H.B. 4535 Exempt law enforcement officer from purchase permit process

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-HB-4535)
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 4/29/2015 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[luckless]

What??!!

[Leader]

Why would anyone oppose this?
We all know how SPECIAL police are, they deserve special treatment because they may not qualify for a permit or CPL.

[Roundballer]

This is ridiculous! A LEO can actually be licensed under State law to be a LEO, yet be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms under domestic violence laws.

Now someone has come up with the idea that they will create a hole for them. No back-ground in a private sale!

The pistol registration data base will officially be junk and pointless.

[Kilt Guy]

This is ridiculous! A LEO can actually be licensed under State law to be a LEO, yet be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms under domestic violence laws.

Now someone has come up with the idea that they will create a hole for them. No back-ground in a private sale!

The pistol registration data base will officially be junk and pointless.

I thought it already was

[Leader]

This is ridiculous! A LEO can actually be licensed under State law to be a LEO, yet be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms under domestic violence laws.

Now someone has come up with the idea that they will create a hole for them. No back-ground in a private sale!

The pistol registration data base will officially be junk and pointless.

But ALL LEO's can be trusted, the're not like regular people.

[Roundballer]

I thought it already was
From OUR point of view, yes, but not theirs.


But ALL LEO's can be trusted, the're not like regular people.
Riiiiiight!

black

Just look at this list of cosponsors!

Lana Theis - (primary)
Kathy Crawford,
Peter Lucido,
Pat Somerville,
Tom Barrett,
Anthony Forlini,
Jim Tedder,
Amanda Price,
Ray Franz,
Laura Cox,
Michael Webber,
Joel Johnson,
Cindy Gamrat,
Jason Sheppard,
Earl Poleski,
Thomas Hooker,
Todd Courser,
<---My Guy, not my choice, but he beat out the better person in the primary. He "supports the 2A" with the typical "hunting" statements!
Dave Pagel,
Gary Glenn,
Hank Vaupel,
Jim Runestad,
Lee Chatfield,
Ed McBroom,
Jon Bumstead,
John Bizon,
Ken Goike,
Triston Cole,
Aaron Miller,
Klint Kesto,
Ken Yonker,
Bruce Rendon

[luckless]

When the Republicans finally get a governor with control of both the house and senate they can start passing pro gun legislation.

[Leader]

Tie bar this to a bill eliminating at least TWO PFZ's.
Or... eliminate the duty to notify.

[jmonarch]

Tie bar this to a bill eliminating at least TWO PFZ's.
Or... eliminate the duty to notify.

Or Constitutional Carry

[G22]

Waiting for all those who claim to not be in special classes to chime in.....

[Leader]

Or Constitutional Carry

That would be too much, try for something that at least has a chance of getting through if cops are going to get even more special treatment.

[luckless]

I think this is their way of telling us that we will get nothing from the legislature this session. They simply want to make it obvious that our concerns are not theirs. Perhaps there just isn't enough pro gun legislators in leadership and in key committees. Question is, did it just happen or was the deck stacked against us? Their actions this session are more than just votes by obtuse legislators. They seem to be going out of their way to stymie our movement and poke a political finger in our collective eye.

[MP Miller]

Just replace the words "Law Enforcement Officer" with "everyone" and I fully support this bill.

[G36 Shooter]

Or Constitutional Carry

Cindy Gamrat stated at the 2A March she will be introducing Constitutional Carry.

[MichiGUNDer]

Looking for a legal opinion: While this would exempt them from the state pistol permitting process I'm pretty sure it would not exempt them from the NICs check. Am I wrong? So if they are federally ineligible from purchasing the pistol wouldn't they still then be prohibited?
Don't get me wrong, even if the NICs check would catch them I am still fully against this bill. No special classes of people.

[dpa]

Just replace the words "Law Enforcement Officer" with "everyone" and I fully support this bill.

CPL holders already can.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[luckless]

CPL holders already can.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Police officers can already be CPL holders.

[bobn]

Lana Theis - (primary)
Kathy Crawford,
Peter Lucido,
Pat Somerville,
Tom Barrett,
Anthony Forlini,
Jim Tedder,
Amanda Price,
Ray Franz,
Laura Cox,
Michael Webber,
Joel Johnson,
Cindy Gamrat,
Jason Sheppard,
Earl Poleski,
Thomas Hooker,
Todd Courser,
<---My Guy, not my choice, but he beat out the better person in the primary. He "supports the 2A" with the typical "hunting" statements!
Dave Pagel, <---- This guy was my choice the first time around. Wasn't the second.
Gary Glenn,
Hank Vaupel,
Jim Runestad,
Lee Chatfield,
Ed McBroom,
Jon Bumstead,
John Bizon,
Ken Goike,
Triston Cole,
Aaron Miller, <--- This young whippersnapper needs to wake up
Klint Kesto,
Ken Yonker,
Bruce Rendon

Just my opinion. Later, Bob

[DEVIL DOG]

So does this mean that cops that DON'T have a CPL can just fill out a Ri-060 & be good to go?

[luckless]

So does this mean that cops that DON'T have a CPL can just fill out a Ri-060 & be good to go?

Yes

[Jared1981]

So if they don't ever obtain an LTP and they don't have a CPL, then they will not have a waiver from the federal school zone... I doubt they would care anyway as it isn't likely to be enforced on them.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, June 16, 2015

TIME: 12:00 PM

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

AGENDA:
HB 4210 (Rep. Lyons) Health; medical marihuana; marihuana-infused products; allow and regulate.

HB 4535 (Rep. Theis) Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers.

[EricF517]

Waiting for all those who claim to not be in special classes to chime in.....

You got a CPL G?

[G22]

You got a CPL G?

Yes. I don't need to get a PP. The exemption came with my unconstitutional (but required by law) permission slip. An exemption for me, but an infringement for all those who otherwise are legally able to purchase firearms but don't have a CPL.

There are lots of special classes out there. There shouldn't be a need for any of them. It's just putting a bandaid on a broken system instead of fixing the root problem.

[EricF517]

Yes. I don't need to get a PP. The exemption came with my unconstitutional (but required by law) permission slip. An exemption for me, but an infringement for all those who otherwise are legally able to purchase firearms but don't have a CPL.

There are lots of special classes out there. There shouldn't be a need for any of them. It's just putting a bandaid on a broken system instead of fixing the root problem.

Ok so you are a special class. Just wanted to make sure.

[Leader]

You got a CPL G?

Any officer that qualifies can also get a CPL & won't need this exception.
Pay your money for the privilege just like the rest of us.

[G22]

Ok so you are a special class. Just wanted to make sure.

Yes, and I am against the need to legislate ANY special classes including mine. Fix the root problem and stop all this nonsense.

I am more than ready to actively work towards removing all special classes, all of them including the one that benefits me, and replacing them with constitutional carry that benefits everyone.

Now, are the multitude of other special classes willing to do the same? Somehow I highly doubt it. Know of any Judges ready to work towards a constitutional replacement instead of their exemptions? How many officers have contacted their reps in opposition to this new exemption and advocated for a real fix? Have you?

I have. And I do every time they try this garbage. Apparently the ol' "if you don't like the law, work to get it changed" idea isn't working out so well for me...

[EricF517]

Any officer that qualifies can also get a CPL & won't need this exception.
Pay your money for the privilege just like the rest of us.

I do have a CPL, so what's your point?

[Roundballer]

Ok so you are a special class. Just wanted to make sure.
A CPL is not a special class. A CPL is a expiring identification that was trained for and paid for.

This bill creates a special class that doesn't have to pay for instruction, and then purchase the "license".

