SB 0053 retired federal law enforcement allowed to carry in PFZ

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-SB-0053)
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 1/28/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[G22]

No more special classes.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 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



AGENDA



SB 31 Sen. Hood Crimes; assaultive; penalties for assault on a sports official; enhance.



SB 32 Sen. Hood Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for crime of assault on sports official; enact.



SB 53 Sen. Jones Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for.

[dmd7765]

I personallly agree, no more special classes

[bigt8261]

Forgive me if this is not permitted.

For those of you who oppose special classes, MOC is calling on everyone to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee today tell them what you think.

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=c4bc0f6501

[bigt8261]

UPDATE: Two people, including Jason Gillman Jr. for MOC, testified against SB 53 while none testified in support. The committee adjourned without voting on SB 53, which seemed unexpected. At one point, Senator Jones, the bill's sponsor and committee chair, seemed a bit upset.

This means that everyone needs to keep pressuring the committee to kill the bill.

Keep calling. Keep writing.

No more special classes.

[G36 Shooter]

Will do.

[bigt8261]

UPDATE email sent out by MOC: http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=9c7d8874ff

Open letter to the committee: http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/02/open-letter-to-senate-judiciary-committee-sb53

[G22]

UPDATE: Two people, including Jason Gillman Jr. for MOC, testified against SB 53 while none testified in support. The committee adjourned without voting on SB 53, which seemed unexpected. At one point, Senator Jones, the bill's sponsor and committee chair, seemed a bit upset.

This means that everyone needs to keep pressuring the committee to kill the bill.

Keep calling. Keep writing.

No more special classes.

Done!

[dmd7765]

Done, Again

[gmanbp88]

Let me preface my comments with this...I speak for me and no one else...as a CPL instructor, former LE trainer, CPL holder and LEOSA certified retired fed..I do feel the PFZ issue needs to be revised..preferably by additional training requirements in my humble well trained opinion...this seems to make the most sense at this time.

As one of the people (retired Fed.) that will benefit from this bill..I strongly disagree with your "special class" designation. There is nothing special about adjusting the retired LEO definition to include trained, retired Federal Agents/Officers to carry in PFZ's..just like all MCOLES retired Officers are eligible to do...so with that logic retired MI. LEO's are a special class?

The people that will benefit from this are the public...this is a public safety issue.. not a special class issue. the retired Feds are taking on more liability as a CPL holder...having more well trained retired LEO's able to carry in PFZ's is a plus in my mind. If it passes..some may choose not to take the exemption...they may not want the liability..who knows...

In my situation..I am also Authorized to carry under HR218 (LEOSA) for 50 state carry..which costs me $120 per year in addition to my CPL fee...I must attend a 6 hour class and pass the MCOLES course of fire and written test...however this still does not make me PFZ exempt...Why? Because I was not formerly MCOLES certified...SB0053 simply corrects this....all retired LEO's will be treated the same...PFZ exempt..we earned it...

Not all retired Feds are CPL holders...not all retired Feds are LEOSA qualified...not all retired Feds carry...but for those who are and choose to take on the additional liability...why not? This does not effect you or MGO in any way, shape or form...until such time until we can get the law changed/revised..whom would be better suited to carry/deal with a situation in a PFZ...a trained retired LEO or a newbie CPL holder who took a class with a rented .22?....just sayin..

Please feel free to contact me anytime..

Ray Beattie
Special Agent/Homeland Security Inv. (Ret.)
Thor Tactical Training (thortactical@aol.com)
Trenton, MI.
734-818-0936








No more special classes.

[Jared1981]

Let me preface my comments with this...I speak for me and no one else...as a CPL instructor, former LE trainer, CPL holder and LEOSA certified retired fed..I do feel the PFZ issue needs to be revised..preferably by additional training requirements in my humble well trained opinion...this seems to make the most sense at this time.

As one of the people (retired Fed.) that will benefit from this bill..I strongly disagree with your "special class" designation. There is nothing special about adjusting the retired LEO definition to include trained, retired Federal Agents/Officers to carry in PFZ's..just like all MCOLES retired Officers are eligible to do...so with that logic retired MI. LEO's are a special class?

The people that will benefit from this are the public...this is a public safety issue.. not a special class issue. the retired Feds are taking on more liability as a CPL holder...having more well trained retired LEO's able to carry in PFZ's is a plus in my mind. If it passes..some may choose not to take the exemption...they may not want the liability..who knows...

In my situation..I am also Authorized to carry under HR218 (LEOSA) for 50 state carry..which costs me $120 per year in addition to my CPL fee...I must attend a 6 hour class and pass the MCOLES course of fire and written test...however this still does not make me PFZ exempt...Why? Because I was not formerly MCOLES certified...SB0053 simply corrects this....all retired LEO's will be treated the same...PFZ exempt..we earned it...

Not all retired Feds are CPL holders...not all retired Feds are LEOSA qualified...not all retired Feds carry...but for those who are and choose to take on the additional liability...why not? This does not effect you or MGO in any way, shape or form...until such time until we can get the law changed/revised..whom would be better suited to carry/deal with a situation in a PFZ...a trained retired LEO or a newbie CPL holder who took a class with a rented .22?....just sayin..

Please feel free to contact me anytime..

Ray Beattie
Special Agent/Homeland Security Inv. (Ret.)
Thor Tactical Training (thortactical@aol.com)
Trenton, MI.
734-818-0936

The only thing an exempt CPL gives someone over LEOSA is the ability to carry in public schools. All other zones are preempted by LEOSA, unless they are private property that prohibits firearms.

You can already carry in almost every PFZ concealed with LEOSA so it's not as bad as you make it sound.

The Michigan MCOLES LEOSA qual isn't needed. Any police firearms instructor can qualify you on the state standard and you can carry a copy of whatever he or she gives you. It's cheaper this way, not to mention that MCOLES doesn't even understand that LEOSA doesn't require that you to shoot with a pistol and a revolver, they just want more $$$ off you. Types of firearms are defined in 18 USC 921.... Handgun, rifle, shotgun, SBR, SBS etc.

[gmanbp88]

Not sure where you are getting your info brother...I have been living this for the last four years...as per the AG opinion..a retired Fed is not considered a retired police officer in MI for CPL purposes for the exemption box to be checked...a retired PO is one that has been issued a MCOLES cert and meet all other requirements.

As per published LEOSA guidelines...LEOSA holders are NOT exempt from restrictions from PFZ...unless one is also a CPL holder which has the exempt box checked on his CPL..which retired FEDs are not eligible to receive..unless SB0053 is passed..

MCOLES/LEOSA published guidelines/FAQS specifically states that Departments may certify their own former officers...however are not authorized to certify retirees from other agencies. As long as they are certified to the MCOLES active duty standard and comply with all provisions of LEOSA..which is a liability lecture...written test and qual...which I am sure the departments are doing (yea right.. with much sarcasm)...my agency will not qual us as they are not authorized to do so..

As a retired fed...I cannot go through any other entity to get a LEOSA card...I have to attach a copy of a current/valid LEOSA Cred that I receive from my former agency..yearly to be eligible...

You are confusing MI. retired LEO's and retired Feds...not the same process brother...

I don't understand your last sentence regarding pistol/revolver $$$ comment so I can't address that..

For clarification you should call Larry West at Macomb co. Community College @ 586-498-4065 or Pat Hutting @ MCOLES 517-322-3967




The only thing an exempt CPL gives someone over LEOSA is the ability to carry in public schools. All other zones are preempted by LEOSA, unless they are private property that prohibits firearms.

You can already carry in almost every PFZ concealed with LEOSA so it's not as bad as you make it sound.

The Michigan MCOLES LEOSA qual isn't needed. Any police firearms instructor can qualify you on the state standard and you can carry a copy of whatever he or she gives you. It's cheaper this way, not to mention that MCOLES doesn't even understand that LEOSA doesn't require that you to shoot with a pistol and a revolver, they just want more $$$ off you. Types of firearms are defined in 18 USC 921.... Handgun, rifle, shotgun, SBR, SBS etc.

[Jared1981]

Not sure where you are getting your info brother...I have been living this for the last four years...as per the AG opinion..a retired Fed is not considered a retired police officer in MI for CPL purposes for the exemption box to be checked...a retired PO is one that has been issued a MCOLES cert and meet all other requirements.

I'm well aware that you don't qualify for an exempt CPL. My point was that it's irrelevant unless you want to carry in a public school because LEOSA preempts almost every other restriction that Michigan imposes.


As per published LEOSA guidelines...LEOSA holders are NOT exempt from restrictions from PFZ...unless one is also a CPL holder which has the exempt box checked on his CPL..which retired FEDs are not eligible to receive..unless SB0053 is passed..

What guidelines, Michigan, nor any other state are authorized by federal law to "write" LEOSA guidelines. In fact, MCOLES completely botches it up and is incapable of reading LEOSA for what it says. Same for Hawaii, same for Nevada, same for Connecticut, same for Massachusetts. in fact, the only LEOSA FAQ from a state office that I have seen (and I've read them all) that is almost spot on is what the North Carolina AG put out.


MCOLES/LEOSA published guidelines/FAQS specifically states that Departments may certify their own former officers...however are not authorized to certify retirees from other agencies.

Again, this is another Michigan imposed requirement, they don't have any leeway to do this. LEOSA is quite clear on how one qualifies.


As long as they are certified to the MCOLES active duty standard and comply with all provisions of LEOSA..which is a liability lecture...written test and qual...which I am sure the departments are doing (yea right.. with much sarcasm)...my agency will not qual us as they are not authorized to do so..

I know that ICE won't let retiree's run through their qual course. That has nothing to do with MCOLES. Since ICE won't qualify you, your only other option in Michigan is to be qualified to "the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State If the MCOLES instructor isn't doing exactly what that line I underlined said, then it's not valid. I'm not sure if that's what MCOLES is doing, but if they aren't then it's not valid per 18 USC 926c(c)(4). I hope that they are, but so many states have set up "special retired courses" and they don't meet the standard per 18 USC 926c(c)(4)




As a retired fed...I cannot go through any other entity to get a LEOSA card...I have to attach a copy of a current/valid LEOSA Cred that I receive from my former agency..yearly to be eligible...

That is correct, you need your ICE photo ID. I know that ICE puts an expiration date on the ID; however, that's just them being jerks. Nothing in 18 USC 926c says the photo ID can expire. The only thing that expires is the yearly certification. Having read the ICE retiree ID policy, it's painless to renew it every year, but if your new one hasn't arrived, you can still carry the "expired" ID with your yearly LEOSA cert and it's still valid according to the law.


I don't understand your last sentence regarding pistol/revolver $$$ comment so I can't address that..


I was saying that MCOLES doesn't understand the law. They put verbage like "semi auto" and "revolver" on the LEOSA certification. That's not what 18 USC 926c(e)(1)(a) clearly says that types of firearms are defined in 18 USC 921, which "semi auto" and "revolver" aren't found anywhere in Title 18 of US Code. If you qual with a handgun, you can carry any handgun, if you qual with a rifle or a shotgun, you can carry that under LEOSA, even loaded in a vehicle, as long as it's concealed. This is another thing that MCOLES hasn't taken into account because their program directors in Lansing are clueless, they think it just applies to handguns, it doesn't. In fact, when LEOSA was passed, an amendment tried to limit it to just handguns, and it failed in house committee.



For clarification you should call Larry West at Macomb co. Community College @ 586-498-4065 or Pat Hutting @ MCOLES 517-322-3967

Being that MCOLES has a botch FAQ online, I doubt that they would be much help. If they are basing it off of MCL 528.11 thru 27 then they aren't going to grasp it. Lots of what MCL 528.11 thru 27 says is contrary to LEOSA and it's preempted. This isn't suprising, lots of states have tried to undermine or botch their attempt at LEOSA certification. They make it way more complicated than it needs to be.

What I'm trying to show you is that if you take each of the 10 PFZ's and run it though the text of LEOSA they are all preempted except for public schools. For example.

