than" ($100).
Page 63, changes "may" to "shall" on suspension of license for refusal to submit to chemical analysis.
I DO NOT see anywhere that a license can be suspended or denied based upon simply the word of an LEO. I do see where an emergency license can be issued based upon the word/decision of a sheriff.
luckless
01-28-2015, 04:27 PM
It just seems to get worse with each reiteration.
DP425
01-28-2015, 04:51 PM
It just seems to get worse with each reiteration.
You know, I didn't pay THAT close of attention to those parts last time, so I can't even say if they were changed very much. But, I don't particularly like the removal of the court's discretion when it comes to treatment of the non-governmental entity.
I do agree though, there is more and more about this bill that I'm not happy with. I'm likely at the indifferent point; too many more changes and I'll be against it and making phone calls. It still has some MAJOR advancements for us, but it has a whole lot of little minuses that tend to add up.
bigt8261
01-28-2015, 04:56 PM
Aside from:
- adding a favorable definition for Felony (which cleans up some stuff missed in 789) to supplement existing changes to address high court misdemeanors,
- narrowing what a "retired law enforcement officer" means,
- requiring emergency CPL applicants to pass a background check through LEIN,
- changing the emergency CPL PPO requirement from requesting to having been issued,
- and taking out the two lines about PPO's,
SB 34 S-1 is identical to SB 789 H-3.
G36 Shooter
01-28-2015, 08:56 PM
Make Michigan a Constitutional Carry state and be done with it.
Roundballer
01-28-2015, 10:02 PM
What part is that?
Sec 5k (2c).
Any mention of "court" is struck. LEO informs MSP, MSP tells County Clerk, $100 fine & 1 year suspension.
DP425
01-28-2015, 11:02 PM
(c) If the person had a bodily alcohol content of .02 or more
17 but less than .08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210
18 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine, the individual is
19 responsible for a state civil infraction and SHALL be fined $100.00.
20 The PEACE OFFICER SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF
22 STATE POLICE OF A CIVIL INFRACTION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION. THE
23 DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SHALL NOTIFY THE COUNTY CLERK
24 WHO SHALL SUSPEND the license
Well, you are right, they remove the court- which I don't particularly like either... However, in theory, court or no court, the same result will happen. The only real problem is it doesn't give you a very good avenue of defense. Instead of being able to go before a judge and defend yourself, question procedure, equipment, justification... you'd have to file a lawsuit.
Jared1981
01-29-2015, 12:29 AM
Thank GOD we have a republican for governor, we sure dodged a bullet on having a governor that is pressuring for more gun control.... Meanwhile in liberal Vermont, they are arguing about having the state ban violent felons from possessing firearms, they currently rely on the Feds to prosecute their cases as the state can't.
Can we trade the Vermont governor (who doesn't want to change any Of VT's gun laws) for this sorry clown we have here?
Notice they removed language that offended the anti-gunners, but all the language that offends gun owners remains.
That kinda makes it a gun control bill in my book.
Correct.
It does remove rifled BB guns and pellet guns from the definition of a firearm though.
luckless
01-29-2015, 07:49 AM
Correct.
It does remove rifled BB guns and pellet guns from the definition of a firearm though.
That was eliminated in the substitute bill and is supposed to be addressed in the house with separate legislation.
luckless
01-29-2015, 07:53 AM
Aside from:
- adding a favorable definition for Felony (which cleans up some stuff missed in 789) to supplement existing changes to address high court misdemeanors,
- narrowing what a "retired law enforcement officer" means,
- requiring emergency CPL applicants to pass a background check through LEIN,
- changing the emergency CPL PPO requirement from requesting to having been issued,
- and taking out the two lines about PPO's,
SB 34 S-1 is identical to SB 789 H-3.
How was it narrowed? I thought it was a pretty broad definition.
luckless
01-29-2015, 08:03 AM
Want to hear a good one?
My senator thinks we can pass this As-Is and fix the negative stuff with future legislation!
Oh man! My side hurts!
:lollol:
bigt8261
01-29-2015, 08:19 AM
How was it narrowed? I thought it was a pretty broad definition.
The current definition is pretty broad. SB 34 adds additional language narrowing it.
(i) "Retired police officer" or "retired law enforcement
officer" means an individual who was a police officer or law
enforcement officer who was certified as described under section 9a
of the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203,
MCL 28.609a, and retired in good standing from his or her
employment as a police officer or law enforcement officer. A POLICE
OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING IF HE
OR SHE RECEIVES A PENSION OR OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFIT FOR HIS OR
HER SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR
ACTIVELY MAINTAINED A MICHIGAN COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
STANDARDS OR EQUIVALENT STATE CERTIFICATION FOR 10 OR MORE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS.
Roundballer
01-29-2015, 08:48 AM
The current definition is pretty broad. SB 34 adds additional language narrowing it.
That language doesn't narrow it, it gives two additional sets circumstances that would include those that can follow either of those paths. It broadens the current definition.
bigt8261
01-29-2015, 09:07 AM
"good standing" is currently undefined, therefore any application of a definition to the term is a narrowing.
The added language defines "good standing", it does not add possibilities to "good standing".
Example: What if you don't receive a pension but were MCOLES certified for 8 years? Currently, that can be considered retired in "good standing". The added language would make such a person fall outside of "good standing".
bigt8261
01-29-2015, 09:11 AM
Since the term is used to exempt special people from certain aspects of the law, I support any narrowing of the term.
Tallbear
01-29-2015, 09:33 AM
SB 0034 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals secs. 5m & 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425m & 28.426a).
Last Action: 1/29/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1
45/70fan
01-29-2015, 09:54 AM
Want to hear a good one?
My senator thinks we can pass this As-Is and fix the negative stuff with future legislation!
Oh man! My side hurts!
:lollol:
I heard that 15 yrs ago when the initial shall issue was passed, we will fix it later. I'm still waiting for later to happen. LMAO at the legislators sense of their ability to change a pile of dung into something useful.
Roundballer
01-29-2015, 10:40 AM
You misconstrue the intent of the language. The section that they are altering is "DEFINITIONS". If they intended to define the phrase "in good standing" they would add a line that says (?) "In good standing" means"....". They didn't, so don't read it that way. The section (along with the header line of the act) have to be read together. I will agree that it is poorly written, but this is what it says if taken in the manner it is presented and they way the laws are written:
Sec. 1. 1 (1) As used in this act:
<snip>
(i) "Retired police officer" or "retired law enforcement officer" means:
an individual who was a police officer or law enforcement officer who was certified as described under section 9a of the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203, MCL 28.609a, and retired in good standing from his or her employment as a police officer or law enforcement officer.
A POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER RETIRED IN GOOD STANDING IF HE OR SHE RECEIVES A PENSION OR OTHER RETIREMENT BENEFIT FOR HIS OR HER SERVICE AS A POLICE OFFICER OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
OR ACTIVELY MAINTAINED A MICHIGAN COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS OR EQUIVALENT STATE CERTIFICATION FOR 10 OR MORE CONSECUTIVE YEARS.
They have worded it to include more persons into the exclusion.
Here are several other notable and verifiable points:
Our "legislature" kowtows to LE and the entire "law" structure, evidenced by all of the prison personnel, prosecutors, and judges that are also exempt. They added about 3 new classes just this past term.
When defining a term, it is not proper to use that term in the definition, so reading this as narrowing a class by "defining" "in good standing", "in good standing" would not appear as part of the definition.