This bill exempts a LEO from need for a CPL OR LTP, and would allow a LEO to get around the DV/firearm laws in a private purchase. THAT is a Special Class!

[EricF517]

A CPL is not a special class. A CPL is a expiring identification that was trained for and paid for.

This bill creates a special class that doesn't have to pay for instruction, and then purchase the "license".

This bill exempts a LEO from need for a CPL OR LTP, and would allow a LEO to get around the DV/firearm laws in a private purchase. THAT is a Special Class!

So if you have a CPL and beat your wife's ass last night, you're trying to tell me you couldn't meet up with a guy from MGO today and make a private purchase with your CPL today?

[Leader]

I do have a CPL, so what's your point?


Maybe bigger letters will help....

"Any officer that qualifies can also get a CPL & won't need this exception."

[EricF517]

No you really aren't going to be able to help. So we are complaining about protected classes, when someone with a CPL fall under the same rules...........OK

[DEVIL DOG]

What cops do in private should not be enhanced by what they do for a living. They are in no way BETTER than we are. I have nothing against cops, just sayin', their rights shouldn't be better than our rights.

Background check, get the training, take the test, get CPL, end of story.

Just do away with all of the gun free zones, & special privileges, then everyone will be equal. ( And safe ).

[Leader]

No you really aren't going to be able to help. So we are complaining about protected classes, when someone with a CPL fall under the same rules...........OK

No it's not ok but you seem to be unwilling to admit this is asking for special treatment for police.

You have become a certified troll with no other objective but to create an argument anyplace you post on this board .
No way do you actually believe this garbage you spout out.

[Roundballer]

No you really aren't going to be able to help. So we are complaining about protected classes, when someone with a CPL fall under the same rules...........OK
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells and cockleshells
And pretty maids all in a row?


No it's not ok but you seem to be unwilling to admit this is asking for special treatment for police.

You have become a certified troll with no other objective but to create an argument anyplace you post on this board .
No way do you actually believe this garbage you spout out.
It is called zoilism.

[luckless]

I wonder how many constituents actually called the reps that signed on to this gorp and demanded special rights for our special classes of citizen. If they represent everyone in their district, why are they only working for the government employees?

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, June 16, 2015

TIME: 12:00 PM

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

AGENDA:
HB 4535 (Rep. Theis) Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers.

SB 281 (Sen. Schuitmaker) Courts; district court; reallocation of portion of certain filing fees paid to the Wayne County retirement system for bailiffs in the thirty-sixth district court under certain circumstances; provide for.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 6/15/2015 Analysis File Added

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 6/16/2015 referred to second reading

[luckless]

Just called the sponsor's office. Lana Theis obviously has no clue regarding gun law. We're screwed.

[G36 Shooter]

Or Constitutional Carry

I agree

[dpa]

Just called the sponsor's office. Lana Theis obviously has no clue regarding gun law. We're screwed.

How are you screwed?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[luckless]

How are you screwed?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I don't belong to a special enough class to get representation in Lansing.

[doesch]

What we need to say is whenever this “special class” nonsense comes up is that the legislature is against teachers, emts, firefighters, nurses, doctors, the working class, and poor. Just because someone chose to be in law enforcement does not mean they should get any special rights.

Why should LEO be able to protect themselves for free when other groups of citizens can’t?

Are the contributions to society of a cop really superior to that of a teacher, nurse, firefighter, doctor, or EMT?

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 7/15/2015 Analysis File Added

[Leader]

Why don't they just pass a bill that says police don't have to obey any laws?

[Roundballer]

You wouldn't want them to acknowledge the truth, now would you?

[Tallbear]

Wrong post...sorry

[bigrin]

What we need to say is whenever this “special class” nonsense comes up is that the legislature is against teachers, emts, firefighters, nurses, doctors, the working class, and poor. Just because someone chose to be in law enforcement does not mean they should get any special rights.

Why should LEO be able to protect themselves for free when other groups of citizens can’t?

Are the contributions to society of a cop really superior to that of a teacher, nurse, firefighter, doctor, or EMT?

LE should just go and get their CPL's. End of story.

[MP Miller]

LE should just go and get their CPL's. End of story.
Agreed.

Know what I would support, exempting certified officers from taking the CPL class. Just pay your money background check and get your CPL.

[Roundballer]

and 8

[Leader]

and 8

You're as bad as he is ...following him around like this.


Agreed.

Know what I would support, exempting certified officers from taking the CPL class. Just pay your money background check and get your CPL.

I can agree with that *IF* it also applies to the rest of us.

[Tallbear]

And the fact that 15% of officers do not qualify to get a purchase permit.

[wizzi01]

And the fact that 15% of officers do not qualify to get a purchase permit.

15% doesn't coincide with what some officers are saying that it's only a small percentage of them that is bad.

[MP Miller]

15% doesn't coincide with what some officers are saying that it's only a small percentage of them that is bad.
I would also be shocked if it was as high as 15%. My wild guess is somewhere around 1-5%.

[Leader]

TB didn't say 15% of the officers are bad, only that they don't qualify for a purchase permit.
Anything they have done to disqualify themselves was justified.

[dpa]

And the fact that 15% of officers do not qualify to get a purchase permit.
Where are you getting that information from?

[wizzi01]

Where are you getting that information from?

You obviously don't pay attention to what some of the police on these forums say.

[dpa]

You obviously don't pay attention to what some of the police on these forums say.

So, this percent is from word of mouth? And what were the reasons for this "alleged" 15%? I call B.S.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Jared1981]

Quite a few state and locals are criminally ineligible for a CPL, I can tell you that this number is MUCH higher than people would think; however, I highly doubt 15% are ineligible for a License to Possess/Purchase.

Their may be a few but that's extremely rare. While Federal law gives government workers complete exemption (except lautenburg), MCOLES closes off a lot of those exemptions except for a couple, most notably the high court misdemeanor, but only a few states still have such misdemeanors that = federal prohibition.

The only one that comes to mind currently is a OWI in Massachusetts, that would make anyone federally prohibited from private ownership.

[Leader]

Quite a few state and locals are criminally ineligible for a CPL, I can tell you that this number is MUCH higher than people would think; however, I highly doubt 15% are ineligible for a License to Possess/Purchase.

Their may be a few but that's extremely rare. While Federal law gives government workers complete exemption (except lautenburg), MCOLES closes off a lot of those exemptions except for a couple, most notably the high court misdemeanor, but only a few states still have such misdemeanors that = federal prohibition.

The only one that comes to mind currently is a OWI in Massachusetts, that would make anyone federally prohibited from private ownership.

How about all the "domestic violence" charges?

[Jared1981]

How about all the "domestic violence" charges?

Lautenburg domestic violence is the only federal prohibition that applies to government employees. No state can keep a government employee armed if they were convicted under lautenburg or if they have an active lautenburg PPO.

Lautenburg isn't a high court misdemeanor. It's a misdemeanor that mine was well be a super felony though.

They can keep them employed if they want, but they can't touch a firearm.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 9/22/2015 placed on third reading

[luckless]

More bad law from our "friends" in Lansing.

[dpa]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 9/22/2015 placed on third reading

What does this mean?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[luckless]

The bill is read three times before it comes out of committee and before it can get voted on in that committee, I think. After the third reading it goes to the committee of the whole. The committee of the whole is all of the representatives. I don't know if they actually read it three times or if it just a term they use.

[Roundballer]

The bill is read three times before it comes out of committee and before it can get voted on in that committee, I think. After the third reading it goes to the committee of the whole. The committee of the whole is all of the representatives. I don't know if they actually read it three times or if it just a term they use.
The first reading of the bill is when it is introduced.