A bar and daycare center are PFZ's. However, with LEOSA, they aren't. LEOSA clearly states in 18 USC 926c(b)(1) and (2)

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

So you must ask, are private schools, hospitals, daycare centers, bars, entertainment facilities (2500+) restricted by private entities (not by the state) or are they "government property, installation, building, base, or park"? If not then they are preempted and you can carry there with LEOSA.

I know that MCOLES doesn't get it. They just assume that 18USC 926c(b)(1) and (2) equate to PFZ's, but it doesn't. If that was the case, then LEOSA would be meaningless.

Michigan isn't alone in this, Illinois tried to prosecute Drew Peterson for having a short barrled shotgun (illegal in Illinois); however, the charge was bounced out of court because LEOSA entitled him to carry a SBS under LEOSA, it didn't matter what Illinois said or thought, they, nor any other state gets to take an eraser to LEOSA and re-write it to their satisfaction.

Same with Michigan, if you take every PFZ and run it through 18 USC926c(b)(1) and 18 USC 926c(b)(2), you will see that most of them are preempted.

Same thing with Michigan's requirement for implied consent (28.425k), the 0.02 BAC limit, and the mandatory disclosure law (28.425f), none of them apply to LEOSA carriers, even though MCOLES says that they do and even though MCL 528 says they do, they don't get to re-write federal law. So far, the only state I have seen that has acknowledged this and admits this is North Carolina. Michigan, like so many other states think that parts of LEOSA were too liberal, and they even tried to codify into state law a stricter version; however, no stricter state version matters. That's why it's a federal preemption law.

I hope this helps you so you see that you can use LEOSA to carry in almost all places that an exempt CPL would due to how LEOSA preempts it.

Normally, I wouldn't write all this at 4 in the morning, but Jeff spoke highly of you before he retired back in 2013. So I don't mind helping. I know this is confusing and it will cause about a billion comments from other people on MGO, but I hope this sheds some light on how battered the MCOLES process is for LEOSA and how they incorrectly tell people that so many legal actions are illegal.

[bigt8261]

I do feel the PFZ issue needs to be revised..preferably by additional training requirements

Eliminating PFZs is about respecting rights and requiring training does not respect rights. I'm an instructor as well and while it would be great to have a huge demand for PPOTH classes, I fundamentally disagree it should be required.



As one of the people (retired Fed.) that will benefit from this bill..I strongly disagree with your "special class" designation. There is nothing special about adjusting the retired LEO definition to include trained, retired Federal Agents/Officers to carry in PFZ's..just like all MCOLES retired Officers are eligible to do...so with that logic retired MI. LEO's are a special class?

Yes you would be a special class as you would be allowed to do more than than everyone else because ... you have been deemed special. Yes, absolutely MI LEOs are a special class. Every single enumerated group in MCL 28.425o (5) is a special class.

Google defined "special" as: "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual." I think the title fits.



The people that will benefit from this are the public...this is a public safety issue.. not a special class issue. the retired Feds are taking on more liability as a CPL holder...having more well trained retired LEO's able to carry in PFZ's is a plus in my mind.

I agree more people carrying in these zones is better, but Senator Jones has never mentioned this bill as a public safety issue, including in a lengthy face to face yesterday. This bill was not put forward for public safety, it was put forward to treat RFLEOs special.



This does not effect you or MGO in any way, shape or form

Again I disagree. Every group that is exempted is another group that doesn't have to fight for everyone else. This strategy has become very common at the White House lately. They keep exempting people from some of the bad provisions in Obamacare so that fewer people will ask for its repeal.

The first groups that were added in 2002 were LEOs. If we had said everyone or no one back then, we would probably have no or few PFZs by now.

[G36 Shooter]

Eliminating PFZs is about respecting rights and requiring training does not respect rights. I'm an instructor as well and while it would be great to have a huge demand for PPOTH classes, I fundamentally disagree it should be required.



Yes you would be a special class as you would be allowed to do more than than everyone else because ... you have been deemed special. Yes, absolutely MI LEOs are a special class. Every single enumerated group in MCL 28.425o (5) is a special class.

Google defined "special" as: "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual." I think the title fits.



I agree more people carrying in these zones is better, but Senator Jones has never mentioned this bill as a public safety issue, including in a lengthy face to face yesterday. This bill was not put forward for public safety, it was put forward to treat RFLEOs special.



Again I disagree. Every group that is exempted is another group that doesn't have to fight for everyone else. This strategy has become very common at the White House lately. They keep exempting people from some of the bad provisions in Obamacare so that fewer people will ask for its repeal.

The first groups that were added in 2002 were LEOs. If we had said everyone or no one back then, we would probably have no or few PFZs by now.

Yes to this.

[bigt8261]

While SB 53 was not on any of the formal notices that were sent out, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Chairman and SB 53's sponsor, Rick Jones, brought up SB 53 for a vote. The bill was recommended unanimously despite the public receiving no prior notice.

I was also in Jones's office less than an hour before the committee meeting and we talked about SB 53. He mentioned it would come up again, but said nothing about it coming up in meeting that day.

As the official notice contained no mention of SB 53, and Senator Jones made no mention of SB 53, no alert was sent out to call the committee members.

This smells very bad.

[oldmann1967]

While SB 53 was not on any of the formal notices that were sent out, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Chairman and SB 53's sponsor, Rick Jones, brought up SB 53 for a vote. The bill was recommended unanimously despite the public receiving no prior notice.

I was also in Jones's office less than an hour before the committee meeting and we talked about SB 53. He mentioned it would come up again, but said nothing about it coming up in meeting that day.

As the official notice contained no mention of SB 53, and Senator Jones made no mention of SB 53, no alert was sent out to call the committee members.

This smells very bad.

Not saying it is right, but this happens in lansing all the time. If the comittee is together anyone can make a motion, second, discuss, then it is brought to a vote. They probably wanted to take the rest of the week to work out of comittee, take time off, etc so they took care of all business. Lame though, i agree.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 2/12/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

[oldmann1967]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 2/12/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

The Senate website said that on 2-11.

[Roundballer]

The Senate website said that on 2-11.

What site is that?

This is the Michigan Legislature Website (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0053).

It reflect the same info that Tallbear posted.

[gjgalligan]

To gmanbp88 (and others that feel special)

The real question is why are some people's lifes more valuable then others? Why should you and other "special people" be able to protect themselves and their family any more then the rest of us?

I guess we are all second class citizens and not entitled like the first class people.

[ChaneyD]

Shouldn't this include military MP's? Are they not FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS?

[Roundballer]

Shouldn't this include military MP's? Are they not FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS?

No, not really. Those that are Federal Armed Services are not Law Enforcement as would be defined in MCL for this purpose. The MP's are guards, escort, and many thing along those lines, but can't be used to enforce law within the US.

Now, don't confuse National Guard MP's, with Federal. Those are State, and can be used to "quell disturbances" and enforce law in disaster areas.

I am not positive of all of the powers and limitations, but I am positive that the two groups don't fit the definitions. One group is Federal and not Law Enforcement, the other is not Federal.

[MP Miller]

MPs were added to the LEOSA in 2013. The services are developing their policies and the Air Force is already issuing credentials.

MI will issue retired LEO creds to retired MPS if they have a memorandum from an MP commander.

[ChaneyD]

As it should be. So, who has a higher authority - MP's on a VA base or the VA police?

[MP Miller]

As it should be. So, who has a higher authority - MP's on a VA base or the VA police?
The MPs

[oldmann1967]

What site is that?

This is the Michigan Legislature Website (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0053).

It reflect the same info that Tallbear posted.

That is what I meant. Just pointing out the fact that whoever possitethe date on the above site, posted that the action was completed on the 12th when I saw it on the same site on the 11th.

In other words, the timeline doesn't jive.

[PhotoTom]

That is what I meant. Just pointing out the fact that whoever posted on that site posted it was done on the 12th when I saw it on the 1th.

But what site did you see it posted on the 1th? ;)
I searched the "Senate" website and everything seemed to link to the official www.mileg.org site...

-Tom

[oldmann1967]

Sorry, do all my posting on a "smart" phone.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gjh1iz55sxik3e55qsiw5v45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2015-SB-0053

[Roundballer]

Regardless of what additional good ol' boys network is being set up and how many other nebulous persons that can get themselves "qualified" on request......

WE DON'T WANT OR NEED ANY MORE SPECIAL CLASSES OF EXEMPTED PERSONS.


I am personally related to a Lt Col MP (retired), as far as actual abilities in this area, I am infinitely more qualified than he is for being exempt from a real life perspective. Even he would admit it.

And I am still not sure that they would meet the definitions that are spelled out in MCL.

Are the MP's of a group within the US Armed Forces (MP's Shore Patrol, whatever), considered to be a "Law Enforcement Agency"? Do they meet all of the conditions as listed in this bill?


(i) "Retired federal law enforcement officer" means an individual who was an officer or agent employed by a law enforcement agency of the United States government whose primary responsibility was enforcing laws of the United States, who was required to carry a firearm in the course of his or her duties as a law enforcement officer, and who retired in good standing from his or her employment as a federal law enforcement officer.

[MP Miller]

And I am still not sure that they would meet the definitions that are spelled out in MCL.

Are the MP's of a group within the US Armed Forces (MP's Shore Patrol, whatever), considered to be a "Law Enforcement Agency"? Do they meet all of the conditions as listed in this bill?
The state seems to think so

http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,4607,7-229--210361--,00.html

[Roundballer]

The state seems to think so

http://www.michigan.gov/mcoles/0,4607,7-229--210361--,00.html
Okay, I fished around in that (crappy) link until I found something buried in a pdf file.

Basically, SOME MP's will be able to qualify under Michigans' recognition of the Federal Act.

Only those who had powers of apprehension under section 807(b) of Title 10, United States Code [article 7(b)] of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Feds really are trying to create an armed them, against an unarmed us.

[MP Miller]

Okay, I fished around in that (crappy) link until I found something buried in a pdf file.

Basically, SOME MP's will be able to qualify under Michigans' recognition of the Federal Act.

Only those who had powers of apprehension under section 807(b) of Title 10, United States Code [article 7(b)] of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Feds really are trying to create an armed them, against an unarmed us.

All MPs have apprehension athority.

MPs are mentioned at the bottom of the first paragraph of the link. No need to dig.


Michigan Retired Law Enforcement Officer's Firearm Carry Act (LEOSA)

The Michigan Retired Law Enforcement Officer's Firearm Carry Act became effective in Michigan on March 31, 2009. In January 2013, the U.S. Congress amended the LEOSA law to include military police and Department of Defense officers.

Information and forms are currently available for viewing, saving to your computer, and printing by clicking on the links below:

[gmanbp88]

How dare you post a comment like this...save your juvenile rhetoric for some other forum...we are discussing this as adults and in an open respectful dialog....if you can't do so in that manner..maybe you should refrain from commenting until you can contribute, educate and not agitate...your comments are a blatant attempt to divide and mis direct the conversation. Your insinuation this an us against them argument is disgusting and unfounded.

The PFZ issue and general gun rights issues are very important to me and most of my former colleagues....none of us EVER consider ourselves special over the people we served..we did our jobs...we are/were public SERVANTS...we took an oath on many occasions to defend the Constitution..which included the 2A..we had no control of how the PFZ law shook out initially...me personally..i was not even living in the state when created...

I am all for correcting/improving something that will benefit all CPL holders and our families..together we can do it...but gear up for battle..it will take a while.

Your poor attempt at sarcasm and sharp comment are wasted on people that have seen and done more in 25-30 year careers serving the public honorably than you can even begin to imagine..if calling retired Feds/PO's a special class is in some vain attempt to demean or try to incite anger by some towards us you have failed miserably.

Inferring our families are more important than anyone else's is a personal attack on me, my colleagues and all the PO's that have sacrificed lives, blood,family, friends and time in serving and protecting our communities..remember we live in houses like you..not ivory towers...we send our kids to the same schools and shop where you do.

I will do as I have always done...remain diligent..train and protect the public if needed even into retirement...with or without PFZ exemption..

I find your comment inflammatory, hostile and unfounded as well as completely wrong...as i hope others do in this discussion...if you do not agree with the bill call your senator and exercise your 1A..better yet..get off your ass...go to Lansing and testify against it....not hide behind your keyboard and insult highly trained, skilled and selfless former public servants...It is my sincerest hope that a moderator agrees and sanctions your useless, baseless and divisive comments.