In the original definition, it required a certification under another law. That certification, in that law is revoked if someone quits their position. and would eliminate those that didn't directly "retire" from that position.
In the first part of the new language, the certification is dropped, the person just needs to have retired and be collecting retirement "benefits". In other words, not have lost his "benefits" because of their actions while in the position.
The second part of the new language exempts those that worked as LE for at least 10 years with MCOLES certification and may not be collecting benefits yet, they just moved on to a new job.
They have never in the past limited these things, they always expand them.
I personally don't believe there should ever be an exemption for anyone, for any law. If persons of a certain group need to be exempted, why is the law there to begin with?
ETA:
Case in point, Tallbear just posted this, same section, add retired Federal LE to the list:
2015-SB-0053 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0053)
bigt8261
01-29-2015, 11:09 AM
evidenced by all of the prison personnel, prosecutors, and judges that are also exempt. They added about 3 new classes just this past term.
All of the bills related to carving out more groups died. SB 343, HB 4133, HB 4134, HB 4350 and HB 5355.
As for the rest, I respectfully stand by my position.
Tallbear
01-30-2015, 08:10 AM
SB 0034 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals secs. 5m & 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425m & 28.426a).
Last Action: 1/29/2015 Analysis File Added
silverknight674
02-03-2015, 07:56 AM
Looks like it is heading the Senate floor today https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150202/michigan-legislation-eliminating-county-gun-boards-heads-to-senate-floor-tomorrow
ninjatoth
02-03-2015, 11:14 AM
Where do you guys think this bill will go? Predictions? I am not really knowledgeable on laws, but knowing the last bill on eliminating gun boards died why wouldn't this one as well?
bigt8261
02-03-2015, 11:25 AM
The previous bill didn't exactly die, it was vetoed after the legislature adjourned sine die which means they couldn't override the veto.
I expect this bill to take a similar path. The only question will be if the Gov. will veto again when the legislature seems to be very behind the bill. We shall see.
A veto after the legislature has adjourned is less daring IMO.
Lbox88
02-03-2015, 11:33 AM
I tend to lean the other way, with the controversial section removed, and other things added such as the training expiration and increased application cost, I think he'll sign it.
bigt8261
02-03-2015, 12:00 PM
The only significant difference from SB 789 to Sb 34 is the PPO stuff was removed. The training expiration was unchanged from SB 789.
Lbox88
02-03-2015, 12:43 PM
I did not realize those were a part of the original 789, apologies.
Still think he will sign it though. Can't really say hope, being those crappy things are in it, but would will not be surprised if he goes either way with it.
G36 Shooter
02-03-2015, 12:45 PM
From what I was told from Sen. Hunes office, Gov. will sign this.
luckless
02-03-2015, 01:22 PM
From what I was told from Sen. Hunes office, Gov. will sign this.
Why wouldn't he sign this? We all know the governor is in favor of gun control and this gives him just what he wants. More control.
dmd7765
02-03-2015, 01:31 PM
From what I was told from Sen. Hunes office, Gov. will sign this.
I will believe it when he signs it, the same thing was said about SB789 from numerous sources
Draken
02-03-2015, 01:48 PM
Make Michigan a Constitutional Carry state and be done with it.
Make the U.S.A. a Constitutional Carry Country and be done with it.
FIFY
My issue with the Constitutional Carry, a lot of states will not let you carry if you come from a CC state as there is no license to allow. Baring making the US a full CC country, as it should be, it needs to be 100% reciprocity across the entire US.
Green Panther
02-03-2015, 02:03 PM
Make the U.S.A. a Constitutional Carry Country and be done with it.
FIFY
My issue with the Constitutional Carry, a lot of states will not let you carry if you come from a CC state as there is no license to allow. Baring making the US a full CC country, as it should be, it needs to be 100% reciprocity across the entire US.
There is a simple solution for that. Make "Constitutional Carry" legal in Michigan, but still offer a carry license to those who desire to get one.
With that scenario, you could legally carry in Michigan without, but have the option to get a license that would offer reciprocity for out of state travel.
I personally believe it should be up to the individual states to create these laws and not the federal government.
xmanhockey7
02-03-2015, 02:14 PM
It has passed the Senate by a vote of 28-9.
Draken
02-03-2015, 03:36 PM
I personally believe it should be up to the individual states to create these laws and not the federal government.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think the 2nd over rides it.
10th doesn't apply here. It is 100% a Bill of Rights issue, not a state issue...to many have tried to make it something that it's not.
Roundballer
02-03-2015, 04:39 PM
There is a simple solution for that. Make "Constitutional Carry" legal in Michigan, but still offer a carry license to those who desire to get one.
With that scenario, you could legally carry in Michigan without, but have the option to get a license that would offer reciprocity for out of state travel.
I personally believe it should be up to the individual states to create these laws and not the federal government.
10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think the 2nd over rides it.
10th doesn't apply here. It is 100% a Bill of Rights issue, not a state issue...to many have tried to make it something that it's not.
Exactly!
The Constitution doesn't delegate any power to override the Bill of Rights to the United States, and The Second Amendment prohibits the regulation of arms, so the States are prohibited. That leaves "or to the people"!
The Feds have usurped the power through creative re-definition of words and the "interstate commerce clause"
G36 Shooter
02-03-2015, 06:25 PM
Exactly!
The Constitution doesn't delegate any power to override the Bill of Rights to the United States, and The Second Amendment prohibits the regulation of arms, so the States are prohibited. That leaves "or to the people"!
The Feds have usurped the power through creative re-definition of words and the "interstate commerce clause"
Amen to that.
Tallbear
02-04-2015, 08:22 AM
SB 0034 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals secs. 5m & 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425m & 28.426a).
Last Action: 2/3/2015 referred to Committee on Judiciary
Tallbear
02-06-2015, 12:11 PM
DATE: Tuesday, February 10, 2015
TIME: 12:00 PM
PLACE: Room 521, House Office Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA:
Testimony only:
HB 4076 (Rep. Rendon) Weapons; firearms; reference to certain repealed definition in the penal code; eliminate.
HB 4151 (Rep. Pettalia) Weapons; firearms; 1959 PA 186; repeal.
HB 4152 (Rep. Sheppard) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 8.3t; modify.
HB 4153 (Rep. Franz) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 752.841; modify.
HB 4154 (Rep. Brett Roberts) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in natural resources and environmental protection act; modify.
HB 4155 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in the Michigan penal code; modify.
HB 4156 (Rep. Barrett) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in 1927 PA 372; modify.
HB 4159 (Rep. Johnson) Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain corrections, probation, and parole officers.
HB 4160 (Rep. Johnson) Weapons; other; brandishing a firearm; exempt certain actions.
HB 4161 (Rep. Hughes) Weapons; other; definition of brandish; provide for.
SB 34 (Sen. Green) Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks.
SB 35 (Sen. Green) Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update.
G36 Shooter
02-08-2015, 08:32 PM
Anyone going?
luckless
02-09-2015, 06:45 AM
Anyone have insight on the House Judiciary Committee members? Do we have anyone friendly to our cause on that committee? We need someone to fix this crap and I don't recognize any of the names. I hope leadership didn't stuff it full of Snyder yesmen.
bigt8261
02-09-2015, 08:26 AM
You don't recognize Joel Johnson? He's the #1 gun guy in the house.