It is then assigned to committee. The committee reviews, takes testimony, analysis of impacts on finance etc. and makes recommendations for amendment. The committee will them report it out of committee.
The bill is read a second time after being returned to the floor.

There is a certain allowance for debate and more amendment.
Then it is placed on the order of third reading, which is immediately followed by a vote (there may be other rules that allow further delays)

[luckless]

The first reading of the bill is when it is introduced.

It is then assigned to committee. The committee reviews, takes testimony, analysis of impacts on finance etc. and makes recommendations for amendment. The committee will them report it out of committee.
The bill is read a second time after being returned to the floor.

There is a certain allowance for debate and more amendment.
Then it is placed on the order of third reading, which is immediately followed by a vote (there may be other rules that allow further delays)
That sounds better...

Do you know if they actually read it?

[dpa]

The first reading of the bill is when it is introduced.

It is then assigned to committee. The committee reviews, takes testimony, analysis of impacts on finance etc. and makes recommendations for amendment. The committee will them report it out of committee.
The bill is read a second time after being returned to the floor.

There is a certain allowance for debate and more amendment.
Then it is placed on the order of third reading, which is immediately followed by a vote (there may be other rules that allow further delays)

Thank you for clarifying.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Roundballer]

Do you know if they actually read it?
For the first reading, the courts have ruled that merely reading the title is sufficient.

For second and third readings, the individual chambers have their own rule, and they are supposed to read it, but it can be gotten around, and the general practice is to not read it.

This explains a lot:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/howbillbecomeslaw.pdf

[luckless]

For the first reading, the courts have ruled that merely reading the title is sufficient.

For second and third readings, the individual chambers have their own rule, and they are supposed to read it, but it can be gotten around, and the general practice is to not read it.

This explains a lot:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/howbillbecomeslaw.pdf

Excellent! Bookmarked it.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 9/24/2015 transmitted

[Roundballer]

OKAY, it is now time to hammer the Senate with the letters and calls of disapproval.

[Tallbear]

DATE: Tuesday, October 20, 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



Presentations on Medical Marihuana Regulation by:

BioTrack THC

Beacon Information Designs, LLC.

Blue Health and Wellness Center, LLC.



SB 487 Sen. Booher Corrections; other; operating unmanned aerial vehicles within 1,000 feet of correctional facility; prohibit, and provide penalties.



SB 488 Sen. Booher Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for operating unmanned aerial vehicles within 1,000 feet of correctional facility; enact.



SB 558 Sen. Jones Probate; other; dower rights; repeal.



SB 559 Sen. Jones Family law; marriage and divorce; requirement that judgment of divorce contain provisions regarding wife's dower rights; eliminate.



SB 560 Sen. Jones Probate; wills and estates; reference to dower in estates and protected individuals code; revise to reflect abolition of dower.



HB 4535 Rep. Theis Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 10/22/2015 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

[Roundballer]

So, in this "S-1" change, they add a way to check to see if a LEO is certified when the MSP processes the RI-060:

New inclusion in the "S-1" version:


20 (7) THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS SHALL
21 PROVIDE CERTIFICATE INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE
22 TO VERIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.

NICE........

[midlandshooter]

No more special citizens.

[MP Miller]

So what ID would a cop need to provide to buy a gun from an individual without a purchase permit? What is the definition of a police officer? I see lots of problems with this.

[Leader]

So what ID would a cop need to provide to buy a gun from an individual without a purchase permit? What is the definition of a police officer? I see lots of problems with this.

What form are they going to use to register a handgun?

[MP Miller]

What form are they going to use to register a handgun?
Are they exempt from registration or just the permit process?

None of it makes sense anyway so I'm not sure if it matters.

[Jared1981]

Are they exempt from registration or just the permit process?

None of it makes sense anyway so I'm not sure if it matters.

Who knows. The MCL keeps getting more confusing every year because some of the "gun people" have morons at the helm.

Did you know that you can be denied a purchase permit for any misdemeanor disqualification that applies to a CPL?

The convictions are fine, but not pending charges.

Maybe someone out there is MCOLES certified but they have a pending DUI or other charge listed in 5b, so maybe that's why this bill is moving quick.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 1/14/2016 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING WITH SUBSTITUTE S-1

[luckless]

Looks like they are working just as hard for us this year as they did last year. At least I expect to get nothing from Lansing this year so I won't be as disappointed as last year.

Lansing's gun rights agenda can be summed up as, "Of the government, by the government and for the government

[matt11]

I seem to remember a news story last year about some people (mostly well to do) being put on small towns police forces even though there really were not officers there. I wonder what kind of benefits they would be getting.

[MP Miller]

I seem to remember a news story last year about some people (mostly well to do) being put on small towns police forces even though there really were not officers there. I wonder what kind of benefits they would be getting.
They were being made reserve officers so they could carry in PFZs and carry in all 50 states under LEOSA.

I have zero issue with it personally.

[wizzi01]

They were being made reserve officers so they could carry in PFZs and carry in all 50 states under LEOSA.

I have zero issue with it personally.

You don't have an issue with bribery?

[matt11]

You don't have an issue with bribery?

I have a buddy I went to school with up north. I think he is a sheriff now, I'm sure for a donation to the right fund I could get to be a deputy.

[MP Miller]

You don't have an issue with bribery?
My understanding is that they voluntarily funded the department allowing the department to pay their employees better and have better equipment.

That makes the plan the least crooked part of the government in my eyes.

[Divegeek]

I don't think this applies to reserve officers. Only MCOLES certified officers, of which very few reservists qualify for.

[MP Miller]

I don't think this applies to reserve officers. Only MCOLES certified officers, of which very few reservists qualify for.
We got way off topic, we're not talking about the OP anymore but my understanding is many reserves are MCOLES certified.

[Divegeek]

We got way off topic, we're not talking about the OP anymore but my understanding is many reserves are MCOLES certified.
I guess it depends on the department. I know several reservists on the Lenawee county sheriff's dept, and my father all but ran the reserve program for several years. They only had 2-3 MCOLES certified reservists that joined while waiting to get hired in as regular officers. The rest (the majority) were just regular shmoes that wanted to help out. They went through a special training program created and ran by that department. Now the non-certified officers were not allowed to make arrests or write tickets, but were frequently used paired with a regular officer to watch his back.

The reserves there didn't pay to join, they received a badge, ammo, and uniform once their training was complete. They had to provide their own pistol. They also didn't get paid for most of their work.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 1/21/2016 laid over one day under the rules

[Leader]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 1/21/2016 laid over one day under the rules

Still wondering what form a cop with a record uses to register a gun he/she buys without a permit from a felon on the street?

[Roundballer]

Still wondering what form a cop with a record uses to register a gun he/she buys without a permit from a felon on the street?

They will use the RI-060, just with their LEO certificate number instead of a CPL number.

It IS a tougher row to hoe in order to get it, it just doesn't have the BG limitations that a NICS check would have.

[jeff s]

We got way off topic, we're not talking about the OP anymore but my understanding is many reserves are MCOLES certified.Actually, you will find very few that are certified. MCOLES does NOT certify reserve officers. The only reserves that are certified would be the odd officer who retired with certification and/or a new officer who completed the academy, but has not been hired (and actually they are certifiable, not certified).

[MP Miller]

Actually, you will find very few that are certified. MCOLES does NOT certify reserve officers. The only reserves that are certified would be the odd officer who retired with certification and/or a new officer who completed the academy, but has not been hired (and actually they are certifiable, not certified).
Odd, at one time I showed interest in being a reserve and asked a Wayne County reserve officer and they said I had to take their night academy and get certified first.