I look forward to more useful and meaningful comment that will helps us all in this discussion..

Gman (ret.)




To gmanbp88 (and others that feel special)

The real question is why are some people's lifes more valuable then others? Why should you and other "special people" be able to protect themselves and their family any more then the rest of us?

I guess we are all second class citizens and not entitled like the first class people.

[wsr]

How dare you post a comment like this...save your juvenile rhetoric for some other forum...we are discussing this as adults and in an open respectful dialog....if you can't do so in that manner..maybe you should refrain from commenting until you can contribute, educate and not agitate...your comments are a blatant attempt to divide and mis direct the conversation. Your insinuation this an us against them argument is disgusting and unfounded.

The PFZ issue and general gun rights issues are very important to me and most of my former colleagues....none of us EVER consider ourselves special over the people we served..we did our jobs...we are/were public SERVANTS...we took an oath on many occasions to defend the Constitution..which included the 2A..we had no control of how the PFZ law shook out initially...me personally..i was not even living in the state when created...

I am all for correcting/improving something that will benefit all CPL holders and our families..together we can do it...but gear up for battle..it will take a while.

Your poor attempt at sarcasm and sharp comment are wasted on people that have seen and done more in 25-30 year careers serving the public honorably than you can even begin to imagine..if calling retired Feds/PO's a special class is in some vain attempt to demean or try to incite anger by some towards us you have failed miserably.

Inferring our families are more important than anyone else's is a personal attack on me, my colleagues and all the PO's that have sacrificed lives, blood,family, friends and time in serving and protecting our communities..remember we live in houses like you..not ivory towers...we send our kids to the same schools and shop where you do.

I will do as I have always done...remain diligent..train and protect the public if needed even into retirement...with or without PFZ exemption..

I find your comment inflammatory, hostile and unfounded as well as completely wrong...as i hope others do in this discussion...if you do not agree with the bill call your senator and exercise your 1A..better yet..get off your ass...go to Lansing and testify against it....not hide behind your keyboard and insult highly trained, skilled and selfless former public servants...It is my sincerest hope that a moderator agrees and sanctions your useless, baseless and divisive comments.

I look forward to more useful and meaningful comment that will helps us all in this discussion..

Gman (ret.)


A little over dramatic dont you think?
What else would you call a class of citizen that has special rules seperatefrom the others?

wsr

[gmanbp88]

Originally Posted by gjgalligan


No..did you read this post?...dont talk to me about dramatic..im all for discussion..but dont play word games with me and turn this into something its not...especially invoking a false argument of value of life..

To gmanbp88 (and others that feel special)

The real question is why are some people's lifes more valuable then others? Why should you and other "special people" be able to protect themselves and their family any more then the rest of us?

I guess we are all second class citizens and not entitled like the first class people.

[ChaneyD]

Originally Posted by gjgalligan


No..did you read this post?...dont talk to me about dramatic..im all for discussion..but dont play word games with me and turn this into something its not...especially invoking a false argument of value of life..

To gmanbp88 (and others that feel special)

The real question is why are some people's lifes more valuable then others? Why should you and other "special people" be able to protect themselves and their family any more then the rest of us?

I guess we are all second class citizens and not entitled like the first class people.

Trying not to inflame this thread anymore than it has been but the question still remains. Do you think by passing this bill that it DOES create a separate class of citizens? If certain law enforcement personnel are granted this exemption, this is then a separate class. We appreciate your service and these comments aren't against you or the LEO community but about the bill itself. You don't have a horse in this race but someone in Lansing decided to implement this bill. What about all the retired military out there? I'm sure they have more firearm training and combat experience than LEO's but yet we're not being exempted. I thank you for your service.

[gjgalligan]

I will do as I have always done...remain diligent..train and protect the public if needed even into retirement...with or without PFZ exemption..

I find your comment inflammatory, hostile and unfounded as well as completely wrong...as i hope others do in this discussion...if you do not agree with the bill call your senator and exercise your 1A..better yet..get off your ass...go to Lansing and testify against it....not hide behind your keyboard and insult highly trained, skilled and selfless former public servants...It is my sincerest hope that a moderator agrees and sanctions your useless, baseless and divisive comments.

I look forward to more useful and meaningful comment that will helps us all in this discussion..

Gman (ret.)

So, you are saying you will break the law if you don't get your special status (your with or without comment)?
You say your kids go to the same school, you shop in the same stores but yet you think you deserve special privileges to protect your family that others can't have.

I really do thank the military, police, judges, corrections officers, fire fighters, ect for all they do for this country. I have been part of a couple of those groups during my lifetime. Other then the draft, all groups mentioned were not forced to do what they did, they asked for the jobs. The special perks should be over once the job is over.
I just am tired of the people that look down there noses at us second class people and think they are better then us.


I have called/wrote many times to complain about "special classes" of people. Doesn't seem to do much good as most elected officials also think they are even more special then anybody and can do what they want.

So, to quote you, I find your comment inflammatory, hostile . Please take off your rose colored glasses and see the world like us peons see it.

[bigt8261]

How dare you post a comment like this...save your juvenile rhetoric for some other forum...we are discussing this as adults and in an open respectful dialog....if you can't do so in that manner..maybe you should refrain from commenting until you can contribute, educate and not agitate...your comments are a blatant attempt to divide and mis direct the conversation. Your insinuation this an us against them argument is disgusting and unfounded.

The PFZ issue and general gun rights issues are very important to me and most of my former colleagues....none of us EVER consider ourselves special over the people we served..we did our jobs...we are/were public SERVANTS...we took an oath on many occasions to defend the Constitution..which included the 2A..we had no control of how the PFZ law shook out initially...me personally..i was not even living in the state when created...

I am all for correcting/improving something that will benefit all CPL holders and our families..together we can do it...but gear up for battle..it will take a while.

Your poor attempt at sarcasm and sharp comment are wasted on people that have seen and done more in 25-30 year careers serving the public honorably than you can even begin to imagine..if calling retired Feds/PO's a special class is in some vain attempt to demean or try to incite anger by some towards us you have failed miserably.

Inferring our families are more important than anyone else's is a personal attack on me, my colleagues and all the PO's that have sacrificed lives, blood,family, friends and time in serving and protecting our communities..remember we live in houses like you..not ivory towers...we send our kids to the same schools and shop where you do.

I will do as I have always done...remain diligent..train and protect the public if needed even into retirement...with or without PFZ exemption..

I find your comment inflammatory, hostile and unfounded as well as completely wrong...as i hope others do in this discussion...if you do not agree with the bill call your senator and exercise your 1A..better yet..get off your ass...go to Lansing and testify against it....not hide behind your keyboard and insult highly trained, skilled and selfless former public servants...It is my sincerest hope that a moderator agrees and sanctions your useless, baseless and divisive comments.

I look forward to more useful and meaningful comment that will helps us all in this discussion..

Gman (ret.)

So, you say you're not special, but then you go on to detail how you are special. Nice.

[luckless]

[QUOTE=gmanbp88;2558616]
As one of the people (retired Fed.) that will benefit from this bill..I strongly disagree with your "special class" designation. There is nothing special about adjusting the retired LEO definition to include trained, retired Federal Agents/Officers to carry in PFZ's..just like all MCOLES retired Officers are eligible to do...so with that logic retired MI. LEO's are a special class?


....all retired LEO's will be treated the same...PFZ exempt..we earned it...

..whom would be better suited to carry/deal with a situation in a PFZ...a trained retired LEO or a newbie CPL holder who took a class with a rented .22?....just sayin..


I can accept that you don't feel you are a special class but your original post contains some statements that would lead a reader to believe otherwise.

[MP Miller]

Equal treatment under the law, what?

[wsr]

Originally Posted by gjgalligan


No..did you read this post?...dont talk to me about dramatic..im all for discussion..but dont play word games with me and turn this into something its not...especially invoking a false argument of value of life..

To gmanbp88 (and others that feel special)

The real question is why are some people's lifes more valuable then others? Why should you and other "special people" be able to protect themselves and their family any more then the rest of us?

I guess we are all second class citizens and not entitled like the first class people.

You are the one playing word games "special class" is not a attack or insult its simply a accurate description of the situation
Nobody is saying you dont deserve the right to carry in pfz's we are just saying you dont deserve it anymore than any other normal American

[G36 Shooter]

And this is how the rights for all is diminished by the rights for some.

[gmanbp88]

Ahhhhh yeeees..... Utopia....Plutos Republic...when you find it let me know..cause i for one am tired of fighting.

Wake up brother we are in a dystopia...and have been for a long time....




And this is how the rights for all is diminished by the rights for some.

[gmanbp88]

I understand the point and the argument well..I pay attention brother...i just don't like the moniker....."special" never sat well with me.

I understand with some/most here its...all or no one...I'm on the fence about that...only because i think about something going wrong/very bad like.... (insert your scenario here).. in a PFZ to a LEO or CPL holder..we are all done then

Trust me..there are people in power wringing their hands..right or wrong..waiting to clamp down us when it does.

And the conversation continues...




You are the one playing word games "special class" is not a attack or insult its simply a accurate description of the situation
Nobody is saying you dont deserve the right to carry in pfz's we are just saying you dont deserve it anymore than any other normal American

[bigt8261]

I understand with some/most here its...all or no one...I'm on the fence about that...only because i think about something going wrong/very bad like.... (insert your scenario here).. in a PFZ to a LEO or CPL holder..we are all done then

People cannot be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly and if one messes up, that is proof they are all irresponsible. Sounds exactly like something Shannon Watts would say.

[gmanbp88]

Point taken....i just don't agree with the all in or none discussion.

And so it continues....




[QUOTE=gmanbp88;2558616]
As one of the people (retired Fed.) that will benefit from this bill..I strongly disagree with your "special class" designation. There is nothing special about adjusting the retired LEO definition to include trained, retired Federal Agents/Officers to carry in PFZ's..just like all MCOLES retired Officers are eligible to do...so with that logic retired MI. LEO's are a special class?


....all retired LEO's will be treated the same...PFZ exempt..we earned it...

..whom would be better suited to carry/deal with a situation in a PFZ...a trained retired LEO or a newbie CPL holder who took a class with a rented .22?....just sayin..


I can accept that you don't feel you are a special class but your original post contains some statements that would lead a reader to believe otherwise.

[G22]

Point taken....i just don't agree with the all in or none discussion.

And so it continues....

I've personally witnessed LEO who could not hit the broad side of a barn with a brick. I've personally been to a range where a LEO actually shot the Lexan separating the individual shooter lanes on an indoor range.

Thank God for Lexan or the person shooting next to her would have been in serious need of medical attention.

On the other hand I've also witnessed LEO's who were extremely proficient and safe.

If you don't believe in the all or nothing discussion, why would you advocate for all retired federal officers to be exempt from PFZ's?

[luckless]

Point taken....i just don't agree with the all in or none discussion.

And so it continues....



[QUOTE=luckless;2561324]

United, we stand. Divided, we fall.

I guess we just disagree. No problem. I will continue to press our legislators to protect everyone's Second Amendment rights, you can continue to argue for your rights and that of your colleagues.

[bigt8261]

I finally received a copy of the video for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing from February 3rd. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYRHKUC4dj4

Senator Rick Jones commented that an announcement was made that SB 53 would be voted on the following week. As you can see in the video, this is not true.

There was no public announcement what so ever that SB 53 would receive a vote on February 10th. Regardless of what you think about SB 53, the actions of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Jones are an affront to transparency.

[gjgalligan]

I was a bit involved in getting the word out about the SHALL ISSUE being pushed prior to it becoming law. We didn't like the PFZs but accepted them as it was the best we could get at the time. We thought we could get rid of them in the future once the world didn't see blood running in the streets from the wild west shootouts that was predicted. That was kind of the thought process.