I tried to find someone who was interested in fixing the increased punishments for failing to disclose. No one was interested and I highly doubt anyone will be unless Green signs off.
luckless
02-09-2015, 11:27 AM
The guy who sponsored HB4159 is our #1 ally? You think HE would be interested in fixing SB34? Have you contacted him to see if he is willing to help us fix this steamy pile?
bigt8261
02-09-2015, 11:35 AM
Yes I have contacted his office.
luckless
02-09-2015, 12:12 PM
Yes I have contacted his office.
Do tell... Is he willing to fix SB 34 or is he happy to leave it as-is?
I haven't been able to get through to his office, yet.
bigt8261
02-09-2015, 01:07 PM
This
I tried to find someone who was interested in fixing the increased punishments for failing to disclose. No one was interested and I highly doubt anyone will be unless Green signs off.
Roundballer
02-09-2015, 01:27 PM
Senator Greens' single driving force is to eliminate the County Gun Boards. Like many here he is blind to any other consequences, or if the action actually fixes the problem. Green has made many deals to get this as far as it has gotten, but doesn't realize that the cost of his primary goal is not worth the prize.
The initial bill dropped the cost of a CPL, we didn't have to pay into the County coffers, and the need for the cost of fingerprints was to be dropped from a renewal. Traded away to the MSP to get their support, and in fact RAISED the price. Several other changes to pacify others, and we end up with the crap we have now.
Our only hope is to get the House to fix it, and then get the Senate to concur.
Leader
02-09-2015, 01:47 PM
Senator Greens' single driving force is to eliminate the County Gun Boards. Like many here he is blind to any other consequences, or if the action actually fixes the problem. Green has made many deals to get this as far as it has gotten, but doesn't realize that the cost of his primary goal is not worth the prize.
The initial bill dropped the cost of a CPL, we didn't have to pay into the County coffers, and the need for the cost of fingerprints was to be dropped from a renewal. Traded away to the MSP to get their support, and in fact RAISED the price. Several other changes to pacify others, and we end up with the crap we have now.
Our only hope is to get the House to fix it, and then get the Senate to concur.
Why would they "fix" it when the State is the big winner in this?
Big Iron
02-09-2015, 07:26 PM
I don't think it's a good idea to give all that power to the State Police. Also, the county clerks don't have the staff to handle all the new requirements that were in the bill. The whole process will slow to a crawl. All in all it's better to have local control, not Lansing control.
BI
bigt8261
02-10-2015, 07:40 AM
I don't think it's a good idea to give all that power to the State Police. Also, the county clerks don't have the staff to handle all the new requirements that were in the bill. The whole process will slow to a crawl. All in all it's better to have local control, not Lansing control.
BI
No "power" is being given to the MSP. The original version of SB 789 changed "Licensing Authority" to the Clerks. Apparently that wasn't clear enough for people so the next version changed every appearance of "Licensing Authority" to "County Clerk", just to make things extra clear.
As for local control, I can believe someone in the gun community just advocated for local control. The vast majority of problems we are having are specifically due to local control.
luckless
02-10-2015, 07:41 AM
Yes I have contacted his office.
I tried five times yesterday and never got through. I'll try again today.
luckless
02-11-2015, 06:10 AM
No answer yesterday, either.
bigt8261
02-11-2015, 08:56 AM
I talked with Senator Green for a while yesterday on the topic of the changes to the disclosure penalties.
Long story short, he wants to move 789. He sees any change as another excuse for a veto.
I eventually left his office in a friendly manner and with respect, but without an agreement.
luckless
02-11-2015, 09:06 AM
I talked with Senator Green for a while yesterday on the topic of the changes to the disclosure penalties.
Long story short, he wants to move 789. He sees any change as another excuse for a veto.
I eventually left his office in a friendly manner and with respect, but without an agreement.
I thought this was in the house judiciary committee. I think we already know that Green is fine with all of the crap in this bill. We need it fixed or killed in the house. That is our only hope.
bigt8261
02-11-2015, 09:14 AM
It was heard in the House Committee yesterday and will be voted on in committee next week. I stopped by his office after the committee hearing to talk with him more. He agrees with the change we discussed, and a few other things, but is unwilling to make it. He want's to send the Governor what was sent to him last year. He sees any other changes as excuses for another veto.
I think we should expect a veto and send the Governor what we want to send him.
luckless
02-11-2015, 09:37 AM
Thanks for trying! I think it is great that we have members willing to take the time to go to the capitol and plead our case.
partdeux
02-11-2015, 11:25 AM
I'm confused, 789 was vetoed, and he wants the exact same bill again???
mikeb32
02-11-2015, 11:28 AM
I'm confused, 789 was vetoed, and he wants the exact same bill again???
I believe the New Bill has the PPO Language omitted, which is reportedly why 789 was vetoed.
dmd7765
02-11-2015, 12:00 PM
I believe the New Bill has the PPO Language omitted, which is reportedly why 789 was vetoed.
Correct, PPO language was removed and new bill presented
partdeux
02-11-2015, 01:10 PM
I believe the New Bill has the PPO Language omitted, which is reportedly why 789 was vetoed.
He agrees with the change we discussed, and a few other things, but is unwilling to make it. He want's to send the Governor what was sent to him last year. He sees any other changes as excuses for another veto.
See my confusion?
luckless
02-11-2015, 01:16 PM
See my confusion?
I think he meant all of the bad stuff is still in there.
They are working hard to address the concerns of the anti gunners. Pro-gunners? Not so much.
Leader
02-11-2015, 01:43 PM
It's not the EXACT same bill.
The one last year had something in it that could be considered "pro gun" so that was removed and we get even LESS with this POS bill.
bigt8261
02-11-2015, 01:46 PM
See my confusion?
I do see your confusion and I apologize for causing it.
He want's to send the Governor what was sent to him last year minus only the two lines related to PPOs.
I should also note that there have been a few other minor tweaks in places to make SB 34 very slightly different than SB 789, which I attempted to use as additional ammo to validate my request. Again, I have been unsuccessful.
G36 Shooter
02-11-2015, 02:11 PM
We should all be thankful for the time and work that Tom puts into these matters. There were only four MGO members at the hearing yesterday, two were Tom and Phil. Any pro-gun bill with this Governor is an uphill battle! I agree this bill is not perfect, to eliminate the useless Gun Boards was always the top priority, let's win this battle and move on. FYI the committee will be voting next Tuesday, everyone is welcome to be there.
Roundballer
02-11-2015, 04:05 PM
<snip> I agree this bill is not perfect, to eliminate the useless Gun Boards was always the top priority, let's win this battle and move on. FYI the committee will be voting next Tuesday, everyone is welcome to be there.
NO!
How many times do we have to say it?
This is not a "WIN". The cost so heavily outweigh any small advances that it is no longer acceptable!
Leader
02-11-2015, 05:07 PM
We should all be thankful for the time and work that Tom puts into these matters. There were only four MGO members at the hearing yesterday, two were Tom and Phil. Any pro-gun bill with this Governor is an uphill battle! I agree this bill is not perfect, to eliminate the useless Gun Boards was always the top priority, let's win this battle and move on. FYI the committee will be voting next Tuesday, everyone is welcome to be there.
How do you figure we win anything when this whole bill is a net loss. This is another battle won by those set on restricting our right to own & carry arms. They even get to say we can keep our 2nd amendment right as long as we don't use it.
G36 Shooter
02-11-2015, 08:21 PM
Tell Sen. Green to pull the bill.