[EricF517]

Odd, at one time I showed interest in being a reserve and asked a Wayne County reserve officer and they said I had to take their night academy and get certified first.

Certified as a reserve, not as a LEO.

[SADAacp]

Certified as a reserve, not as a LEO.

Yeah that. At MCCC, it's a 136 hour program, offered once a year for those sponsored by an LEA.

[MP Miller]

Yeah that. At MCCC, it's a 136 hour program, offered once a year for those sponsored by an LEA.
They were pushing that.

I was willing to volunteer some time because I work a desk now but I wasn't willing to be retrained because MI doesn't accept my training when I had no idea how long I would live here.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 1/26/2016 bill ordered enrolled

[luckless]

Yay. I'm so proud to be a republican 2A supporter these days. This is the opportunity we've been waiting for. Just one big win after another.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 2/2/2016 presented to the Governor 1/28/2016 @ 4:20 PM

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015 (PA 6 of 2016)
Weapons; licensing; purchase permit process; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 2/3/2016 assigned PA 6'16 with immediate effect

[Roundballer]

2/3/2016 Expected in HJ 10 approved by the Governor 2/2/2016 @ 3:45 PM

Signed into law, a widening of the "gun show loop hole". But only for those of that "special class".

[PhotoTom]

Signed into law, a widening of the "gun show loop hole". But only for those of that "special class".

Write a letter to the President…

Or, on second thought…he will only blame it on the "Republicans".

Nevermind.

[Michaelk]

So this looks like they don't have to get a PP ahead of time but I don't see that it exempts them from registering the pistol. They would still need to fill out an RI 60 and turn it in. Puts police at the same level as a CPL holder without requiring them to have a CPL.
Is the correct?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/publicact/htm/2016-PA-0006.htm

[luckless]

So this looks like they don't have to get a PP ahead of time but I don't see that it exempts them from registering the pistol. They would still need to fill out an RI 60 and turn it in. Puts police at the same level as a CPL holder without requiring them to have a CPL.
Is the correct?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/publicact/htm/2016-PA-0006.htm

It puts police in a position above all other non CPL holding citizens, to be correct. It also allows them to circumvent the NICS system and CPL background checks, to be picky.

[dpa]

Isn't, the more the merrier, and loosening the laws for law abiding citizens, the goal?

[MP Miller]

Isn't, the more the merrier, and loosening the laws for law abiding citizens, the goal?
The opposite opinion is the more exemptions there are the fewer people will be pushing for reform.

I don't know....

[dpa]

It puts police in a position above all other non CPL holding citizens, to be correct. It also allows them to circumvent the NICS system and CPL background checks, to be picky.
The background checks done on all police officers is far more involved then the one done on cpl holders.

[Kaeto]

Then how come a police officer can be MCOLES certified but cannot qualify for a Mi CPL?

[dpa]

Then how come a police officer can be MCOLES certified but cannot qualify for a Mi CPL?
Hence, this new law. It makes sense. The more good guys carrying guns, the better.

[Roundballer]

Hence, this new law. It makes sense. The more good guys carrying guns, the better.

No, these special "above the law" exemptions have to stop. "All Men Are Created Equal"!

Why allow someone with a DV conviction to circumvent the laws for hand guns, when everyone else can't?

http://womenandpolicing.com/violencefs.asp


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-wives-girlfriends-double-national-rate-receive-promotions/


https://www.policeone.com/health-fitness/articles/1350610-Domestic-violence-in-police-families-Causes-effects-intervention-strategies/


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php


http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/police-domestic-abuse/

[EricF517]

No, these special "above the law" exemptions have to stop. "All Men Are Created Equal"!

Why allow someone with a DV conviction to circumvent the laws for hand guns, when everyone else can't?

http://womenandpolicing.com/violencefs.asp


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-wives-girlfriends-double-national-rate-receive-promotions/


https://www.policeone.com/health-fitness/articles/1350610-Domestic-violence-in-police-families-Causes-effects-intervention-strategies/


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php


http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/police-domestic-abuse/

So which of the articles were supposed to support your "carrying with a DV conviction" idea?

[hendo]

Hence, this new law. It makes sense. The more good guys carrying guns, the better."

Let me preface this statement by saying that I neither love nor hate law enforcement officers.
I don't consider an LEO who is convicted of DV a "Good guy" as you say. A person who cannot control themselves at home, should never be able to police others, nor carry a gun on the street.

[dpa]

I don't consider an LEO who is convicted of DV a "Good guy" as you say. A person who cannot control themselves at home, should never be able to police others.

I agree. And the vast majority of police officers that are not like that?

[Roundballer]

I agree. And the vast majority of police officers that are not like that?

Let them either get a CPL or obtain LTPs like the rest of us. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Jared1981]

The background checks done on all police officers is far more involved then the one done on cpl holders.

They are not required by law, that is the problem. Federally, you can be prohibited from gun ownership and still be a cop or carry a gun on behalf of the government with one exception. See 18 USC 925.

On the State level, MCOLES does have a prohibition on felony convictions; however, they do not have any statutory ban on being a cop with misdemeanor convictions. Many misdemeanor convictions can make you federally prohibited from owning a firearm.

Hence the reason that not only can you be a cop while being criminally disqualified from obtaining a CPL, but you can be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms, and still be MCOLES certified and be a cop.

This is the reason why the ATF will never accept law enforcement credentials in lieu of a NICS check.

In fact, almost all states have this inconsistency.

[luckless]

Hence, this new law. It makes sense. The more good guys carrying guns, the better.
What makes you better than me? Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution.

[PhotoTom]

They are not required by law, that is the problem. Federally, you can be prohibited from gun ownership and still be a cop or carry a gun on behalf of the government with one exception. See 18 USC 925.

On the State level, MCOLES does have a prohibition on felony convictions; however, they do not have any statutory ban on being a cop with misdemeanor convictions. Many misdemeanor convictions can make you federally prohibited from owning a firearm.

Hence the reason that not only can you be a cop while being criminally disqualified from obtaining a CPL, but you can be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms, and still be MCOLES certified and be a cop.

This is the reason why the ATF will never accept law enforcement credentials in lieu of a NICS check.

In fact, almost all states have this inconsistency.

So, when a LEO buys a pistol from a FFL, they will still be run though NICS and will have a RI-60 to turn in…whereas a MI CPL holder is not required to get run though NICS?

However, when a LEO buys a pistol from a private seller, they will not be subjected to any background checks, but will still have a RI-60 to turn in?

If so, then it sounds like the latter is the only situation where a LEO can evade a background check.

It will be interesting to see how many private sellers do not accept LEO credentials in lieu of a CPL or LTP…

[Jared1981]

So, when a LEO buys a pistol from a FFL, they will still be run though NICS and will have a RI-60 to turn in…whereas a MI CPL holder is not required to get run though NICS?

However, when a LEO buys a pistol from a private seller, they will not be subjected to any background checks, but will still have a RI-60 to turn in?

If so, then it sounds like the latter is the only situation where a LEO can evade a background check.

It will be interesting to see how many private sellers do not accept LEO credentials in lieu of a CPL or LTP…

That's exactly right.

I would accept an RI-60 with an MCOLES number on it. I would have to know that they would be prohibited from ownership, so I just wouldn't ask questions, it's their problem, not mine.

It is a shame though that there is now a private sale loophole where a MI LEO who is prohibited from obtaining a LTP or CPL due to criminal history can now obtain a pistol via private sale.