But at this point, IMHO, it seems that we lost the clout once the LEO community all got the exemptions. I have nothing personal against anybody from LE but I am tired of them getting special treatment.

gman, the "special" comments are not a personal attack on you, just a word that accurately describes the groups that got the special treatment. I really understand why LEOs want to be able to carry in case they run into an "old acquaintance" from their working days. I really do get it. As to all of you being more qualified then all of the rest of us, no way.
LEOs asked for their jobs, once retired they are just plain, ordinary citizens like the rest of us.

[bigt8261]

A little related light reading.

Did Rick Jones Lie to People on Facebook?
http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/02/Rick-Jones-On-Facebook

Pro-Gun Groups Blast Michigan Senate For Passing 'No-Carry Zone' Exemption
http://wemu.org/post/pro-gun-groups-blast-michigan-senate-passing-no-carry-zone-exemption

[G36 Shooter]

Sen. Jones owes the people an answer.

[gmanbp88]

As a former LEO trainer.. I have seen and heard all the stories brother...however, as a FI/CPL instructor..i have seen some of the most dangerous people with firearms..downright scary....cant fix stupid at any level however...

Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?

[Roundballer]

Sen. Jones owes the people an answer.
We HAVE the answer. It is "conflict of interest" or perhaps "malfeasance". After all, he is the bills' primary sponsor!

[gmanbp88]

Yep thats us...just plain ordinary citizens...good luck to you out there brother

[luckless]

Rock Jones has never been a friend of gun owners. His committee is the one that all good gun bills go to get screwed up.

[SADAacp]

As a former LEO trainer.. I have seen and heard all the stories brother...however, as a FI/CPL instructor..i have seen some of the most dangerous people with firearms..downright scary....cant fix stupid at any level however...

Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?

Obviously, you just don't get it and never will.

How much "training" has Lee Paige, Joseph Weekley and Johannes Mehserle, to name a few, acquired in their careers?

Folks here and elsewhere couldn't give a shyte less if you can carry in PFZ's. Personally, I really don't think ANYONE, who, under federal and state law that is allowed to possess, carry and transport firearms should be prohibited to carry in those PFZ's. There wasn't a problem in this state with CPL holders prior to Shall Issue and there wouldn't be today. Perhaps you're so in love with yourself you just can't, and never will, come to grips with the fact that all the "shootouts at the bars" and "blood in the streets" didn't happen. I know, disappointing isn't it?

[bigt8261]

Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?

No.

[Roundballer]

<snip>
Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?
This is not a question of "training" or any other form of "additional certification"!

The issue is that there are certain groups of people that are being exempted from the laws that everyone else must live under!

Let's try this:
MCL 28-425o (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425o)


(1) Subject to subsection (5), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(h), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
That is the law.
Now let's look at all of the existing exemptions listed in subsection 5.
We'll trim out the extraneous language down to just naming the group:


(a) a retired police officer or retired law enforcement officer
(b) An individual employed or contracted by one of the PFZs to provide security services and is required by contract to carry a concealed on the premises.
(c) a private investigator or private detective
(d) a corrections officer of a county sheriff's department.
(e) a motor carrier officer or capitol security officer of the department of state police.
(f) a member of a sheriff's posse.
(g) an auxiliary officer or reserve officer of a police or sheriff's department.
(h) a parole or probation officer of the department of corrections.
(i) A state court judge or state court retired judge
(j) a court officer.
With the exceptions of b & c that need this to do their jobs, what makes the rest different from the rest of us?
What do the rest of the exemptions have in common?
Most of them don't have any extra training either.

[RogueLeader]

As a former LEO trainer.. I have seen and heard all the stories brother...however, as a FI/CPL instructor..i have seen some of the most dangerous people with firearms..downright scary....cant fix stupid at any level however...

Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?

I was going to stay out of that, but I will answer the last part.

Everyone should be held to the same standard and same protection under the law. It is really that simple.

Are there non-LE firearm owners who could use training on better firearm handling; yes. Are there LE firearm owners who coud use training on better firearm handling; yes. Plenty of example of both, and both are citizens.

That does not mean I don't respect or appreciate the service provided by most LE. But I also respect and appreciate the service provided by crab fisherman, loggers, scientist(some work with stuff where a single drop can kill in seconds), fire fighters, electrical workers, paramedics, and the military, to name a few; and I believe that they deserve the same rights and protections as anyone else receives under the law. That same rights and protections as doctors, receptionists, janitors, home-makers(female or male), teachers, line workers, cooks, chefs, accountants, and even politicians, to name a few, should receive.

So, with that said, if need to pass certain tests and checks to carry a firearm, everyone else should have to pass the same test, no matter their job title. If I have to pay certain fees and/or pass other tests and checks to carry a concealed pistol, then everyone should have to pay those same fees and/or pass those other tests and checks to carry a concealed pistol. If I am not allowed to carry a pistol in certain areas based on some subjective/emotional criteria, then no else should be able to either; with the excpetion being when in performance of their duty while on the clock.

However, if we continue to allow ourselves to be carved up like a turkey, we loose our influence, as we will become smaller and isolated groups. The only winners are politicians and the selected groups that receive more privledge than the others, which will always include those that can afford to pay to use the loop holes that always get crafted into the laws.

Now, you might argue that some of the jobs I list above have less need of a firearm for protection because of chosen vocation, even after work hours are over. First, I say that should not matter. Second, there are jobs not listed where it can be argued that the need for a firearm is needed just as much, when work hours are over.

[gmanbp88]

No thanks needed...i am service connected (non combat) as well...

For discussion sake..

I, as well as you are not naive people...we both have been around the block a few times..someone always gets some benifit, privilege, special treatment or preference over some other folks due to a carrer choice, age, social status, physical condition..ect..in our democratic (?) society..

So with that said..lets do away with all that..everyone is treated the same..no nothing...very utopian concept..eh? How does this proposed bill differ from anything else in our society..so honestly...where is the true opposition generated from?

[RogueLeader]

No thanks needed...i am service connected (non combat) as well...

For discussion sake..

I, as well as you are not naive people...we both have been around the block a few times..someone always gets some benifit, privilege, special treatment or preference over some other folks due to a carrer choice, age, social status, physical condition..ect..in our democratic (?) society..

So with that said..lets do away with all that..everyone is treated the same..no nothing...very utopian concept..eh? How does this proposed bill differ from anything else in our society..so honestly...where is the true opposition generated from?


The true opposition, for me, is that I am tired of being carved up like a turkey and being one of the xxxxxx by-standers that has allowed it to happen. I am certainly not going to encourage it, and I plan on becoming more vocal about it.

That is what this bill(and others like it) represents to me. Our representatives should not even be wasting time on these type of bills.

[gmanbp88]

WOW.....I was hoping reasonable people would discuss things like big boys and girls...without getting somewhat personal..

Thanks for the exercise...I'm outta here



Obviously, you just don't get it and never will.

How much "training" has Lee Paige, Joseph Weekley and Johannes Mehserle, to name a few, acquired in their careers?

Folks here and elsewhere couldn't give a shyte less if you can carry in PFZ's. Personally, I really don't think ANYONE, who, under federal and state law that is allowed to possess, carry and transport firearms should be prohibited to carry in those PFZ's. There wasn't a problem in this state with CPL holders prior to Shall Issue and there wouldn't be today. Perhaps you're so in love with yourself you just can't, and never will, come to grips with the fact that all the "shootouts at the bars" and "blood in the streets" didn't happen. I know, disappointing isn't it?

[gjgalligan]

As a former LEO trainer.. I have seen and heard all the stories brother...however, as a FI/CPL instructor..i have seen some of the most dangerous people with firearms..downright scary....cant fix stupid at any level however...

Just a question..would it make any difference to you if the retired FED were all LEOSA trained and had to qualify yearly? Unlike once in a lifetime (assuming they qualified at all) like a CPL holder?

And I have seen a Sgt on a county sheriffs dept that had leave her weapon with the range offer because she could not qualify. She was suppose to be on road patrol but couldn't carry a firearm. I was there that day, I saw it with my own eyes. Not just a hear-say story.
I have also seen some police officers that did not even know what caliber their issued weapon was. Again, person experience.
Just because someone is a LEO does not make them an expert.


You have made comments about discussing thing like adults, that is a 2 way street.

[wsr]

WOW.....I was hoping reasonable people would discuss things like big boys and girls...without getting somewhat personal..

Thanks for the exercise...I'm outta here

LOL talk about thin skinned...BYE

What you keep talking about is a privilege everyone else is talking about a right, until you understand the difference you have little of worth to add

[Jared1981]

This thread is a dead horse. It's been explained to the OP that LEOSA already exempts one from ALL PFZ's on private property (unless the proprietor prohibits firearms on their own accord).

As far as SB 53, Jones was already offered a compromise that was completely reasonable, but bullies don't like compromises.

[Roundballer]

This thread is a dead horse. It's been explained to the OP that LEOSA already exempts one from ALL PFZ's on private property (unless the proprietor prohibits firearms on their own accord).

As far as SB 53, Jones was already offered a compromise that was completely reasonable, but bullies don't like compromises.
First, the OP was Tallbear. This thread is the announcement of the introduction of the bill in legislature. The thread is here for us to discuss the bill, and is alive until this bill either passes and is signed or the bill dies.

Second....What has he offered?

And third, when it comes to anything firearm related and law, stay away, VERY FAR AWAY, from the words "reasonable" or "Common Sense". It makes you sound like you are lying from the start. And who are you calling a "bullies"?

[mosnar87]

First, the OP was Tallbear. This thread is the announcement of the introduction of the bill in legislature. The thread is here for us to discuss the bill, and is alive until this bill either passes and is signed or the bill dies.

Second....What has he offered?

And third, when it comes to anything firearm related and law, stay away, VERY FAR AWAY, from the words "reasonable" or "Common Sense". It makes you sound like you are lying from the start. And who are you calling a "bullies"?

To your second point, Jones didn't offer a compromise. Jones was offered a compromise: Choose any one of the current CCPFZ's and remove it with this bill, in return for MOC support for this bill.

To your third point, I'm quite sure Jones is the "bully" being described.

[Jared1981]

First, the OP was Tallbear. This thread is the announcement of the introduction of the bill in legislature. The thread is here for us to discuss the bill, and is alive until this bill either passes and is signed or the bill dies.

Second....What has he offered?







And third, when it comes to anything firearm related and law, stay away, VERY FAR AWAY, from the words "reasonable" or "Common Sense". It makes you sound like you are lying from the start. And who are you calling a "bullies"?

My bad. Not Tallbear, meant gman88.

The compromise that MOC has offered is that for each new exempt class of people, we will fully support it if they choose any PFZ and eliminate it from 425o, so if the retired Feds and CO exemption passed, then 2 of the 10 PFZ's would be eliminated for everyone. It would benefit everyone so it was a compromise we could get behind.

Feel free to go back and forth with gman about it. It won't change anything.
Finally, calm down, Rick Jones is a bully, of course only MOC is calling him out for his nonsense and his lies. He has bullied other senators behind the scenes for his endless felony bills for everything involving government workers and he stonewalled PFZ repeal way back in early 2012 because he didn't think average people like yourself should carry guns in schools. He won't say that publicly because he wants the NRA's useless "A" rating.

[Roundballer]

My bad. Not Tallbear, meant gman88.
That is what confused me, and set the tone for my questions.


The compromise that MOC has offered is that for each new exempt class of people, we will fully support it if they choose any PFZ and eliminate it from 425o, so if the retired Feds and CO exemption passed, then 2 of the 10 PFZ's would be eliminated for everyone. It would benefit everyone so it was a compromise we could get behind.
That has not been made clear to be before, this is the first time it was mentioned in this thread. It is also a shame that he is going to come out looking good to the media for supporting these individuals.