Roundballer
02-11-2015, 09:36 PM
Tell Sen. Green to pull the bill.
Sen, Green is my Senator. I have spoken to him on several occasions. His sole focus is getting this through, he is not listening any more. I have posted this before:
Senator Greens' single driving force is to eliminate the County Gun Boards. Like many here he is blind to any other consequences, or if the action actually fixes the problem. Green has made many deals to get this as far as it has gotten, but doesn't realize that the cost of his primary goal is not worth the prize.
The initial bill dropped the cost of a CPL, we didn't have to pay into the County coffers, and the need for the cost of fingerprints was to be dropped from a renewal. Traded away to the MSP to get their support, and in fact RAISED the price. Several other changes to pacify others, and we end up with the crap we have now.
Our only hope is to get the House to fix it, and then get the Senate to concur.
After SB 610 was passed early last year I again contacted him about getting the methods for measuring OAL fixed as he had promised before. He changed the subject and talked about his focus of getting rid of Gun Boards. He has a one track mind. He is no longer listening.
partdeux
02-12-2015, 10:21 AM
Sen, Green is my Senator. I have spoken to him on several occasions. His sole focus is getting this through, he is not listening any more. I have posted this before.
Representative govt...
Imagine his position, gun owners support this, gun owners are neutral, and gun owner hate it. I'm sure he sees this as an incremental improvement. As I said before, firearm people fall into three camps, and we do not stand together.
Leftists are much better at working together at getting incremental improvements to their respective positions.
Tallbear
02-12-2015, 05:03 PM
DATE: Tuesday, February 17, 2015
TIME: 12:00 PM
PLACE: Room 521, House Office Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA:
HB 4159 (Rep. Johnson) Weapons; licensing; waiver for certain individuals to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; expand to include certain corrections, probation, and parole officers.
HB 4160 (Rep. Johnson) Weapons; other; brandishing a firearm; exempt certain actions.
HB 4161 (Rep. Hughes) Weapons; other; definition of brandish; provide for.
HB 4076 (Rep. Rendon) Weapons; firearms; reference to certain repealed definition in the penal code; eliminate.
HB 4151 (Rep. Pettalia) Weapons; firearms; 1959 PA 186; repeal.
HB 4152 (Rep. Sheppard) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 8.3t; modify.
HB 4153 (Rep. Franz) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in MCL 752.841; modify.
HB 4154 (Rep. Brett Roberts) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in natural resources and environmental protection act; modify.
HB 4155 (Rep. Cole) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in the Michigan penal code; modify.
HB 4156 (Rep. Barrett) Weapons; firearms; definition of firearm in 1927 PA 372; modify.
SB 34 (Sen. Green) Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks.
SB 35 (Sen. Green) Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; reference in sentencing guidelines; update.
luckless
02-14-2015, 08:12 AM
Sounds like a lot of pressure is being applied by MCRGO to PASS this steamy pile.
Tallbear
02-14-2015, 10:24 AM
..
DEVIL DOG
02-14-2015, 04:33 PM
There could be some outside influence on the good senator to get this done. A run for Mi. senate is not cheap. ( Just an observation )
partdeux
02-15-2015, 09:40 AM
There could be some outside influence on the good senator to get this done. A run for Mi. senate is not cheap. ( Just an observation )
One needs big money to win the race. And as we have seen, big money comes with a price, {cough}Snyder{cough}.
luckless
02-17-2015, 02:19 PM
It sounds like there are some conservatives in the house that are on the fence about this. You can count on Senator Green to schmooze them. Now would be a good time to call your representative and explain all of the bad stuff in this bill. It seems to me that they could remove most of the language that gun owners are concerned with and still pass a bill that dissolves gun boards. Anyone at the committee meeting today?
G36 Shooter
02-17-2015, 05:02 PM
I was
appliancebrad
02-17-2015, 07:09 PM
I was but had to leave for another appointment.
luckless
02-17-2015, 10:23 PM
Did they vote on anything?
bigt8261
02-18-2015, 08:16 AM
The committee recommended the bill on a mostly party line vote. Along with the other 11 gun bills in front of them.
mikeb32
02-18-2015, 08:32 AM
The committee recommended the bill on a mostly party line vote. Along with the other 11 gun bills in front of them.
Whats your " Gut Feel " on these, Tom?
bigt8261
02-18-2015, 10:03 AM
The 12 bills were part of 5 packages.
SB 34/35 - CPL reform
HB 4076 - Lawful purpose reference cleanup
HB 4151-4156 - Redefine firearm to exclude pneumatic guns.
HB 4159 - Corrections officer PFZ exemption
HB 4160/4161 - Brandishing definition and exemptions.
I expect all of them, except for HB 4159 to move quickly and be in front of the Governor likely by the end of next month. For SB 34/35 possibly by the end of this month.
I think it is likely the Governor will sign HB 4076, HB 4151-4156, and HB 4160/4161.
As for SB 34/35, the legislature is making it very clear that they support the bills. While the Governor will not be free to veto the bills unchecked this time, I'm not sure any of that will make a difference. While my brain tells me everything is pointing to a signature, my gut is preparing for a veto override.
bigt8261
02-18-2015, 10:03 AM
BTW, the H-1 sub moved the effective date back from Oct 1 to Dec 1.
mikeb32
02-18-2015, 10:05 AM
The 12 bills were part of 5 packages.
SB 34/35 - CPL reform
HB 4076 - Lawful purpose reference cleanup
HB 4151-4156 - Redefine firearm to exclude pneumatic guns.
HB 4159 - Corrections officer PFZ exemption
HB 4160/4161 - Brandishing definition and exemptions.
I expect all of them, except for HB 4159 to move quickly and be in front of the Governor likely by the end of next month. For SB 34/35 possibly by the end of this month.
I think it is likely the Governor will sign HB 4076, HB 4151-4156, and HB 4160/4161.
As for SB 34/35, the legislature is making it very clear that they support the bills. While the Governor will not be free to veto the bills unchecked this time, I'm not sure any of that will make a difference. While my brain tells me everything is pointing to a signature, my gut is preparing for a veto override.
Thanks for all you do up there, Sir!
luckless
02-18-2015, 10:36 AM
Did they fix anything before passing it?
bigt8261
02-18-2015, 10:37 AM
Did they fix anything before passing it?
Despite my best efforts and those of others here, sadly no.
luckless
02-18-2015, 10:44 AM
Despite my best efforts and those of others here, sadly no.
Thanks. I guess we take the fight to the floor of the House, now. I appreciate all of your time and effort.
luckless
02-24-2015, 03:07 PM
This is scheduled to be voted on tomorrow. Call Speaker of the House, Kevin Cotter and urge him to allow amendments from the floor.
KevinCotter@house.mi.gov Ph: 517.373.1789
Then call your rep and urge him to vote "NO" on SB 34 if it isn't amended to the benefit of gun owners.
Our chances are slim but they should get a chance to hear that this isn't a "win" for gun owners.
Don't believe them if they tell they have big plans to pass good legislation in the lame duck session!
bigt8261
02-24-2015, 03:45 PM
Just spoke with a reporter about SB 34. Apparently Andy Schor tried to amend SB 34 to ban open carry in PFZs. The amendment failed.
luckless
02-24-2015, 09:44 PM
Looks like the good Speaker allowed more than that to come to the floor for a vote.
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/02/house_dems_propose_universal_b.html
Think we'll get a chance for an amendment tomorrow?