This is a new addition to the lower standard. Rep Theis should have done her homework before rushing to appease police unions. I'm willing to be that this bill came about because a LEO who has a pending DUI charge was denied an LTP when he or she tried to engage in a private sale.

Of course, they could have used a dealer for the transfer and it would have been acceptable that way, after the NICS check.

[PhotoTom]

That's exactly right.

I would accept an RI-60 with an MCOLES number on it. I would have to know that they would be prohibited from ownership, so I just wouldn't ask questions, it's their problem, not mine.

It is a shame though that there is now a private sale loophole where a MI LEO who is prohibited from obtaining a LTP or CPL due to criminal history can now obtain a pistol via private sale.

This is a new addition to the lower standard. Rep Theis should have done her homework before rushing to appease police unions. I'm willing to be that this bill came about because a LEO who has a pending DUI charge was denied an LTP when he or she tried to engage in a private sale.

Of course, they could have used a dealer for the transfer and it would have been acceptable that way, after the NICS check.

Per the legislative analysis:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/House/pdf/2015-HLA-4535-A1DB241C.pdf


THE APPARENT PROBLEM:
When a Michigan police officer won a handgun in a drawing at a charity event, he found that he could not take possession of the pistol without first obtaining a handgun purchase permit. If he had possessed a concealed pistol license, he could have used the CPL in lieu of the handgun purchase permit. However, under state and federal laws, qualified active law enforcement officers are exempt from prohibitions on carrying concealed pistols. Because the officer did not have a CPL, and even though he was certified by the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards (MCOLES) as a law enforcement officer (and thus qualified to carry and use a handgun), he had to go through the handgun purchase permit process which includes passing a background check. It is has been suggested that the law be amended to allow an active duty law enforcement officer to use an MCOLES certification in lieu of obtaining a handgun purchase permit, much as a CPL holder is able to use that license in place of obtaining a permit to buy or possess a pistol.

[Jared1981]

Per the legislative analysis:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/House/pdf/2015-HLA-4535-A1DB241C.pdf

That analysis is laughable though. They don't mention if an FFL was handling the raffle or not. I'm assuming it was not. Under that assumption, since Michigan deems it necessary to regulate private sales. Michigan insists that a NICS worthy background check is conducted and that it is also matched against 71 misdemeanor disqualifiers where the person may have a charge pending.

To be MCOLES certified, under federal law, you can be a prohibited person, and under state law, only certain federal prohibitions are banned, many other are a-ok per MCOLES.

[PhotoTom]

That analysis is laughable though. They don't mention if an FFL was handling the raffle or not. I'm assuming it was not. Under that assumption, since Michigan deems it necessary to regulate private sales. Michigan insists that a NICS worthy background check is conducted and that it is also matched against 71 misdemeanor disqualifiers where the person may have a charge pending.

Why would you conclude that it was NOT a FFL refusing to complete the transfer without the LEO having a LTP or CPL? It may have happened before the change were FFLs could issue a RI-60 in lieu of a LTP.

[Jared1981]

Why would you conclude that it was NOT a FFL refusing to complete the transfer without the LEO having a LTP or CPL? It may have happened before the change were FFLs could issue a RI-60 in lieu of a LTP.

Because they could have just filled out the 4473 and done an RI-60 like anyone else pursuant to 28.422a. If not and they insisted on an LTP or CPL, then they most likely wouldn't have volunteered their services for a raffle.

In fact, no state level disqualifiers from 422 apply to 422a. They only go by federal standards. This is actually the only way for a MI resident who is a non-immigrant alien to obtain a handgun in MI is through an FFL. Even if they moved into the state, they would have to turn in all their guns to an FFL and reacquire them again via 28.422a.

Another crazy Michigan only special that hasn't been brought up to my knowledge.

[PhotoTom]

Regardless of how it came about, this bill really only changes ONE scenario...

- A LEO purchasing a pistol from a private seller that agrees to accept a LEO's credentials vs a CPL or LTP.

Really, in the grand scheme of things…"no big deal" all the way around.
Those that don't like the bill can simply refuse to accept a LEO's credentials and require that they go get a LTP.

:shrugs:

[Jared1981]

Regardless of how it came about, this bill really only changes ONE scenario...

- A LEO purchasing a pistol from a private seller that agrees to accept a LEO's credentials vs a CPL or LTP.

Really, in the grand scheme of things…"no big deal" all the way around.
Those that don't like the bill can simply refuse to accept a LEO's credentials and require that they go get a LTP.

:shrugs:

Very true. It's just frustrating because Tom Lambert and I were trying to explain this to the bill sponsor (Lana Theis) and she was completely unaware of how you can be a prohibited person and still carry around an MCOLES credential.

Explaining that to many people is like talking to a wall, they are just so shocked by it and they don't read any of the law links that we provided.

[luckless]

I can't think of an example when a system of tiered rights ever worked out for those of us on the bottom tier.

[PhotoTom]

Because they could have just filled out the 4473 and done an RI-60 like anyone else pursuant to 28.422a. If not and they insisted on an LTP or CPL, then they most likely wouldn't have volunteered their services for a raffle.

I had to look it up, but that provision has only been in place for 3 years, so, as I said, this could have been an "old problem" that someone got a wink and a nod that would be passed at this point.

Really, this bill just made it easier for LEO's to buy/sell with other LEO's for the most part.

[PhotoTom]

Very true. It's just frustrating because Tom Lambert and I were trying to explain this to the bill sponsor (Lana Theis) and she was completely unaware of how you can be a prohibited person and still carry around an MCOLES credential.

Explaining that to many people is like talking to a wall, they are just so shocked by it and they don't read any of the law links that we provided.

Probably unbelievable to them because they are basing their understanding on what it takes for a NON LEO to ENTER the field and become an employed MCOLES officer. Most departments are pretty strict on clean backgrounds. Heck, I know of a couple of guys that couldn't even get into Wayne County Sheriff's Office as jailers (entry level position for all new officers coming out of the academy) due to some pretty minor things that wouldn't have prevented them from getting a CPL.

So…getting INTO a career as a LEO is pretty strict (unless a department is totally desperate).

But, once it is your established career and you have a decent track record, slack is cut to keep you from losing your job. THAT is what the legislators don't know/understand.

[Kaeto]

Wonder how long it'll be before a cop raises a stink when a private seller won't accept the MCOLES Cert. and requires him to get a LTP?

[PhotoTom]

Wonder how long it'll be before a cop raises a stink when a private seller won't accept the MCOLES Cert. and requires him to get a LTP?

It would probably happen right then and there if the seller didn't disclose his terms in advance (CPL or LTP ONLY, NO EXCEPTIONS!).
The seller isn't legally obligated to sell to anyone they don't want to, so seller's terms apply.

Heck, there's probably some sellers out there that won't even accept a CPL (there was a lot of them for a few years after "shall issue" went into effect in 2001).

[dpa]

What makes you better than me? Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution.

It's amazing how some want more rights for owning/open carrying/conceal carrying, etc in as many places as possible across the country, which I agree with. More the merrier. But when it comes to a police officer, it's another story. I don't understand all the hatred for law enforcement. Do you not feel that law abiding citizens and law enforcement are on the same team? Did you have a bad experience with police, or something else? Do you realize that the vast majority of police officers are totally in favor of you carrying a firearm?

[dpa]

Regardless of how it came about, this bill really only changes ONE scenario...

- A LEO purchasing a pistol from a private seller that agrees to accept a LEO's credentials vs a CPL or LTP.

Really, in the grand scheme of things…"no big deal" all the way around.
Those that don't like the bill can simply refuse to accept a LEO's credentials and require that they go get a LTP.