Feel free to go back and forth with gman about it. It won't change anything.
Finally, calm down, Rick Jones is a bully, of course only MOC is calling him out for his nonsense and his lies. He has bullied other senators behind the scenes for his endless felony bills for everything involving government workers and he stonewalled PFZ repeal way back in early 2012 because he didn't think average people like yourself should carry guns in schools. He won't say that publicly because he wants the NRA's useless "A" rating.
I am completely calm about this. You may have perceived more from the color I picked, that was only meant as a separator. I also don't use purple.
Going back and forth like that reveals gmans' type, and the concept that he can't support his position. Then other readers can see both sides and take their views from the "arguments". He keeps changing tack on his course and has to be exposed each time. I notice he didn't respond to my last. He instead grabbed something else from another post and started talking about utopian societies and how we can keep going after them.
Maybe we need to do what Jones does. Most of the time the best way to handle a bully (you used the plural which also confused) is to call them out, or bully them. We NEED to be unbending and openly oppose him in other areas as well. As most legislation on firearms, we generally lose more than we gain.
And maybe the NRA needs to be made aware of how he actually operates, not just the voting record and how he answers questionnaires.

[Jared1981]

Roundballer,

I can guarantee you that Jones views MOC as a "bully" but we are just calling him out. He lied and snuck SB 53 out of Committee 1 hour after telling one of our board members that it will come up in the future. Then he said people testified in support of SB 53, when no one did.

Johnson is pushing the CO bill. Although MOC disagrees with him and we asked for the same compromise, he's a true supporter and we don't take it personal. He would love to see PFZ's repealed for everyone and he's deserving of an A+ rating. Johnson is the same person behind closed doors as he is in public. We can't say the same for Jones.

In all fairness, Jones isn't anti-gun. He's just deserving of a C rating, not an A or A+. And he's a problem since he chairs judiciary.

Full disclosure, this bill would directly benefit me down the road. That being said, Jones is barking up the wrong tree, most PFZ's in MI don't apply to LEOSA anyway, so it doesn't do as much as Jones is making it out to sound.

To the PFZ problem in general, the best way to get the ball rolling for a full repeal is for one friendly sheriff to offer to make all CPL holders a member of his posse and that would legally exempt all license holders from PFZ's if they apply to be part of the posse. It could be a one page application with an oath to the constitution and that would legally be sufficient. It's 100% legal and its on the up and up, not like that chief that sold reserve police creds.

[luckless]

Maybe we need to do what Jones does. Most of the time the best way to handle a bully (you used the plural which also confused) is to call them out, or bully them. We NEED to be unbending and openly oppose him in other areas as well. As most legislation on firearms, we generally lose more than we gain.
And maybe the NRA needs to be made aware of how he actually operates, not just the voting record and how he answers questionnaires.

Does Dakota Moore (NRA-ILA liaison for Michigan) have any contact with MGO? His cheer leading for SB 34,35 would suggest he isn't as engaged with gun owners as he is with legislators. Anybody got any contact info for the man? When I called the NRA-ILA, they wouldn't even tell me his name.

[Flash-hider]

Does Dakota Moore (NRA-ILA liaison for Michigan) have any contact with MGO? His cheer leading for SB 34,35 would suggest he isn't as engaged with gun owners as he is with legislators. Anybody got any contact info for the man? When I called the NRA-ILA, they wouldn't even tell me his name.

I may be incorrect but my memory recalls that when SB 0034 passed through both cnambers and sent to the Govenor, NRA and a unmentiond (by me) gun organization in this State where claiming victory for passage up to that point. From that my take away was that NRA recognizes that particular organization (maybe because it has paid staff) but will not recognize any others. I will stand corrected if this is inaccurate.

[Flash-hider]

Dup deleted.

[Roundballer]

I may be incorrect but my memory recalls that when SB 0034 passed through both cnambers and sent to the Govenor, NRA and a unmentiond (by me) gun organization in this State where claiming victory for passage up to that point. From that my take away was that NRA recognizes that particular organization (maybe because it has paid staff) but will not recognize any others. I will stand corrected if this is inaccurate.
According to what I can see: 2015-SB-0035 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035) in on the house floor "on order of second reading".

The House hasn't passed it yet, nor has it been presented to the Governor. We still have time on all three of these, a small amount of time, but still time.

It would be interesting to hear what the NRA says if they are told that these are NOT supported.

[Flash-hider]

According to what I can see: 2015-SB-0035 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035) in on the house floor "on order of second reading".

The House hasn't passed it yet, nor has it been presented to the Governor. We still have time on all three of these, a small amount of time, but still time.

It would be interesting to hear what the NRA says if they are told that these are NOT supported.

I referenced the incorrect legislation. I was thinking about the Bill that Snyder vetoed and my take on who NRA may partner on firearm legislation.

[bigt8261]

Johnson is pushing the CO bill. Although MOC disagrees with him and we asked for the same compromise, he's a true supporter and we don't take it personal. He would love to see PFZ's repealed for everyone and he's deserving of an A+ rating. Johnson is the same person behind closed doors as he is in public. We can't say the same for Jones.

Johnson is also pushing his bill in a truthful and honorable manner. While we can disagree with him, our base of respect is unchanged.

If Jones' bill is so good, then why does he have to be so sneaky and dishonest about it.

[bigt8261]

IMO as the Assistant Legislative Director for MOC (who is neutral on SB 34), and as someone who actively worked to fix portions of SB 34, SB 34 is a done deal in the Legislature. The only question is the Governor.

Your time is better spent opposing bills like SB 53.

[luckless]

I think we should all support them in the next election. If we do that, I am SURE they'll pass a piece of progun legislation in the lame duck session. We can trust them because they all said they are BIG supporters of the Second Amendment.

Maybe I'll just spend the next two years reminding them what turncoats they are, instead.

[Purebass04]

Maybe somebody can explain this one to me... Where does it say that those with LEOSA credentials are exempted from the PFZs? My understanding is that currently (without SB 53 passing), federal officers who are LEOSA qualified are not exempted, and the federal law makes that quite clear in its opening which states:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

The way this has been interpreted by every lawyer I have talked to as well as all the guidance I have been given by multiple agencies state that LEOSA is not an exemption for state carry laws, especially those covering PFZs (I am LEOSA certified for spending 10+ years as an Air Force police officer). As far as I have been able to tell, the only thing LEOSA credentials do is allow an active or retired police officer, agent, sheriff, military police officer, etc. the ability to carry across state lines without having to worry about reciprocity of a state CPL. Furthermore, a person carrying a firearm under LEOSA is still subject to abiding by ALL state laws pertaining to carrying, including magazine restrictions.

Case and point: If a person carrying under LEOSA decided to travel to California, that person must ensure their firearm in CA compliant. If that same traveled to Illinois, they would be legal until they they stepped foot in Cook County, which has a 10 round limit.

I think many people see LEOSA as a universal permit that allows them to carry wherever they please, and that is certainly not the case. A person carrying under LEOSA can not carry concealed in any PFZ, the same as any other private citizen. As to whether or not they should receive that exemption (which SB53 aims to do), I will not voice my opinion. In general, I agree with everybody on here that PFZs need to go away. They should have never been set up in the first place. Anybody that thought the state would set them up and then later decide to get rid of them was obviously oblivious to the fact they were dealing with the government. It will most definitely be an up hill battle to get the state legislature to agree to do away with PFZs.

[MP Miller]

I am LEOSA certified for spending 10+ years as an Air Force police officer


Off topic.

Did you receive credentials from Defense Consulting Services or the state?

[Purebass04]

Off topic.

Did you receive credentials from Defense Consulting Services or the state?

Defense Consulting Services. That is the easiest way to get it done if you were USAF, because it only takes your DD214, rather than a letter from your agency like the state would require. PM me if you need info on how to work with them..

[Jared1981]

I
Maybe somebody can explain this one to me... Where does it say that those with LEOSA credentials are exempted from the PFZs? My understanding is that currently (without SB 53 passing), federal officers who are LEOSA qualified are not exempted, and the federal law makes that quite clear in its opening which states:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

The way this has been interpreted by every lawyer I have talked to as well as all the guidance I have been given by multiple agencies state that LEOSA is not an exemption for state carry laws, especially those covering PFZs (I am LEOSA certified for spending 10+ years as an Air Force police officer). As far as I have been able to tell, the only thing LEOSA credentials do is allow an active or retired police officer, agent, sheriff, military police officer, etc. the ability to carry across state lines without having to worry about reciprocity of a state CPL. Furthermore, a person carrying a firearm under LEOSA is still subject to abiding by ALL state laws pertaining to carrying, including magazine restrictions.

Case and point: If a person carrying under LEOSA decided to travel to California, that person must ensure their firearm in CA compliant. If that same traveled to Illinois, they would be legal until they they stepped foot in Cook County, which has a 10 round limit.

I think many people see LEOSA as a universal permit that allows them to carry wherever they please, and that is certainly not the case. A person carrying under LEOSA can not carry concealed in any PFZ, the same as any other private citizen. As to whether or not they should receive that exemption (which SB53 aims to do), I will not voice my opinion. In general, I agree with everybody on here that PFZs need to go away. They should have never been set up in the first place. Anybody that thought the state would set them up and then later decide to get rid of them was obviously oblivious to the fact they were dealing with the government. It will most definitely be an up hill battle to get the state legislature to agree to do away with PFZs.

Then you are talking to crap lawyers. The word you are looking for is the first word in the law,"notwithstanding". That means state law is null and void except where LEOSA says it does NOT preempt state, local, and territorial laws.

It clearly exempts local prohibitions, otherwise the law would be pointless. And you don't need a "CA compliant" gun to carry in CA. Two U.S. Territories ban all handguns but LEOSA still applies there.

Illinois bans short barrled shotguns but courts have upheld carrying SBR's due to LEOSA.

The answers to why MI's PFZ's on private property don't apply to LEOSA are in your own post. Read the two exemptions LEOSA where federal law doesn't preempt. Most PFZ's in MI are preempted, bars, hospitals; private daycare centers, privately owned entertainment centers with 2500+, private schools... All preempted by LEOSA.

Furthermore, you can carry loaded concealed long arms in vehicles in MI with LEOSA, which is otherwise completely prohibited in Michigan.

I don't understand the confusion. The law is very easy to read and understand.

[MP Miller]

Defense Consulting Services. That is the easiest way to get it done if you were USAF, because it only takes your DD214, rather than a letter from your agency like the state would require. PM me if you need info on how to work with them..
I have been following the Air Force closely but I have to wait for the Army to figure it out.

How long did it take from flash to bang?
(If that's an army only thing the question is how long did it take)

[Leader]

I

Then you are talking to crap lawyers. The word you are looking for is the first word in the law,"notwithstanding". That means state law is null and void except where LEOSA says it does NOT preempt state, local, and territorial laws.

It clearly exempts local prohibitions, otherwise the law would be pointless. And you don't need a "CA compliant" gun to carry in CA. Two U.S. Territories ban all handguns but LEOSA still applies there.

Illinois bans short barrled shotguns but courts have upheld carrying SBR's due to LEOSA.

The answers to why MI's PFZ's on private property don't apply to LEOSA are in your own post. Read the two exemptions LEOSA where federal law doesn't preempt. Most PFZ's in MI are preempted, bars, hospitals; private daycare centers, privately owned entertainment centers with 2500+, private schools... All preempted by LEOSA.

Furthermore, you can carry loaded concealed long arms in vehicles in MI with LEOSA, which is otherwise completely prohibited in Michigan.

I don't understand the confusion. The law is very easy to read and understand.

So you are saying that the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Introduced In Senate means EVERY concealed weapons permit holder in the US will be able to carry anyplace & ignore all the state laws?

[MP Miller]

So you are saying that the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Introduced In Senate means EVERY concealed weapons permit holder in the US will be able to carry anyplace & ignore all the state laws?
Not unless it is worded the same as the LEOSA, and I doubt very much it is.

[Jared1981]

So you are saying that the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Introduced In Senate means EVERY concealed weapons permit holder in the US will be able to carry anyplace & ignore all the state laws?