Leader
02-24-2015, 11:45 PM
If they can keep trying to take more away from us, why don't we try to get SOMETHING back?
Stupid requirement to inform.... cut the costs rather then increase it, no expiration on certs.... etc.?
If they can keep trying to take more away from us, why don't we try to get SOMETHING back?
Stupid requirement to inform.... cut the costs rather then increase it, no expiration on certs.... etc.?
Because. If they actually wanted to do any of those things, they would be. Actions not words.
They are intently focused on making things better for retired federal LEO. They are intently focused on eliminating things that are not the root cause of the problem. They just don't care about your, or my concerns whatsoever.
But I suspect that your question was rhetorical.
Well, not necessarily. Senator Green is getting some flak because MOC is neutral on SB 34.
From: http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?319310-SB-0053-retired-federal-law-enforcement-allowed-to-carry-in-PFZ
Why neutral?
Its a horrible bill that completely neglects the root cause of the problem, creates additional costs, and imposes further restrictions.
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 08:40 AM
Think we'll get a chance for an amendment tomorrow?
SB 34 is on the order of third reading in the House. No more amendments can be made in the House.
If (when) the House passes SB 34 today, the Senate will have to concur with the changes (and they will).
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 08:57 AM
Why neutral?
Its a horrible bill that completely neglects the root cause of the problem, creates additional costs, and imposes further restrictions.
See the SB 34 thread.
45/70fan
02-25-2015, 09:00 AM
Why neutral?
Its a horrible bill that completely neglects the root cause of the problem, creates additional costs, and imposes further restrictions.
I agree completely
See the SB 34 thread.
I moved my question and a couple other posts here so SB53 didn't get cluttered up with questions for this bill.
I reread the entire thread and I'm still confused as to why MOC is neutral and not opposed.
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 09:49 AM
I personally disagree that SB 34 is a horrible bill. I think it has many fine improvements that will greatly improve the process. I look forward to a majority of the bill being implemented.
On the other hand, MOC objected to the fee increases and the removal of discretionary punishments for failing to disclose. Not just their existence, but also how they came into place and the lack of willingness by Senator Green to address the issues.
luckless
02-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Asked my rep to vote no if they couldn't fix this thing.
Roundballer
02-25-2015, 11:12 AM
I personally disagree that SB 34 is a horrible bill. I think it has many fine improvements that will greatly improve the process. I look forward to a majority of the bill being implemented.
On the other hand, MOC objected to the fee increases and the removal of discretionary punishments for failing to disclose. Not just their existence, but also how they came into place and the lack of willingness by Senator Green to address the issues.
Please, by all means, explain how, or which "improvements" have any benefit for the majority of CPL holders or applicants!
Keep in mind that it is not really the "gun boards" that are the delay in the counties that have problems, it is the CLERK!
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 11:36 AM
I disagree where the delay is. It is most certainly the boards. The back log was created because the gun boards refused to meet more to keep up with demand. Due to the arbitrary time limit, they were effectively able to get away with it.
SB 34 eliminates the biggest bottleneck and it imposes a strict time limit. Even if the clerks were the problem before, they will now have more motivation to get everything done in time. Otherwise, evil gun owners will be able to carry their guns around without background checks. The horror!
The boards are also responsible for the discretionary abuse. Not only is the source eliminated, but so is the statute that allows it. 425b (7)(n)
SB 34 requires hard plastic or laminated licenses and it requires those licenses to be mailed to the applicant.
SB 34 includes language that will require reporting on costs that should hopefully help reduce fees in the future.
SB 34 addressed high court misdemeanors in a favorable manner.
SB 34 creates a much faster and simpler emergency license process.
Increased ability to recoup costs for an improper denial.
1 year window to renew a license.
Use photo from DL instead of having to get your own passport photo.
cleans up some of the disqualifiers and changes many of them to second offense.
gjgalligan
02-25-2015, 12:38 PM
Bigt8261: Why the need to limit your renewal time to 1 year??
Why limit the time your certificate is good, barring any MAJOR changes in the training or laws?
Most counties have been doing a great job, I don't believe the changes in this bill will really affect most of us other then:
Increases the cost of the cpl
Requires you to be fined if you forget your CPL when carrying instead of "may be" be fined.
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 01:01 PM
Due to the pictures, mailing requirements and a few other things, I think SB 34 will reduce the cost of obtaining a CPL for most applicants. Certainly not all. When online renewal kicks in, that savings should go up even more. All of that assumes the added reporting language does not result in a future fee decrease.
I did forget to list the cert expiration as a negative. While I don't think that will be a big deal for 99.99% of people, I do agree it is ultimately a negative.
This is also about more than discretionary denials. Lately I've seen an increased number of discretionary, and completely unlawful suspensions.
Lastly, don't take my list of items as me saying the bill is fantastic. It's not. I was asked to list some positives and I did. Quantitatively speaking, there are more positives than negatives. Far more. Qualitatively speaking is another story.
Due to the pictures, mailing requirements and a few other things, I think SB 34 will reduce the cost of obtaining a CPL for most applicants. Certainly not all. When online renewal kicks in, that savings should go up even more. All of that assumes the added reporting language does not result in a future fee decrease.
I did forget to list the cert expiration as a negative. While I don't think that will be a big deal for 99.99% of people, I do agree it is ultimately a negative.
This is also about more than discretionary denials. Lately I've seen an increased number of discretionary, and completely unlawful suspensions.
Lastly, don't take my list of items as me saying the bill is fantastic. It's not. I was asked to list some positives and I did. Quantitatively speaking, there are more positives than negatives. Far more. Qualitatively speaking is another story.
Thank you. I'm not judging, just looking for an explanation and trying very hard to see anything worthwhile in this mess.
Super Trucker
02-25-2015, 02:16 PM
Aren't most of the counties mailing the hard copy already? If so most aren't benefiting from that. The mandatory penalty for not snitching on yourself effects everybody. Anybody paying for a picture now isnt thinking very hard because free passport photos are available. Plus the fee increase. So if I am not missing anything it seems that the benefit is for the miniority again, while the rest of us lose again.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 02:53 PM
SB 34 just passed the House. 76-34
luckless
02-25-2015, 02:57 PM
Now I have to call the Governor and ask for a veto because it let's crazy people get guns.
Roundballer
02-25-2015, 03:10 PM
I disagree
I had a long response typed out, but I had to leave for a while (something came up). I now see that it is pointless to try to explain.
Instead I am going to write to Green AGAIN. This time it will be that as a constituent he has lost all faith ans support from this quarter. And after his kow-tow to Snyder over SB 789, and his failure to limit this to ONLY eliminating the Boards, I will start to actively oppose him on other matters.
Also a note to the GOV to tell him that no matter what he has been told, this is NOT supported by a majority of the Firearm community.
Leader
02-25-2015, 07:11 PM
Bigt8261: Why the need to limit your renewal time to 1 year??
Why limit the time your certificate is good, barring any MAJOR changes in the training or laws?
Most counties have been doing a great job, I don't believe the changes in this bill will really affect most of us other then:
Increases the cost of the cpl
Requires you to be fined if you forget your CPL when carrying instead of "may be" be fined.
It should be plainly obvious from all the CPL holders that have been violating our gun laws over the last 15 years because they didn't take a refresher course.
They have also been shooting random people because they didn't know they weren't supposed to do that.