:shrugs:

Agreed. Don't understand everyone losing sleep over this.

[luckless]

It's amazing how some want more rights for owning/open carrying/conceal carrying, etc in as many places as possible across the country, which I agree with. More the merrier. But when it comes to a police officer, it's another story. I don't understand all the hatred for law enforcement. Do you not feel that law abiding citizens and law enforcement are on the same team? Did you have a bad experience with police, or something else? Do you realize that the vast majority of police officers are totally in favor of you carrying a firearm?
So, you're happy that some rights are reserved for the chosen few. You seem to be content that the government picks winners and losers when it comes to civil rights. Perhaps I just have a silly notion that we should all be treated equally under the law.

[EricF517]

So, you're happy that some rights are reserved for the chosen few. You seem to be content that the government picks winners and losers when it comes to civil rights. Perhaps I just have a silly notion that we should all be treated equally under the law.

What rights are actually being "reserved for the chose few" by this?

[luckless]

What rights are actually being "reserved for the chose few" by this?
Does this new law benefit all of us, equally?

[PhotoTom]

Does this new law benefit all of us, equally?

Sure! You get pulled over…LEO walks up…you immediately disclose…he asks where is it…you say "on my hip"…he looks and says, "oh man, I've been looking for one of those for years! You want to sell it?"

Not only can you sell your gun right then and there, you get out of a ticket, too! ;)

[wsr]

Agreed. Don't understand everyone losing sleep over this.

...and I dont understand why they would waste time on passing this

[PhotoTom]

...and I dont understand why they would waste time on passing this

They didn't…it pretty much flew right though…very little time wasted...

[rs1]

"

Let me preface this statement by saying that I neither love nor hate law enforcement officers.
I don't consider an LEO who is convicted of DV a "Good guy" as you say. A person who cannot control themselves at home, should never be able to police others, nor carry a gun on the street.

Some time ago, I lived in a town in which a certain LEO was well known -- "by some" -- to be a classic example of a "bad cop." A guy I knew (we both attended the same church) told me that this LEO's ex-wife had attended the same church, and as a result, he had learned that he (the LEO) was a classic example of a "wife-beater").

I had two encounters with this LEO. In one encounter, I was able to avoid a collision that he nearly caused (his parked cruiser came tearing out into traffic, and I was able to swerve out of his way and avoid the collision). He gave me a dirty look, and then tailgated me for a block or so, and then pulled me over. He then ticketed me for an expired plate. (I was in the midst of an horrific custody case -- among other things, I had to carry a voice pager so that my kids could call me when they were being beaten. My daughter had a broken nose, which the hospital said had been broken and healed without treatment, when I took her there after another awful beating she'd endured. So, I had other things on my mind than license plate renewal.)

When I went in to see the Magistrate (an ex-cop, and a friend of mine), to pay the ticket, he urged me to file charges against the LEO. I said I wouldn't. He said if no one does anything, this guy is going to continue abusing people. I said I knew, but, "I have to live in this town." He said he understood.

Shortly after that, he retired from his position as Magistrate, because among other things, he didn't want to keep dealing with the judge's "cocaine induced mood swings."

He was IMO the classic example of a GOOD cop.

[rs1]

Do you not feel that law abiding citizens and law enforcement are on the same team?

Sure, we're on the same team. It's just that some of us are never allowed a turn at bat.



Do you realize that the vast majority of police officers are totally in favor of you carrying a firearm?

You being in favor of me carrying a firearm does not equate to me being allowed to carry a firearm.

(This, speaking as a disabled senior who cannot afford the nontrivial fees involved in being "allowed" to carry a firearm -- nor willing to deal with the hassle involved with open carry (for the unlicensed, so nontrivial as to amount to nonviable -- either walking everywhere I go (did I mention I am disabled -- and, happen to live six miles out of town?) -- not to mention having to unload/encase/store before getting into a vehicle, and then the reverse when getting out of a vehicle). Likewise, I cannot afford to pay a lawyer in case a LEO who is one that does NOT favor the idea of me carrying a firearm decides to anoint me the latest "test case" for open carry. Finally, I have no interest in learning first-hand what prison life involves, should I end up on the wrong end of a judge's gavel-swing. Would I rather be judged by twelve than carried by six? I've lived a full life, and seen far too much of what the typical man on the street is capable of (as was once pointed out, if you want to know why the world is in the shape it's in, look around you, and remind yourself that half the people you see have an IQ of less than 100), I guess my answer would be, "Not necessarily.")

Sorry for the long-winded post.

[Jared1981]

It's amazing how some want more rights for owning/open carrying/conceal carrying, etc in as many places as possible across the country, which I agree with. More the merrier. But when it comes to a police officer, it's another story. I don't understand all the hatred for law enforcement. Do you not feel that law abiding citizens and law enforcement are on the same team? Did you have a bad experience with police, or something else? Do you realize that the vast majority of police officers are totally in favor of you carrying a firearm?

It's well documented that numerous police unions support a gun control bill as long as they are exempt.
FLEOA even toyed with the idea of supporting a new federal Assault Weapon Ban (as long as there was a LEO exemption) after Sandy Hook.

I was the only LEO to testify against one of Rick Jones' latest carve outs for an exempt CPL. Of course, if Jones actually understood LEOSA, he would have known that it wasn't necessary as most of it is already federally preempted.

[dpa]

It's well documented that numerous police unions support a gun control bill as long as they are exempt.
FLEOA even toyed with the idea of supporting a new federal Assault Weapon Ban (as long as there was a LEO exemption) after Sandy Hook.

I was the only LEO to testify against one of Rick Jones' latest carve outs for an exempt CPL. Of course, if Jones actually understood LEOSA, he would have known that it wasn't necessary as most of it is already federally preempted.
I'm not talking about the federal government. I'm sure that there maybe some that do, as, like any other issues, you can't find 100% one way or the other. It's very well known that most all police officers (NOT 100%) are conservative and do not (NOT 100%) support any gun control.
You are law enforcement and should know this.
I'm also not talking about police Chiefs or Chiefs unions that are in the vast minority and are political and do not represent rank/file.

[luckless]

It's well documented that numerous police unions support a gun control bill as long as they are exempt.
FLEOA even toyed with the idea of supporting a new federal Assault Weapon Ban (as long as there was a LEO exemption) after Sandy Hook.

I was the only LEO to testify against one of Rick Jones' latest carve outs for an exempt CPL. Of course, if Jones actually understood LEOSA, he would have known that it wasn't necessary as most of it is already federally preempted.

Thank you, sir.:salute:

[Jared1981]

I'm not talking about the federal government. I'm sure that there maybe some that do, as, like any other issues, you can't find 100% one way or the other. It's very well known that most all police officers (NOT 100%) are conservative and do not (NOT 100%) support any gun control.
You are law enforcement and should know this.
I'm also not talking about police Chiefs or Chiefs unions that are in the vast minority and are political and do not represent rank/file.

So what police union has supported making gun laws less restrictive?

[Jared1981]

Thank you, sir.:salute:

You're welcome. It was actually an embarrassing sight. A bunch of retired federal LEO's were testifying in support even though they weren't educated enough to realize that LEOSA already exempts them from just about every pistol free zone.

You would think that after 30 years as a fed LEO, they would realize that federal law trumps state law, but they were clueless.

I explained this to the committee. They didn't seem to understand it, they were just pandering to Rick Jones.

[dpa]

So what police union has supported making gun laws less restrictive?

Supporting and ACTIVELY supporting, are two different things. Supporting(agreeing with less restrictive gun laws) yes. Going out of their way and on their own time rallying support? Not so much. You won't find many citizens, or, I'd bet anything, right here on this forum, members that actively do that.