I doubt it. Previous versions have varied, but they all have only applied to handguns, the last bill said that your permit would be treated as if it was issued by the state you were in, so if you traveled to Hawaii, with your MI CPL, while you were in Hawaii it would have treated your CPL exactly as if it was issued in Hawaii (HRS 134-9)

[Leader]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text


SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any
State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--
``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and a valid license or permit which is
issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the
individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a
concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive
device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence
of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the
State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed
firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;
and
``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from
carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the
individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph
(1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a
machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State
other than the State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the
State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed
firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

[Jared1981]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text


SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any
State or political subdivision thereof to the contrary--
``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and a valid license or permit which is
issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the
individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a
concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive
device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence
of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the
State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed
firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;
and
``(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from
carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the
individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph
(1), may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a
machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State
other than the State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the
State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed
firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed
firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

It won't go anywhere. Republicans only allow this to come up for a vote when they know it won't pass. They need 60 votes in the senate and they would need to attach it to an omnibus bill. That won't happen. If it passed as a stand alone bill, then the odds of Obama signing it are the same as North Korea announcing that they will recognize a MI CPL.

This bill is also so poorly worded that it would be impossible. Look at the last line, Michigan has no law preventing someone from carrying a concealed firearm (if it's a rifle or shotgun) so would that qualify.

Other than that, it completely discriminates against someone in their home state as it provides them no protection at home. But other than that, it would provide for CCW for someone outside of their home state in all of the U.S. except for American Samoa and the Marianas Islands.

[Leader]

The way it's been explained to me is I would have to obey the laws of the state I was in.

[Purebass04]

I

Then you are talking to crap lawyers. The word you are looking for is the first word in the law,"notwithstanding". That means state law is null and void except where LEOSA says it does NOT preempt state, local, and territorial laws.

I think you may be mistaken. "Notwithstanding" does not mean the state law is null and void... The way this has been interpreted by every person I have talked to, along with DoD general counsel, and the MCOLES rep I have spoken to at the state have all said that even those carrying under LEOSA must apply for state specific exemptions. The state PFZs DO in fact apply unless you are granted that exemption by the state.

I think where there may be a little contention on this matter is that I personally (and the person who was talking earlier in the thread who was a retired fed agent) do not meet the criteria outlined in the states definition of "certified" officer. Due to the state basically saying that you must be MCOLES certified to get the exemption, we will not qualify (unless SB 0053 is passed) to become exempt from PFZs. Now, since I don't know you Jared1981, I won't go attacking you or the people you get your information from. Since you are not an actual lawyer, I take everything with a grain of salt knowing that what you have typed is your own personal opinion. Personally, your opinion means nothing to me since I don't know you, nor do you have a "legal moderator" designation under your screen name... I get it, you "know" all about the law. Here is a little link to clear things up for you and your understanding of LEOSA as it pertains to areas a qualified person can conceal: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mcoles/web_info-chart_339818_7.pdf


As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of exemptions for one class of people. I think PFZs should be done away with completely...

[Jared1981]

I think you may be mistaken. "Notwithstanding" does not mean the state law is null and void... The way this has been interpreted by every person I have talked to, along with DoD general counsel, and the MCOLES rep I have spoken to at the state have all said that even those carrying under LEOSA must apply for state specific exemptions. The state PFZs DO in fact apply unless you are granted that exemption by the state.

I think where there may be a little contention on this matter is that I personally (and the person who was talking earlier in the thread who was a retired fed agent) do not meet the criteria outlined in the states definition of "certified" officer. Due to the state basically saying that you must be MCOLES certified to get the exemption, we will not qualify (unless SB 0053 is passed) to become exempt from PFZs. Now, since I don't know you Jared1981, I won't go attacking you or the people you get your information from. Since you are not an actual lawyer, I take everything with a grain of salt knowing that what you have typed is your own personal opinion. Personally, your opinion means nothing to me since I don't know you, nor do you have a "legal moderator" designation under your screen name... I get it, you "know" all about the law. Here is a little link to clear things up for you and your understanding of LEOSA as it pertains to areas a qualified person can conceal: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mcoles/web_info-chart_339818_7.pdf


As I stated earlier, I am not a fan of exemptions for one class of people. I think PFZs should be done away with completely...

None of what I posted is "my opinion", also, you don't know anything about any federal lawsuits that I have helped draft in several circuits around the country. But I'll address this issue in detail.

That is exactly what "notwithstanding" means, it means preemption. That's what it means in FOPA, that's what it means in LEOSA and that's what it means in all other areas of federal law where that word is used. If it didn't mean that then the entire law would be pointless, why the hell would the Feds write a law that says "you may follow state law"?

I'm not confused on anything on LEOSA. I don't care what MCOLES says, they don't have a clue, their input on LEOSA is as equally relevant as any input from the Russian Consulate in New York City. If they read the law they would be on the same page as Steve Mannion, the most knowledgable attorney on LEOSA.

The exact point of the law was preemption. Nothing in LEOSA defers to state implementation or state input, all amendments to the original bill that would have done that were SHOT DOWN.

Michigan doesn't have ANY say.... None, nada, zip, zero.... No input whatsoever into what a qualified person can do under LEOSA if they meet the criteria.

The idiots at MCOLES think LEOSA only applies to handguns. They should just stick to misinterpreting state law because if anyone at MCOLES or anywhere else can show me where LEOSA says "handgun" I'll sign over the deed to my house to them.

Even when Michigan banned SBR's and SBS's, they couldn't stop someone from carrying them under LEOSA. Illinois tried and failed.

I'll correct here what the dopes at MCOLES just can't seem to get right because they haven't actually READ LEOSA, and they intentionally make money off of sucking in gullible people who don't know any better.

Some PFZ's are not preempted by LEOSA, others are. Here is a quick cheat sheet.

You can carry a loaded concealed rifle or shotgun in a vehicle under LEOSA.
You can carry a concealed firearm into a private school.
You can carry a concealed firearm into a private daycare center.
You can carry a concealed firearm into a privately owned hospital.
You can carry a concealed firearm into a privately owned entertainment facility.
You can carry a concealed firearm into bar and even drink over 0.02, you just can't be under the influence or intoxicated to FEDERAL standards, what MI says is irrelevant.

You also don't need to notify when carrying a concealed handgun under LEOSA.

If you want all your questions answered, go to sheepdog academy, spend 10 dollars and purchase the seminar materials. This lawyer makes his living off LEOSA cases.

I have no idea what the DOD says about LEOSA but if they mirror MCOLES wisdom on the subject matter then they haven't read the law and if they don't know what "notwithstanding" means, then they are completely unqualifed to speak on the issue and they should open blacks law dictionary and look at the definition of notwithstanding.

The only state entities that have ever put out correct and mostly accurate info on LEOSA are the West Virginia and North Carolina Attorney Generals.

LEOSA exempts one from ALL state laws for ALL firearms except for the three types that are specifically excluded.

The only two exceptions are if...
1. The state prohibits firearms on government installations, buildings, bases, or parks.

2. Private property where the proprietor (not the state) prohibits firearm.

Those are the only two exceptions. Michigan, or any other state has absolutely ZERO input on where one can carry ANY concealed firearm under LEOSA except for machineguns, suppressors, and destructive devices.

The fact that you are going to a state entity for a federal law is your mistake from the beginning. You would be better served going to Sheepdog Academy because everything I posted here mirrors what that attorney says who has actually argued and won cases and single handedly hammered New Jersey over LEOSA repeatedly.

[Roundballer]

I think you may be mistaken. "Notwithstanding" does not mean the state law is null and void... <snip>

Stop all of the name dropping attempts. Look it up in an on-line Legal Dictionary.



Notwithstanding Legal Definition:
In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things.

[Purebass04]

http://le.nra.org/leosa/off-limit-areas.aspx

[Jared1981]

http://le.nra.org/leosa/off-limit-areas.aspx

What about it? He's a good attorney on LEOSA as well. His article is about federal law. LEOSA doesn't exempt anyone from any federal law, only state, local, territorial, and Indian.

It's super easy to be exempt from the federal gun free schools act in Michigan.

Even if someone carried in violation of federal law, no Michigan cop can enforce it.

[Purebass04]

..

[luckless]

I may be incorrect but my memory recalls that when SB 0034 passed through both cnambers and sent to the Govenor, NRA and a unmentiond (by me) gun organization in this State where claiming victory for passage up to that point. From that my take away was that NRA recognizes that particular organization (maybe because it has paid staff) but will not recognize any others. I will stand corrected if this is inaccurate.

Got to talk to Dakota Moore today. Quite a lengthy conversation about SB34, 35 and "special class" exemptions. He is not in favor of special class CPLs. It doesn't sound like the NRA will support bills like SB 53. I also mentioned that it would be nice if the NRA worked with grass-roots, pro-gunners instead of, "The Organization Which Shall Not be Named". I thought it was very nice of him to call and we had a great conversation even though we could only agree on a few things.

[Jared1981]

Got to talk to Dakota Moore today. Quite a lengthy conversation about SB34, 35 and "special class" exemptions. He is not in favor of special class CPLs. It doesn't sound like the NRA will support bills like SB 53. I also mentioned that it would be nice if the NRA worked with grass-roots, pro-gunners instead of, "The Organization Which Shall Not be Named". I thought it was very nice of him to call and we had a great conversation even though we could only agree on a few things.

I share the same sentiment. Unfortunately my friends who had quite some pull with the NRA on the board of directors are 6 feet under....

They (NRA) and "The Organization Which Shall Not be Named" could start by calling out so called republicans that are a problem. So far, MOC is the only organization doing so. I think my releases on MOC made that clear. It's about time someone turned up the heat because many gun owners in MI have been played as idiots for 4 years now.

[RDak]

I share the same sentiment. Unfortunately my friends who had quite some pull with the NRA on the board of directors are 6 feet under....

They (NRA) and "The Organization Which Shall Not be Named" could start by calling out so called republicans that are a problem. So far, MOC is the only organization doing so. I think my releases on MOC made that clear. It's about time someone turned up the heat because many gun owners in MI have been played as idiots for 4 years now.

This!!

[bigt8261]

The NRA isn't supporting any of the carve outs. The trick is to get them to oppose them.

[Jared1981]

The NRA isn't supporting any of the carve outs. The trick is to get them to oppose them.

The truth is that most state reps view "neutral" as support.

[bigt8261]

Well, not necessarily. Senator Green is getting some flak because MOC is neutral on SB 34.

[Jared1981]

Well, not necessarily. Senator Green is getting some flak because MOC is neutral on SB 34.

Hmmmm.... Maybe that's because MOC has dedicated people, passionate people, and a crew of people that are very well educated on laws and politics.

Or it could be because MOC is a reasonable group that offers solutions and compromises like we did with carve outs. It's no secret that MOC has no hidden agenda or any desire to backscratch. Only the desire to educate on gun laws and promote the 2nd Amendment.

[bigt8261]

UPDATE:

Just received notice that SB 53 will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee next Tuesday (3/3/15) at noon.

This will likely be the last best opportunity to kill SB 53.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, March 3, 2015

TIME: 12:00 PM

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

AGENDA:
Testimony only:

HB 4038 (Rep. Forlini) Housing; landlord and tenants; notification of evictions; allow by electronic mail.

SB 12 (Sen. Jones) Retirement; state employees; retired state employees to contract with department of attorney general in litigation matters involving this state; allow under certain circumstances without losing retirement allowance.

SB 53 (Sen. Jones) Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for.

[G36 Shooter]

UPDATE:

Just received notice that SB 53 will be heard in the House Judiciary Committee next Tuesday (3/3/15) at noon.

This will likely be the last best opportunity to kill SB 53.
Will be there.

[sonicmatter]

I'll do my best to be there.

[dmd7765]

The BOD of Michigan Gun Owners has sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in opposition to any more special carve outs in PFZ's, The committee is meeting next Tuesday at Noon, I would encourage any members that can make time to be there to oppose SB 53. PFZ's need to end, they do not stop crime.

[bigt8261]

Here is MOC's call to action. It includes all of the Judiciary Committee contact info.

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=58f9c89037

[bigt8261]

REMINDER: Call the House Judiciary Committee

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=04dc6037d6&e=5419d26fa1

[sonicmatter]

REMINDER: Call the House Judiciary Committee

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=04dc6037d6&e=5419d26fa1
Contacted them. Thanks.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/2/2015 Analysis File Added

[sonicmatter]

I got snowed in so I couldn't make it there. Did SB 53 get out of committee?

[bigt8261]

No vote. It will be voted on next week. I expect it to pass.