We NEED these cert's to expire or the trainers ar going to starve.
bigt8261
02-25-2015, 08:57 PM
Certs will only be required for new applications. As long as you don't let your CPL expire for more than one year, you will have no problems. That is why the 1 year renewal window was created. Currently, once your CPL expires your application is effectively treated as a new application. or, at least it should be.
To be honest, if you do let your CPL lapse like that, you could probably use a refresher course. Should it be mandated? Not at all.
Leader
02-25-2015, 09:35 PM
Certs will only be required for new applications. As long as you don't let your CPL expire for more than one year, you will have no problems. That is why the 1 year renewal window was created. Currently, once your CPL expires your application is effectively treated as a new application. or, at least it should be.
To be honest, if you do let your CPL lapse like that, you could probably use a refresher course. Should it be mandated? Not at all.
Currently your cert doesn't EVER expire.
Renewing your expired CPL is a renewal no matter if it expired 1 day ago or 10 years ago.
The people who got permits 10 years ago haven't needed to retake the class that didn't actually teach you anything anyway, so why should someone that let his CPL laps for a couple of years?
Many other states don't even have a class to go through & they don't have any more problems then we do.
By the way, just what problems that other states have that you think MI required training solves?
Give me statistics to back up what good our training does.
Expiring the cert does NOTHING for safety, it is 90% a money thing & 10% just makeing things harder & more expensive with the goal of getting people to NOT renew.
Harry25
02-25-2015, 09:42 PM
Yeas
Afendoulis
Barrett
Brunner
Bumstead
Callton
Canfield
Chatfield
Chirkun
Clemente
Cochran
Cole
Cotter
Courser
Cox
Crawford
Darany
Dianda
Dillon
Driskell
Farrington
Forlini
Gamrat
Garcia
Glardon
Glenn
Goike
Graves
Greimel
Heise
Hooker
Howrylak
Hughes
Iden
Jacobsen
Jenkins
Johnson
Kesto
Kivela
Kosowski
LaFontaine
Lane
LaVoy
Leonard
Leutheuser
Liberati
Lucido
Lyons
Maturen
McBroom
McCready
Miller, A.
Miller, D.
Muxlow
Nesbitt
Outman
Pagel
Pettalia
Phelps
Poleski
Price
Pscholka
Rendon
Roberts, B.
Runestad
Rutledge
Sheppard
Smiley
Somerville
Tedder
Theis
Vaupel
VerHeulen
Victory
Webber
Yanez
Yonker
Nays
Banks
Bizon
Brinks
Byrd
Chang
Durhal
Faris
Franz
Garrett
Gay-Dagnogo
Geiss
Greig
Guerra
Hoadley
Hovey-Wright
Inman
Irwin
Kelly
Lauwers
Love
Moss
Neeley
Pagan
Plawecki
Potvin
Roberts, S.
Robinson
Santana
Schor
Singh
Talabi
Townsend
Wittenberg
Zemke
luckless
02-25-2015, 09:49 PM
Certs will only be required for new applications. As long as you don't let your CPL expire for more than one year, you will have no problems. That is why the 1 year renewal window was created. Currently, once your CPL expires your application is effectively treated as a new application. or, at least it should be.
To be honest, if you do let your CPL lapse like that, you could probably use a refresher course. Should it be mandated? Not at all.
Should you be required to get a refresher course if you let your driver's license lapse for a year? Funny that I need a refresher course to get the certificate but I don't need a refresher course to teach the class. Why should my refresher course be any different than that of a retired LEO that hasn't lived in the state for fifteen years and has no idea what the carry laws are? This bill stinks to high heaven.
Their message has been received loud and clear! We'll get nothing this session and probably nothing for two years. It is all about defense until the next election, I'm afraid. We must be vigilant or they will ram some more of this nonsense through.
luckless
02-25-2015, 09:53 PM
Currently your cert doesn't EVER expire.
Renewing your expired CPL is a renewal no matter if it expired 1 day ago or 10 years ago.
The people who got permits 10 years ago haven't needed to retake the class that didn't actually teach you anything anyway, so why should someone that let his CPL laps for a couple of years?
Many other states don't even have a class to go through & they don't have any more problems then we do.
By the way, just what problems that other states have that you think MI required training solves?
Give me statistics to back up what good our training does.
Expiring the cert does NOTHING for safety, it is 90% a money thing & 10% just makeing things harder & more expensive with the goal of getting people to NOT renew.
450,000 cpl renewals multiplied by $10 = $4,500,000 for new digs for the MSP
My anti gun Democrat house rep voted yes.....
As usual, I can't count on them to do anything right.
bigt8261
02-26-2015, 08:42 AM
Look, I know you guys are frustrated with SB 34 and I know you don't like the cert expiration. I don't like it either.
Yes I do think training is a good thing, even the minimal training provided in a CPL class. But again, I DO NOT think the cert should expire, even if it would help some people. This stems from my belief that no training should be required in the first place, but that depends on a few things and is a much more complex discussion.
In the end, the cert expiration is a small issue as it will affect very few people. This is why I chose to go after different issues in my discussions with Senator Green and in my testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.
Look, I know you guys are frustrated with SB 34 and I know you don't like the cert expiration. I don't like it either.
Yes I do think training is a good thing, even the minimal training provided in a CPL class. But again, I DO NOT think the cert should expire, even if it would help some people. This stems from my belief that no training should be required in the first place, but that depends on a few things and is a much more complex discussion.
In the end, the cert expiration is a small issue as it will affect very few people. This is why I chose to go after different issues in my discussions with Senator Green and in my testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.
Personally, its not the cert expiration that I'm the most upset with but the elimination of discretion by removing the word 'may' and replacing it with 'shall' in every instance.
I guess the real question I have is, who exactly wrote in the parts of this bill that make it so unpalatable?
Who in their right mind would think that replacing the word 'may' with 'shall' in every instance, would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
Who in their right mind would think that ADDING language that makes certs 'expire' would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
Who in their right mind would think that raising the cost of renewal, even with the possibility of it decreasing in the future would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
So I ask, who was it? Because if it was someone who is supposedly on our side, they need to be lambasted with disapproval from their constituents. Why on earth would they revise and add these deal breakers? They need to be held accountable.
dmd7765
02-26-2015, 10:07 AM
the way I see it...
may= there is a decision to be made
shall= no decision
Leader
02-26-2015, 10:14 AM
The cert expiration sucks & you are right, no training should be REQUIRED.
Yes, I agree it may be helpful and I would back classes in K-12 school.
The notification should have been REMOVED rather then had punishment made mandatory.
Cost should have gone down to $25 -$50 at most. Other states do it for that, we can too.
We dropped the language Snyder didn't like, we should get something for that rather then more restrictions.
partdeux
02-26-2015, 11:26 AM
We dropped the language Snyder didn't like, we should get something for that rather then more restrictions.
Just a few more weeks and the easter bunny will visit your house
My anti gun Democrat house rep voted yes.....
As usual, I can't count on them to do anything right.
My new valley girl cheerleader rep voted no too. Some day I'll understand how people can vote for somebody that out of touch with reality.
Roundballer
02-26-2015, 12:41 PM
Look, I know you guys are frustrated with SB 34 and I know you don't like the cert expiration. I don't like it either.
Yes I do think training is a good thing, even the minimal training provided in a CPL class. But again, I DO NOT think the cert should expire, even if it would help some people. This stems from my belief that no training should be required in the first place, but that depends on a few things and is a much more complex discussion.