[wsr]

Supporting and ACTIVELY supporting, are two different things. Supporting(agreeing with less restrictive gun laws) yes. Going out of their way and on their own time rallying support? Not so much. You won't find many citizens, or, I'd bet anything, right here on this forum, members that actively do that.

So none

[dpa]

So none

Depends on your question. Supporting or going out of their way and spending their time to actively do something about it. The latter, not much. No different then the rest of the population and probably, even right here on mgo.
And you being leo, you know most leo are not against people carrying guns(cpl holders).

[wsr]

Depends on your question. Supporting or going out of their way and spending their time to actively do something about it. The latter, not much. No different then the rest of the population and probably, even right here on mgo.
And you being leo, you know most leo are not against people carrying guns(cpl holders).

He asked about unions not individuals

[Jared1981]

It was a rhetorical question. I (and others) already knew the answer.

They don't. Only after shall issue do they softly support it, but I've yet to see any police union endorse a proposal that provides for more respect for the 2nd Amendment.

[dpa]

He asked about unions not individuals

Unions are made up of the individuals. Same applies.
But, I will admit, that police unions are not known for doing much to even advocate for themselves. Back when Snyder was taking benefits away from unions, there were many teachers union members in Lansing speaking out against Snyder. Not many leo to be found.

[wsr]

Unions are made up of the individuals. Same applies.
But, I will admit, that police unions are not known for doing much to even advocate for themselves. Back when Snyder was taking benefits away from unions, there were many teachers union members in Lansing speaking out against Snyder. Not many leo to be found.

And represent the members so anti gun union = anti gun or apathetic members...as LEOs like to say if you don't like it change it

[Leader]

Unions are made up of the individuals. Same applies.
But, I will admit, that police unions are not known for doing much to even advocate for themselves. Back when Snyder was taking benefits away from unions, there were many teachers union members in Lansing speaking out against Snyder. Not many leo to be found.

Funny, the MSP seem to have an awful lot of influence in the gun laws that get passed here in MI and always seem to get more restrictions added then we get relief.

Duty to inform.

PFZ's

No license for a whole list of minor stuff.

[dpa]

Funny, the MSP seem to have an awful lot of influence in the gun laws that get passed here in MI and always seem to get more restrictions added then we get relief.
I'll agree with you on that. More restrictions in Michigan? Seems like there has been several pro gun laws passed in the past several years.

[wsr]

I'll agree with you on that. More restrictions in Michigan? Seems like there has been several pro gun laws passed in the past several years.

Which ones did LEOs or police unions support?

[dpa]

Which ones did LEOs or police unions support?

I've already explained that. Which ones did the state police get more restrictions on?

[Leader]

I've already explained that. Which ones did the state police get more restrictions on?

Every one of them.

And I missed the police union support part you explained.

[dpa]

Every one of them

How has Michigan became more restrictive on guns?

[wsr]

Which ones did LEOs or police unions support?

So none

[Leader]

How has Michigan became more restrictive on guns?

CPL's are more expensive now.
Cpl's expire now.
Failure to inform fast enough that you are doing something 100% legal is now a crime with MANDATORY punishment.

Do I need to go back through every law in the last couple years & point out what we lost in each of them?
Name ONE pro gun law we didn't loose something.

[Jared1981]

CPL's are more expensive now.
Cpl's expire now.
Failure to inform fast enough that you are doing something 100% legal is now a crime with MANDATORY punishment.

Do I need to go back through every law in the last couple years & point out what we lost in each of them?
Name ONE pro gun law we didn't loose something.

The failure to inform provision shows the gross ignorance of the MSP.

Anyone who is illegally carrying it or anyone who intends on harming the cop is already constitutionally protected from self incrimination, therefore, they can not be compelled to disclose.

Do you think 50+ years of SCOTUS precedence mattered to the MSP or Mike Green? Nahhhhh.

[Gray Man]

Supporting and ACTIVELY supporting, are two different things. Supporting(agreeing with less restrictive gun laws) yes. Going out of their way and on their own time rallying support? Not so much. You won't find many citizens, or, I'd bet anything, right here on this forum, members that actively do that.

Agreed. I testified before a House Committee in Lansing years ago in support of the concealed carry reform efforts with MCRGO. But, the cop hate is so strong with a few here, to include a standing Board of Director, that it "doesn't count" because "What have I done for them lately".

[dpa]

CPL's are more expensive now.
Cpl's expire now.
Failure to inform fast enough that you are doing something 100% legal is now a crime with MANDATORY punishment.

Do I need to go back through every law in the last couple years & point out what we lost in each of them?
Name ONE pro gun law we didn't loose something.
Are you serious? You consider those to be big setbacks? Actually, the initial cost for cpl permit went down. The renewal cost went up.
Failure to inform is a police officer safety issue. You tell a police officer you have a cpl and gun on you. Big deal. And I'm expecting your response (and others)is going to be, "but I'm a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong and shouldn't have to tell a leo that I'm carrying" And probably more comments, because of all the hate for leo here. It amazes me.
There has been many pro gun laws passed in Michigan in the past several years. I could take the time and do the research for you, or you can get on the nra-ila site, or others and research it yourself. THERE ARE MANY.

[luckless]

Those are just the tip of the iceberg in setbacks. The best thing they did was lift a few restrictions on pellet rifles. I shouldn't be relegated to second class citizenship just because of my job choice.

[wsr]

Failure to inform is a police officer safety issue.

LOL no it's not...Most of the rest of the country gets by just fine without it


There has been many pro gun laws passed in Michigan in the past several years. I could take the time and do the research for you, or you can get on the nra-ila site, or others and research it yourself. THERE ARE MANY.
And how many of those were supported by LEO associations???

[Leader]

Are you serious? You consider those to be big setbacks? Actually, the initial cost for cpl permit went down. The renewal cost went up.
Failure to inform is a police officer safety issue. You tell a police officer you have a cpl and gun on you. Big deal. And I'm expecting your response (and others)is going to be, "but I'm a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong and shouldn't have to tell a leo that I'm carrying" And probably more comments, because of all the hate for leo here. It amazes me.
There has been many pro gun laws passed in Michigan in the past several years. I could take the time and do the research for you, or you can get on the nra-ila site, or others and research it yourself. THERE ARE MANY.

Yes I'm serious.
Big setbacks? No but, they are examples of what we loose in almost EVERY "pro gun" bill that gets passed and are a direct result of police influence.

Now as for "failure to inform", you call it an "officer safety" issue.
Please show me how it is just that & explain why it doesn't result in safer conditions for officers in MI as opposed to the 44 other states that don't have it.

And yes, I would like you to show me one pro gun law that was passed that we didn't loose something.

BTW... how does outlawing carrying a loaded gun in a vehicle make anyone safer?
The people that are going to use that loaded gun against others aren't going to care about a law saying you can't carry it in a vehicle if they don't care about the law saying you can't just shoot other people.
Many states allow it and don't have a problem with cleaning up the dead bodies from the highways.

[luckless]

I remember MCRGO telling me that they supported placing all CPL holders' fingerprints in AFIS because the MSP wanted it and that the MSP agreed to support us in some future, big legislative change. I'm still waiting to see that happen and I still don't trust either organization.

Like the MSP instructor says, "Anytime you can keep a gun from being purchased it means one less gun on the streets and one less gun in the hands of the bad guys".

[Leader]

How about rather then exempt police from purchase permits, we pass a law that says police are subject to ALL the laws that the public must obey?
Then as a citizen safety issue, require that police officers carrying off duty MUST under penalty of law immediately inform ALL citizens that they are carrying and be required to show ID upon demand?