No rep is willing to stand in front of law enforcement. They all think they are "chipping away".

[langenc]

I wrote last week and called Monday. All I got to talk w/ was the machine. Im calling some more. Im telling him to tell LEO to buzz off. get LEO to vote for him next time..

15 carve outs and probably all 15 for LEOs of some kind.. Anyone have good number on that??

[bigt8261]

Currently 14 enumerated groups in 10 different categories.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, March 10, 2015

TIME: 12:00 PM

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

AGENDA:
SB 12 (Sen. Jones) Retirement; state employees; retired state employees to contract with department of attorney general in litigation matters involving this state; allow under certain circumstances without losing retirement allowance.

SB 53 (Sen. Jones) Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for.

HB 4038 (Rep. Forlini) Housing; landlord and tenants; notification of evictions; allow by electronic mail.

TESTIMONY ONLY:

HB 4244 (Rep. Pettalia) Torts; premises liability; liability for recreational user; include aviation activities.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/10/2015 referred to second reading

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/16/2015 Analysis File Added

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/24/2015 placed on third reading

[Roundballer]

It looks like the House adopted an H3 amendment, no link to what that is though.

[G36 Shooter]

Hopefully eliminate MCL 28.425o

[G36 Shooter]

Passed 73y 37n

[jgillmanjr]

Passed 73y 37n

Now to see what the floor amendment was and who voted what.

[Leader]

Seems like being a Gov. or LE employee is grounds for exemption...

I was in the Army years ago, can we get a bill to exempt me?

[MP Miller]

Seems like being a Gov. or LE employee is grounds for exemption...

I was in the Army years ago, can we get a bill to exempt me?
You should have been an MP...... :)

[luckless]

Anyone know what they did to us with the amendments in the house and senate?

[jgillmanjr]

Anyone know what they did to us with the amendments in the house and senate?

We'll need to wait for the document to become available to see H3

[luckless]

We'll need to wait for the document to become available to see H3

I can't imagine I'm going to like it, anyway. Just need to know if I should call my rep and offer some "criticism".

[jgillmanjr]

I can't imagine I'm going to like it, anyway. Just need to know if I should call my rep and offer some "criticism".

Just checked - still not available.

[G22]

We have to pass it, to find out what's in it.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/25/2015 returned to Senate

[Roundballer]

Just checked - still not available.


We have to pass it, to find out what's in it.

It's up now. It looks like they just moved what would be "acceptable proof" of a retired Fed from 425o up to 425b. They didn't change anything to alter what the bill does, just how it is compiled.

I doubt that the Senate will have any problems with this.

[Leader]

It's up now. It looks like they just moved what would be "acceptable proof" of a retired Fed from 425o up to 425b. They didn't change anything to alter what the bill does, just how it is compiled.

I doubt that the Senate will have any problems with this.

And we'll have ANOTHER "special class".

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 3/26/2015 ORDERED ENROLLED

[jgillmanjr]

House Journal got posted.

Couple of republicans voted against it
http://michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=709778

[Leader]

This along with all the other "special people" should be pointed out to schools.
NONE of these people are required to get CPL's.
It's a good thing because some of them couldn't qualify for one.

But these people are not only allowed but welcomed into the schools.

[langenc]

No more special classes.

That is what I told my rep who is on the committee.. I guess he didn't get the message.

[G22]

That is what I told my rep who is on the committee.. I guess he didn't get the message.

He probably got the message, and promptly disregarded it.

"Hey Senator _____, we got another constituent who is against this bill... :sleep:

[luckless]

The republicans take our vote for granted. They aren't interested in passing our legislation because there is no "down side" for them if they don't. We gained nothing with Snyder's reelection and the new leadership in the House and Senate seem as unconcerned as ever. The beginning of this session proves we won't get any more cooperation in the next two years than we had in the last four.

[MP Miller]

The republicans take our vote for granted. They aren't interested in passing our legislation because there is no "down side" for them if they don't.

This is why I often vote Libertarian.

It shows that I took the time to vote, it wasn't for the GOP, and gives them a reasonable amount of direction on how to get my vote.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 4/14/2015 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 4/6/2015 @ 11:14 AM

[Gray Man]

SB 0053 of 2015
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 4/14/2015 PRESENTED TO GOVERNOR 4/6/2015 @ 11:14 AM

4/16/2015 Expected in
SJ 34 APPROVED BY GOVERNOR 4/14/2015 @ 4:29 PM
4/16/2015 Expected in
SJ 34 FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE 4/14/2015 @ 5:02 PM
4/16/2015 Expected in
SJ 34 ASSIGNED PA 0016'15 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

[G22]

See, the Governor is not anti gun. This proves it...

[midlandshooter]

No special citizens. **** them.

[Super Trucker]

This is why I often vote Libertarian.

It shows that I took the time to vote, it wasn't for the GOP, and gives them a reasonable amount of direction on how to get my vote.
Pssst I am going to tell you are secret. They aren't listening.

[Gray Man]

No special citizens. **** them.

I wouldn't go that far. Using that language divides us as a community. Many LEO's (dare I say most) both active and retired are pro-RKBA.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015 (PA 0016 of 2015)
Weapons; other; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry weapon in weapon-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1 & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 & 28.425o).
Last Action: 4/16/2015 ASSIGNED PA 0016'15 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

[jgillmanjr]

The pathetic thing is that some of the testimony centered around spouses and family members of RFLEOs getting harassed.

Why is it pathetic? Because they're trying to advocate for a law that wouldn't protect their family members.

[Leader]

The pathetic thing is that some of the testimony centered around spouses and family members of RFLEOs getting harassed.

Why is it pathetic? Because they're trying to advocate for a law that wouldn't protect their family members.

Well.... The next special group will be wives of exempted people.
Then Family of exempted then ......

[wsr]

I wouldn't go that far. Using that language divides us as a community. Many LEO's (dare I say most) both active and retired are pro-RKBA.
I wouldn't say most but many are pro gun they are just not pro 2A

[Gray Man]

I wouldn't say most but many are pro gun they are just not pro 2A

You and I would disagree. But, that's OK.

[wsr]

You and I would disagree. But, that's OK.

My point is how many are for constitutional carry or no registration...
I just see a difference between pro gun and pro 2A

[Gray Man]

My point is how many are for constitutional carry or no registration...
I just see a difference between pro gun and pro 2A

My statement above said pro-RKBA. As in Right to Keep and Bear Arms as in the passage in the Second Amendment. How much more "Constitutional" can it get? Any further discussion would be an exercise in semantics with you.

[wsr]

My statement above said pro-RKBA. As in Right to Keep and Bear Arms as in the passage in the Second Amendment. How much more "Constitutional" can it get? Any further discussion would be an exercise in semantics with you.

I see it as a lot more than a semantical difference but if somebody allowing gun ownership equals pro 2A to you who am I to argue, hell Biden thinks its OK to own O/U shotguns so I guess he's pro RKBA

[Super Trucker]

I wouldn't go that far. Using that language divides us as a community. Many LEO's (dare I say most) both active and retired are pro-RKBA.
You are aware thay the MSP are the main problem with getting rid of many of these ridiculous laws, right?

[MP Miller]

I wouldn't say most but many are pro gun they are just not pro 2A
^this

I don't even think the majority of forum users on MGO support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

[Gray Man]

You are aware thay the MSP are the main problem with getting rid of many of these ridiculous laws, right?

You are aware that the Troopers on the road who deal with citizens everyday are not the mouth pieces for the MSP? It's like any other organization where the higher ups (see politicians) are the ones who are engaged in such activities. I have worked with LEOs everyday for the last 21 years and I can tell you first hand that they are not anti-gun.

So, painting LEO's as a "special class" or as a group of people who want to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms is a stretch. And normally a stretch made by people who don't know any better and who tend to simply parrot what they have heard on the Inter-webs. Most LEOs that I know and have known are Veterans and Patriots who have openly refused to align themselves with the gun grabbers.

[Super Trucker]

You are aware that the Troopers on the road who deal with citizens everyday are not the mouth pieces for the MSP? It's like any other organization where the higher ups (see politicians) are the ones who are engaged in such activities. I have worked with LEOs everyday for the last 21 years and I can tell you first hand that they are not anti-gun.

So, painting LEO's as a "special class" or as a group of people who want to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms is a stretch. And normally a stretch made by people who don't know any better and who tend to simply parrot what they have heard on the Inter-webs. Most LEOs that I know and have known are Veterans and Patriots who have openly refused to align themselves with the gun grabbers.

Go talk to trooper Stafford #801, last I knew he was in in Detroit then come back here and say what you did with a straight face (I bet he would change you mind). I have a list of others that are almost as bad as that guy.
Oh and any cop that works someplace and blames the boss is part of the problem. The higher up can be replaced if the cops have a set and force the issue, problem is they don't care about my rights so they do exactly NOTHING to correct the problem.

If they are not a special class why do a bunch in my city have their personal car windows tinted and not one cop I have asked to write them will do so?
If the troopers you know are so "not special class", prove it. I will sit and watch as you have them write each and every one of the special class in my city (there are at least 4), otherwise you are just parroting the drivel I keep hearing from others trying to divert the view from their group. Actions not words my friend, that is the only way to change my view.

[wsr]

^this

I don't even think the majority of forum users on MGO support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

I agree
Some people see no difference between being given permission to do something and being able to do that same thing without asking permission...only one is freedom
People like to say its semantics because the effect is the same, right up until the permission is taken away

[midlandshooter]

You are aware that the Troopers on the road who deal with citizens everyday are not the mouth pieces for the MSP? It's like any other organization where the higher ups (see politicians) are the ones who are engaged in such activities. I have worked with LEOs everyday for the last 21 years and I can tell you first hand that they are not anti-gun.

So, painting LEO's as a "special class" or as a group of people who want to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms is a stretch. And normally a stretch made by people who don't know any better and who tend to simply parrot what they have heard on the Inter-webs. Most LEOs that I know and have known are Veterans and Patriots who have openly refused to align themselves with the gun grabbers.

You're aware that those troopers on the road, and their brothers in blue, killed over 1000 Americans last year, and are averaging 3 per day in 2015?

When it's okay for a cop to say "**** your breath" to a guy he just "accidentally" shot, it's okay for me to say **** his special status.

[midlandshooter]

Go talk to trooper Stafford #801, last I knew he was in in Detroit then come back here and say what you did with a straight face (I bet he would change you mind). I have a list of others that are almost as bad as that guy.
Oh and any cop that works someplace and blames the boss is part of the problem. The higher up can be replaced if the cops have a set and force the issue, problem is they don't care about my rights so they do exactly NOTHING to correct the problem.

If they are not a special class why do a bunch in my city have their personal car windows tinted and not one cop I have asked to write them will do so?
If the troopers you know are so "not special class", prove it. I will sit and watch as you have them write each and every one of the special class in my city (there are at least 4), otherwise you are just parroting the drivel I keep hearing from others trying to divert the view from their group. Actions not words my friend, that is the only way to change my view.

Yup.

I care...very little... if a cop says he's pro-gun or pro 2A for we mere peons, when he's a special class.

It's a de facto special class. They get unrestricted carry. We don't. They're part of the problem. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[G22]

You are aware that the Troopers on the road who deal with citizens everyday are not the mouth pieces for the MSP? It's like any other organization where the higher ups (see politicians) are the ones who are engaged in such activities. I have worked with LEOs everyday for the last 21 years and I can tell you first hand that they are not anti-gun.

So, painting LEO's as a "special class" or as a group of people who want to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms is a stretch. And normally a stretch made by people who don't know any better and who tend to simply parrot what they have heard on the Inter-webs. Most LEOs that I know and have known are Veterans and Patriots who have openly refused to align themselves with the gun grabbers.


It must be difficult to work in an occupation that is contrary to ones beliefs. It's different than most occupations in that they are duty bound to ruin individual lives for breaking laws that they themselves don't believe in.

I couldn't do that. I'm glad I'm an design engineer. I sleep fairly well at night.

It's not a stretch (at all) for anyone to say that people who receive 'special' treatment under the law that others do not, are in a 'special class'. Anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest.