In the end, the cert expiration is a small issue as it will affect very few people. This is why I chose to go after different issues in my discussions with Senator Green and in my testimony to the House Judiciary Committee.
You certainly seem to contradict yourself. If these are your TRUE feelings, WHY are you SUPPORTING this bill?
The cert expiration sucks & you are right, no training should be REQUIRED.
Yes, I agree it may be helpful and I would back classes in K-12 school.
Can we get an AMEN!
The notification should have been REMOVED rather then had punishment made mandatory.
Yep, nothing like creating a law to trip up the otherwise honest person and not actually "protect" anybody. The US Constitution 5thA protects the dishonest that is carrying illegally.
Cost should have gone down to $25 -$50 at most. Other states do it for that, we can too.
I can't really go to other States to justify a cost in this State, Yet we do have an example that we can point to. The Michigan Enhanced Drivers' License! This license has similar ID requirements and background/criminal check requirements, it just goes through different State and Federal bureaucracies.
Enhanced Driver's License
First
$45
Renew
$38
Duplicate
$24
Correction
$24
Late Renew
$45
Enhanced Chauffeur's License
First
$50
Renew
$43
Duplicate
$33
Correction
$33
Late Renew
$50
*To Add or Renew a CDL Group Designation or Endorsement (These fees apply in addition to the enhanced license fees above.)
CDL Group Designation - Group A, B or C
$25
CDL Endorsements - except CDL X
$5 ea
CDL X
$10
*To Add or Renew a Motorcycle Endorsement (These fees apply in addition to the enhanced license fees above.)
Add (standard or chauffeur enhanced license)
$13.50
Renew
$5
These make more sense as a basis for fee setting. We wouldn't need all the levels, and would have to allow actual costs for the physical cards, and we don't need to pay for "corrections" that might be their mistakes, but this would be a good place to start.
We dropped the language Snyder didn't like, we should get something for that rather then more restrictions.
What should have happened is that for the exchange of language he didn't like and was taking flack over, strip out funding or notification or any three things and let him negotiate ONE back in.
bigt8261
02-26-2015, 01:23 PM
Just because a bill contains some negative provisions, does not mean the bill is bad overall. I think we agree on what the positives and negatives are, we just disagree on their weight. As far as what I brought up in committee, my time was very limited and I chose to address issues that I thought we of more importance. Like increased fees and penalties.
I do personally support SB 34. That being said, I also supported MOC changing it's stance to neutral, and my support did not prevent me from addressing my concerns both privately with Green and publicly on behalf of MOC in committee.
10x25mm
02-26-2015, 01:32 PM
Michigan's Obamazoid lefties are now on record as opposing SB 0034 and all the other gun bills:
http://www.progressmichigan.org/2015/02/progress-michigan-urges-gov-snyder-veto-nra-backed-legislation/
Must be something good in the current batch of gun bills.
luckless
02-26-2015, 03:18 PM
Personally, its not the cert expiration that I'm the most upset with but the elimination of discretion by removing the word 'may' and replacing it with 'shall' in every instance.
I guess the real question I have is, who exactly wrote in the parts of this bill that make it so unpalatable?
Who in their right mind would think that replacing the word 'may' with 'shall' in every instance, would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
Who in their right mind would think that ADDING language that makes certs 'expire' would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
Who in their right mind would think that raising the cost of renewal, even with the possibility of it decreasing in the future would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
So I ask, who was it? Because if it was someone who is supposedly on our side, they need to be lambasted with disapproval from their constituents. Why on earth would they revise and add these deal breakers? They need to be held accountable.
The NRA wrote it. I believe The Michigan Gun Organization Which Shall Not be Named worked with them on the language.
luckless
02-26-2015, 03:20 PM
the way I see it...
may= there is a decision to be made
shall= no decision
May=discretion and leniency
Shall=mandatory minimum sentence/penalty
Leader
02-26-2015, 03:57 PM
Who in their right mind would think that ADDING language that makes certs 'expire' would be perceived as an advancement of our 2A rights?
The same people that think keeping GFZ's and just adding more classes ( and related fees) to be "qualified" to carry in them.
As I said, follow the MONEY.
Tallbear
02-27-2015, 09:20 AM
SB 0034 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals secs. 5m & 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425m & 28.426a).
Last Action: 2/26/2015 ORDERED ENROLLED
Paleocon
03-04-2015, 02:55 PM
Signed by Snyder today.
Lbox88
03-04-2015, 02:56 PM
I just got an email saying its been signed.
Dang, ninja'd already.
GTPprix
03-04-2015, 02:59 PM
Ha came here to post its on his desk ROFL.
ninjatoth
03-04-2015, 03:18 PM
There are some minor wording changes made to the application of a cpl itself. Do these minor changes take effect immediately and there are new applications even before eliminating gun boards, or are there new applications on dec 1st?
DP425
03-04-2015, 03:19 PM
Michigan's Obamazoid lefties are now on record as opposing SB 0034 and all the other gun bills:
http://www.progressmichigan.org/2015/02/progress-michigan-urges-gov-snyder-veto-nra-backed-legislation/
Must be something good in the current batch of gun bills.
that was worth of a LOL. So they are saying it should be vetoed, essentially, because it's streamlined enough and they should be working on something else? Are you kidding me? That is the BEST they can come up with?
The work has already been put into it; it's too late to use that time "working on something else".
Already streamlined enough? So it shouldn't be refined anymore?
Those are two of the weakest argument points I've seen yet
DP425
03-04-2015, 03:20 PM
There are some minor wording changes made to the application of a cpl itself. Do these minor changes take effect immediately and there are new applications even before eliminating gun boards, or are there new applications on dec 1st?
I believe it was given immediate effect. If that is the case, all aspects of the law for which are not otherwise specified, go into effect immediately.
There are a couple points in the law that dictate a date; but those are specific to those points, not the entire bill/law.
CircuitRider
03-04-2015, 03:21 PM
Signed into law:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150304/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-cpl-reform-bills
Sorry. I see that someone beat me to it by 8 minutes.
bigt8261
03-04-2015, 05:23 PM
I believe it was given immediate effect. If that is the case, all aspects of the law for which are not otherwise specified, go into effect immediately.
There are a couple points in the law that dictate a date; but those are specific to those points, not the entire bill/law.
Look at the very end of the bill. Almost everything is given a date.
Enacting section 1. Sections 5m and 6a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425m and 28.426a, are repealed effective 90 days
after the date this amendatory act is enacted into law.
Enacting section 2. Sections 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5o, and 8 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421, 28.422a, 28.424,
28.425, 28.425a, 28.425c, 28.425d, 28.425e, 28.425f, 28.425j, 28.425k, 28.425o, and 28.428, as amended by this amendatory
act, take effect December 1, 2015.
Enacting section 3. Sections 5b and 5l of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.425b and 28.425l, as amended by this amendatory act,
take effect 90 days after the date this amendatory act is enacted into law.
Enacting section 4. Section 5x of 1927 PA 372, as added by this amendatory act, takes effect 90 days after the date
this amendatory act is enacted into law.
DP425
03-04-2015, 05:28 PM
Good catch. I didn't see that; at least not on last year's version... That's a lot of sections covered by specified dates
ninjatoth
03-04-2015, 06:37 PM
Maybe I can get some help finding out when this part goes into effect, I can't understand any of the sections, but the new app lists a mental illness disqualifier as this now "The applicant has filed a statement under subsection (1)(d) that the applicant does not have a diagnosis of mental illness that includes an assessment that the individual presents a danger to himself or herself or to another at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment for that illness." Vs the old app that simply says " Do you have a diagnosed mental illness, regardless of whether you are receiving treatment for that illness?"..When does that change go into effect? One of them disqualifies me, one does not at all.