[Gray Man]

Go talk to trooper Stafford #801, last I knew he was in in Detroit then come back here and say what you did with a straight face (I bet he would change you mind). I have a list of others that are almost as bad as that guy.
Oh and any cop that works someplace and blames the boss is part of the problem. The higher up can be replaced if the cops have a set and force the issue, problem is they don't care about my rights so they do exactly NOTHING to correct the problem.

If they are not a special class why do a bunch in my city have their personal car windows tinted and not one cop I have asked to write them will do so?
If the troopers you know are so "not special class", prove it. I will sit and watch as you have them write each and every one of the special class in my city (there are at least 4), otherwise you are just parroting the drivel I keep hearing from others trying to divert the view from their group. Actions not words my friend, that is the only way to change my view.


You're aware that those troopers on the road, and their brothers in blue, killed over 1000 Americans last year, and are averaging 3 per day in 2015?

When it's okay for a cop to say "**** your breath" to a guy he just "accidentally" shot, it's okay for me to say **** his special status.


Yup.

I care...very little... if a cop says he's pro-gun or pro 2A for we mere peons, when he's a special class.

It's a de facto special class. They get unrestricted carry. We don't. They're part of the problem. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


It must be difficult to work in an occupation that is contrary to ones beliefs. It's different than most occupations in that they are duty bound to ruin individual lives for breaking laws that they themselves don't believe in.

I couldn't do that. I'm glad I'm an design engineer. I sleep fairly well at night.

It's not a stretch (at all) for anyone to say that people who receive 'special' treatment under the law that others do not, are in a 'special class'. Anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest.

Wow. So much hurt, so many hard and angry feelings from several people here to include a Moderator. I guess my support of the RKBA as well as those that I have known on the job for more than two decades can't compare with the damage done by a few in the occupation.

Sounds like a no-win scenario for me to even attempt to try. The damage has been done by others and yet people on the job like me soon to retire who have never violated rights of others, who have never defended others who have will bear the weight of the few. Sort of like how law abiding gun owners are treated by the anti-gunners in this Country.

I'm done here. Nothing I can say will fix anything done by others despite knowing what I know. Each of the personal experiences of those quoted above are valid and true because they have been through something personal, I won't dispute that.

Good luck one and all.

[wsr]

Wow. So much hurt, so many hard and angry feelings from several people here to include a Moderator. I guess my support of the RKBA as well as those that I have known on the job for more than two decades can't compare with the damage done by a few in the occupation.

Sounds like a no-win scenario for me to even attempt to try. The damage has been done by others and yet people on the job like me soon to retire who have never violated rights of others, who have never defended others who have will bear the weight of the few. Sort of like how law abiding gun owners are treated by the anti-gunners in this Country.

I'm done here. Nothing I can say will fix anything done by others despite knowing what I know. Each of the personal experiences of those quoted above are valid and true because they have been through something personal, I won't dispute that.

Good luck one and all.
Wow talk about sensitive LOL

[Super Trucker]

Wow. So much hurt, so many hard and angry feelings from several people here to include a Moderator. I guess my support of the RKBA as well as those that I have known on the job for more than two decades can't compare with the damage done by a few in the occupation.

Sounds like a no-win scenario for me to even attempt to try. The damage has been done by others and yet people on the job like me soon to retire who have never violated rights of others, who have never defended others who have will bear the weight of the few. Sort of like how law abiding gun owners are treated by the anti-gunners in this Country.

I'm done here. Nothing I can say will fix anything done by others despite knowing what I know. Each of the personal experiences of those quoted above are valid and true because they have been through something personal, I won't dispute that.

Good luck one and all.
You were offered a chance to change my view in the post you quoted, and like all the other cops on the forum you do not a thing, I see nothing more than excuses.
Do you watch the news, I don't see very many weeks go by that a local incident happens and you have the nerve to say "done by a few"? Does your job require randoms?

EVERY COP in Wayne county that allows other cops to break the law is part of your few. That sir is a fact.

ETA: Just like every other "special class" you got your needs covered so you are done. Thanks for proving our point.

[G22]

Wow. So much hurt, so many hard and angry feelings from several people here to include a Moderator. I guess my support of the RKBA as well as those that I have known on the job for more than two decades can't compare with the damage done by a few in the occupation.

Sounds like a no-win scenario for me to even attempt to try. The damage has been done by others and yet people on the job like me soon to retire who have never violated rights of others, who have never defended others who have will bear the weight of the few. Sort of like how law abiding gun owners are treated by the anti-gunners in this Country.

I'm done here. Nothing I can say will fix anything done by others despite knowing what I know. Each of the personal experiences of those quoted above are valid and true because they have been through something personal, I won't dispute that.

Good luck one and all.

I think you misunderstood my post. I'll attempt to explain. I'm not hurt or angry with the individuals who receive the special treatment, but I am upset with those who granted it.
Like it or not you are in a special class, even if you had nothing to do with getting there. That doesn't mean anyone is upset with you personally. Ones occupation should not automatically qualify them to have extended basic human rights where others are restricted. That is the fallacy promoted by our legislature and those in the top brass political positions in law enforcement.

You seem to have some knowledge in dealing with the general law enforcement community and their perception of RKBA, so I'm genuinely curious. Have any of the pending exempt classes ever contacted their representatives saying that they do not support these bills because it creates special classes? Because I personally have never seen it. I've been wrong before, maybe I'm wrong. Am I?

[kryl]

Yup.

I care...very little... if a cop says he's pro-gun or pro 2A for we mere peons, when he's a special class.

It's a de facto special class. They get unrestricted carry. We don't. They're part of the problem. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

_____________________________ _____ ________________ :yeahthat:

[gmanbp88]

I will be in line at Henry Ruff SO to get my PFZ exempt CPL on 07-13-2015...as Wayne Co. Says this is the day we ( special class) can apply..I do this with pride...I hope someday soon all michigan CPL holders will be able to do the same....and will do what I can to see that it happens...

To stir the pot a bit...cause thats what I do.....i see pending legislation regarding Vets being exempt CPL fees and hunting lottery preference....ect...as as service connected non combat vet...i dont feel special...whats the pushback/feeling.. if any on this pending legislation?

[G22]

I will be in line at Henry Ruff SO to get my PFZ exempt CPL on 07-13-2015...as Wayne Co. Says this is the day we ( special class) can apply..I do this with pride...I hope someday soon all michigan CPL holders will be able to do the same....and will do what I can to see that it happens...

To stir the pot a bit...cause thats what I do.....i see pending legislation regarding Vets being exempt CPL fees and hunting lottery preference....ect...as as service connected non combat vet...i dont feel special...whats the pushback/feeling.. if any on this pending legislation?

Most of the vets who commented are against it because they see it for what it really is.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?330570-HB-4682-Veteran-preferance-for-Lottery-hunt
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?328851-HB-4593-Exempt-license-application-and-licensing-fee-for-Vets

Nobody is arguing against having more lawful individuals carrying in PFZ's. The problem is the thought process in the legislature that determines who is, and who is not deemed worthy of such special treatment.

I'm not active military or a vet. However I have worked as a DoD contractor and have done jobs that have no doubt contributed to saving the lives of active military personnel. The next time you see a Chinook, Cobra, Kiowa, Black Hawk, Apache, or Iroquois not fall out of the sky and kill people because of transmission failure, you're welcome!

Should I be given a PFZ exemption because of my occupation? And others not? Sounds ridiculous right?

[gmanbp88]

As a former 431..USAF Crew Chief..F-15...Langley 1st TAC...I say Hell no..as a PHI...Air logistics...former helicopter Mechanic...i say ..hell no...as a current FAA certified AP mechanic...i say hell no...DoD..contractor...are you F*%king kidding?...

[G22]

As a former 431..USAF Crew Chief..F-15...Langley 1st TAC...I say Hell no..as a PHI...Air logistics...former helicopter Mechanic...i say ..hell no...as a current FAA certified AP mechanic...i say hell no...DoD..contractor...are you F*%king kidding?...

Exactly. Hell no, to all special classes.

[G36 Shooter]

I will be in line at Henry Ruff SO to get my PFZ exempt CPL on 07-13-2015...as Wayne Co. Says this is the day we ( special class) can apply..I do this with pride...I hope someday soon all michigan CPL holders will be able to do the same....and will do what I can to see that it happens...

To stir the pot a bit...cause thats what I do.....i see pending legislation regarding Vets being exempt CPL fees and hunting lottery preference....ect...as as service connected non combat vet...i dont feel special...whats the pushback/feeling.. if any on this pending legislation?
I am happy to read that you will do what you can to help all Michigan CPL holders have the PFZ box checked, my question is where have you been when some of us took the time to be in Lansing to testify before committee against these carve outs? What is good for some should be good for all.

[luckless]

My prediction for this term:

We will be told that gorp like this is what we want and we should be grateful to the legislators that "worked so hard for us" to get this kind of crap passed.

We need to hold them accountable at election time. If you can't go to Lansing, we need to take the time to see them in person to express our displeasure. We fail when we accept their unacceptable work as a "win".

Time to spend our (meaning the gun community in general, not MGO in specific) effort on the 2016 election. Not only should we identify who our friends are but, more importantly, we need to identify the enemies claiming to be a friend. They obviously didn't get the message last November.

[Tallbear]

SB 0053 of 2015 (PA 0016 of 2015)
Weapons; firearms; exemption for retired federal law enforcement officers to carry a concealed pistol in pistol-free zones; provide for. Amends secs. 1, 5b & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.).
Last Action: 7/28/2015 Analysis File Added

[G22]

RATIONALE

The handgun licensure law contains a list of places where a person who has a concealed pistol license (CPL), or who is exempt from the requirement for licensure, is prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol. Commonly called "no-carry zones", these include sports arenas, taverns, hospitals, schools, day care centers, and houses of worship. The prohibition does not apply, however, to certain licensees who are considered more likely than the average citizen to interact with or be threatened by potentially dangerous individuals or to have extensive training in the proper use of firearms, or both. The list of people who are exempt from the no-carry zone restriction includes retired police officers and retired law enforcement officers, who were certified as officers under State law. It was suggested that CPL holders who are retired Federal law enforcement officers also should be exempt.


Supporting Argument

Federal law enforcement officers, such as FBI agents and U.S. Marshals, may face violent criminals and dangerous situations in the course of their work. Weapons training for Federal officers is at least as comprehensive as the training for State-certified law enforcement officers. Consequently, retired Federal officers face the same potential dangers as retired State and local officers and are as well prepared to know when and how to use a weapon. The handgun licensure law exempts from the no-carry zone limitations CPL holders who are retired State-certified law enforcement officers. By including retired Federal law enforcement officers in the list of people to whom CPL no-carry zones do not apply, the bill eliminates an inconsistency that allowed retired State and local police officers to carry concealed pistols in no-carry zones but did not allow retired Federal officers to do so. The bill allows those Federal retirees to protect themselves in all locations , just as retired State and local law enforcement officers have been able to do.


Opposing Argument

Rather than continuing to carve out special exemptions from the restriction against carrying a concealed pistol in no-carry zones, legislation should simply eliminate the weapon-free zones. It is inappropriate to offer a no-carry zone exemption only to certain classes of individuals. The idea that some people are worthy of special protection of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while others are not should be rejected. Unnecessary restrictions on CPL holders should be lifted.


Response

Due to their former careers, retired law enforcement officers, whether Federal, State, or local, may be more at-risk than other CPL holders and should be able to protect themselves regardless of their location. Like current and retired judges, who also are exempt, retired law enforcement officers may be targeted by convicts, or associates of convicts, they helped put behind bars. In addition, while everyone's constitutional rights should be preserved, offering additional exemptions from no-carry zone restrictions may be viewed as another step toward eliminating those restrictions entirely.

Us> :bash: <Them

[Leader]

If retired LEO's are afraid of being shot, they can take refuge in a PFZ, guns aren't allowed there & they will be safe.

[Roundballer]

Us> :bash: <Them
Yep, they are just rubbing our faces in it.

The "ANALYSIS AS ENACTED" is an exact copy of "ANALYSIS AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE", and this bill was passed three months ago.