According to "2015-SFA-0034-F":
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2015-SFA-0034-F.pdf
Section 5x of the bill, which would require each county to establish a concealed pistol licensing fund, would take effect on April 1, 2015. The rest of the bill would take effect on October 1, 2015.
Roundballer
03-04-2015, 09:37 PM
According to "2015-SFA-0034-F":
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2015-SFA-0034-F.pdf
That is the analysis file, the dates have changed since that was published.
Maybe I can get some help finding out when this part goes into effect, I can't understand any of the sections, but the new app lists a mental illness disqualifier as this now "The applicant has filed a statement under subsection (1)(d) that the applicant does not have a diagnosis of mental illness that includes an assessment that the individual presents a danger to himself or herself or to another at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment for that illness." Vs the old app that simply says " Do you have a diagnosed mental illness, regardless of whether you are receiving treatment for that illness?"..When does that change go into effect? One of them disqualifies me, one does not at all.
That verbiage appears in 28.425(a) and takes effect Dec. 1, 2015.
Leader
03-04-2015, 09:37 PM
If I apply for a renewal before 10/1, for a permit that expires after 10/1 do I still have to pay the higher fee?
Roundballer
03-04-2015, 11:50 PM
If I apply for a renewal before 10/1, for a permit that expires after 10/1 do I still have to pay the higher fee?
The section that changes the fees (28.425l) takes effect in 90 days, but in that section it says this:
Beginning December 1, 2015, each applicant who submits an application for a renewal license to a county clerk under this section shall pay an application and licensing fee of $115.00 by any method of payment accepted by that county for payments of other fees and penalties.
So the renewal fee remains at $105.00 through Nov 30, 2015.
28.425(b)
(5)Until November 30, 2015, each applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application and licensing fee of $105.00 by any method of payment accepted by that county for payments of other fees and penalties.
This also takes effect in 90 days.
THE OCTOBER DATE HAS CHANGED TO DECEMBER!
luckless
03-05-2015, 08:04 AM
The problem seems to be that once a bill is written, it is impossible to get positive changes. We need to find a way to be involved in the writing process because our opinions seem completely irrelevant once the bill is introduced. These bills are always shunted to a committee that is guaranteed to ignore us in the ensuing debate.
langenc
03-05-2015, 08:32 AM
Now some counties get to wait weeks for a license issue. With the SoS it could have been an hour at the office--20-30 min around here.
Increase in infringements also liked by grantors of our rights..
have you discussed w/ your legislators SB 53, more special groups(next thread down)?? They are caving to LEO!!
luckless
03-05-2015, 08:50 AM
No one could convince them to fix SB 34,35. I doubt anyone will have better luck with SB 53. No sense wasting effort until the next primary. If they don't accept our input when they write this stuff we are coming too late to the game, I fear.
bigt8261
03-05-2015, 09:02 AM
The authors for SB 34 and 53 are both term limited.
Cletus
03-05-2015, 09:36 AM
Now some counties get to wait weeks for a license issue. With the SoS it could have been an hour at the office--20-30 min around here.
Just for some perspective, I lost my wallet last week. It took me 25 min at the SoS to apply for a replacement DL, which will arrive within 30 days. I went to the County Clerks office to apply for a replacement CPL, I was out of there in 5 min with my CPL in hand.
luckless
03-05-2015, 09:45 AM
The authors for SB 34 and 53 are both term limited.The man responsible for introducing SB 34 may be term limited. The person who wrote the legislation doesn't hold elected office.
Tallbear
03-05-2015, 09:55 AM
SB 0034 of 2015 (PA 0003 of 2015)
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to the department of state police and county clerks. Amends secs. 1, 2a, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals secs. 5m & 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425m & 28.426a).
Last Action: 3/5/2015 ASSIGNED PA 0003'15 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
SB 0035 of 2015 (PA 0004 of 2015)
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 0034'15
Last Action: 3/5/2015 ASSIGNED PA 0004'15 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT
councilman24
07-19-2015, 12:43 AM
I was told by a Michigan BATFE inspector today that when the gun boards go away so will the NICS exemption for CPL holders. That without the participation of the gun board the BATFE no longer considers the steps used to get a CPL sufficient to exempt holder from NICS, namely that law enforcement is no longer involved in the review/issuance. Now she thought it hadn't been signed yet, but I was pretty sure it had but didn't know the effective date. I'll show her the relevant page tomorrow.
Anyone else with info?
mosnar87
07-19-2015, 04:13 AM
I was told by a Michigan BATFE inspector today that when the gun boards go away so will the NICS exemption for CPL holders. That without the participation of the gun board the BATFE no longer considers the steps used to get a CPL sufficient to exempt holder from NICS, namely that law enforcement is no longer involved in the review/issuance. Now she thought it hadn't been signed yet, but I was pretty sure it had but didn't know the effective date. I'll show her the relevant page tomorrow.
Anyone else with info?
That seems odd. The background check, and thus the up/down call on eligibility, is still being handled by the MSP. That should satisfy the federal convenience store inspectors.
Roundballer
07-19-2015, 09:54 AM
I was told by a Michigan BATFE inspector today that when the gun boards go away so will the NICS exemption for CPL holders. That without the participation of the gun board the BATFE no longer considers the steps used to get a CPL sufficient to exempt holder from NICS, namely that law enforcement is no longer involved in the review/issuance. Now she thought it hadn't been signed yet, but I was pretty sure it had but didn't know the effective date. I'll show her the relevant page tomorrow.
Anyone else with info?
This sounds exactly **** the garbage that these "inspectors" were spouting when the legislation was passed so that we could get the consistent 5-year license. "Well your background check could be as much as 5 1/2 years old, that is no good". Half of the time I hear one of these "officials" talking, I am convinced that they do it just to hear themselves speak. This might just be a scare attempt, they don't like the "exemption" any way, many tell the FFLs to run the NICS even if. Don't sweat it until you see a letter that gives instructions in writing.
That seems odd. The background check, and thus the up/down call on eligibility, is still being handled by the MSP. That should satisfy the federal convenience store inspectors.
:yeahthat: There has been no change in the qualifications, or the investigations, just a change on the control of the process. It is "shall issue", a computer could be programed to handle everything, even the submission of finger prints. The process could be reduced to hours, or maybe a couple of days if you got the people out of it.
IraqVet1982
07-19-2015, 10:25 AM
If I'm not mistaken, NICS isn't a requirement at all. States opt-in to NICS. States are permitted to utilize their own background check system, hence the use of CPL.
Roundballer
07-19-2015, 11:03 AM
If I'm not mistaken, NICS isn't a requirement at all. States opt-in to NICS. States are permitted to utilize their own background check system, hence the use of CPL.
The States can "opt-in" for private sales, but Federal law controls what is required of Federal Firearms Licensees'. The FFL CAN NOT opt-out, the ATF will allow (within law) some substitutes for the NICS check, the CPL being one, and the FFL can opt-out of that and still run the check. States can also set up a POC (point of contact) where they act as the sole interface with the NICS, about 20 States do that.
The Feds also can not force (except by bribery or withholding grants) States to supply data to the NICS database.
Roundballer
07-19-2015, 01:08 PM
and 5
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.