That would make the citizens of MI much safer.

[dpa]

How about rather then exempt police from purchase permits, we pass a law that says police are subject to ALL the laws that the public must obey?
Then as a citizen safety issue, require that police officers carrying off duty MUST under penalty of law immediately inform ALL citizens that they are carrying and be required to show ID upon demand?

That would make the citizens of MI much safer.
Oh my. I've heard it all, now

[Leader]

Oh my. I've heard it all, now

And you still didn't find a single law that we didn't loose something that the police supported.

Nor did you explain how informing is an actual officer safety issue.

[Roundballer]

Are you serious? You consider those to be big setbacks? Actually, the initial cost for cpl permit went down. The renewal cost went up.
You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up.


Failure to inform is a police officer safety issue. You tell a police officer you have a cpl and gun on you. Big deal. And I'm expecting your response (and others)is going to be, "but I'm a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong and shouldn't have to tell a leo that I'm carrying" And probably more comments, because of all the hate for leo here. It amazes me.
Safety issue? Horse hockey. A law that requires an honest person, that is not likely to be of any danger to an officer must disclose, and if there is a failure, the officer MUST cite them for it. Furthermore, they have raised the penalty for this to a ridiculous level.
But turn that one around! A person carrying illegally, and more likely to be a danger is protected by the 5th Amendment, and is not required to disclose.


There has been many pro gun laws passed in Michigan in the past several years. I could take the time and do the research for you, or you can get on the nra-ila site, or others and research it yourself. THERE ARE MANY.
There have been several laws and AG opinions that made SOME improvements, but everyone also came with a penalty and loss.

AND, what the NRA-ILA may support is not always what we want or what would be the best!

[langenc]

We have been at this about 15 yrs now.

I met w/ Cole in Dec and brought up the part about 'carve outs' and don't need any more. He responded that "when enough are carved out the last little bit (US) will be easy??" I should have asked and how long will that take since we are already 15 yrs into that process.

[dpa]

You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up.


Safety issue? Horse hockey. A law that requires an honest person, that is not likely to be of any danger to an officer must disclose, and if there is a failure, the officer MUST cite them for it. Furthermore, they have raised the penalty for this to a ridiculous level.
But turn that one around! A person carrying illegally, and more likely to be a danger is protected by the 5th Amendment, and is not required to disclose.


There have been several laws and AG opinions that made SOME improvements, but everyone also came with a penalty and loss.

AND, what the NRA-ILA may support is not always what we want or what would be the best!

Of course, just like I figured.

[dpa]

You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up.


Safety issue? Horse hockey. A law that requires an honest person, that is not likely to be of any danger to an officer must disclose, and if there is a failure, the officer MUST cite them for it. Furthermore, they have raised the penalty for this to a ridiculous level.
But turn that one around! A person carrying illegally, and more likely to be a danger is protected by the 5th Amendment, and is not required to disclose.


There have been several laws and AG opinions that made SOME improvements, but everyone also came with a penalty and loss.

AND, what the NRA-ILA may support is not always what we want or what would be the best!
"You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/11/27/michigan-concealed-gun-licensing/76451244/
No they both didn't go up. Original app fee went down$5 and renewal went up$10. Between the two your losing $5. Big deal.

[Jared1981]

The problem with the duty to inform law is that it can ONLY be applied to someone legally carrying without criminal intent.

It's a feel good law that legally has no merit. Most states do not have this silly law. I didn't have people shooting at me from a vehicle as I approached it.

With all the arguing about CPL fees. They definitely went up on renewal by $10. Which BTW is all what a New Hampsire carry license costs, $10.

What has been overlooked is that when Mike Green was negotiating the latest bill with the MSP. They wanted to revert back to a 3 year license and raise the fee to $160. Without batting an eye, Green actually AGREED with it.

Everyone else pushed back hard.

[Leader]

"You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/11/27/michigan-concealed-gun-licensing/76451244/
No they both didn't go up. Original app fee went down$5 and renewal went up$10. Between the two your losing $5. Big deal.

So you agree that the final cost went up. That is a loss to us.
You also can't find a single law that was pro gun without something in it that was a loss for us.
You can't find a law that was supported by the LEO's that didn't include a loss for us.
And you can't show how failure to inform protects anyone.

But you still expect us to accept that LEO's are really on our side.

That is just plain insulting.

[wsr]

The problem with the duty to inform law is that it can ONLY be applied to someone legally carrying without criminal intent.

It's a feel good law that legally has no merit. Most states do not have this silly law. I didn't have people shooting at me from a vehicle as I approached it.

With all the arguing about CPL fees. They definitely went up on renewal by $10. Which BTW is all what a New Hampsire carry license costs, $10.

What has been overlooked is that when Mike Green was negotiating the latest bill with the MSP. They wanted to revert back to a 3 year license and raise the fee to $160. Without batting an eye, Green actually AGREED with it.

Everyone else pushed back hard.

But it makes the simpletons feel all warm and cozy

[dpa]

So you agree that the final cost went up. That is a loss to us.
You also can't find a single law that was pro gun without something in it that was a loss for us.
You can't find a law that was supported by the LEO's that didn't include a loss for us.
And you can't show how failure to inform protects anyone.

But you still expect us to accept that LEO's are really on our side.

That is just plain insulting.

HERE'S A FEW:

http://wwmt.com/news/local/new-legislation-would-allow-concealed-carry-without-a-permit

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151124/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-firearm-inheritance-protection-act

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=138878

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=125252

http://conservativetribune.com/mi-signs-pro-gun-bill-into-law/

http://miopencarry.org/news/2015/05/Brandishing-Reform-Signed

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150304/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-cpl-reform-bills

https://db0a4kq1jrpf.cloudfront.net/articles/20150512/michigan-air-gun-reclassification-package-signed-into-law

http://westmipolitics.blogspot.com/2015/01/gov-snyder-signs-bill-strongly.html?m=1

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Governor-Snyder-Signs-Concealed-Carry-Bill-359007591.html?device=phone&c=y

http://gophouse.org/gov-snyder-signs-legislation-protecting-privacy-gun-owners/

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/governor-snyder-signs-michigan-gun.html?m=1

[dpa]

So you agree that the final cost went up. That is a loss to us.
You also can't find a single law that was pro gun without something in it that was a loss for us.
You can't find a law that was supported by the LEO's that didn't include a loss for us.
And you can't show how failure to inform protects anyone.

But you still expect us to accept that LEO's are really on our side.

That is just plain insulting.
When you say support, i assume you mean physically going and speaking, rallying in Lansing, giving your time to pro gun legislators, or anything other than just verbally saying you support?
How many right here on this pro gun forum can you say have done exactly what your denigrating leo for not doing?
I bet, regardless of what leo do or don't do to support pro gun laws, you'd still attempt to find fault in leo, regardless. Why so much hatred for leo?

[EricF517]

When you say support, i assume you mean physically going and speaking, rallying in Lansing, giving your time to pro gun legislators, or anything other than just verbally saying you support?
How many right here on this pro gun forum can you say have done exactly what your denigrating leo for not doing?
I bet, regardless of what leo do or don't do to support pro gun laws, you'd still attempt to find fault in leo, regardless. Why so much hatred for leo?

Don't even bother asking him. That is why I put him on my ignore list.

[luckless]

HERE'S A FEW:

http://wwmt.com/news/local/new-legislation-would-allow-concealed-carry-without-a-permit

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151124/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-firearm-inheritance-protection-act

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=138878

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=125252

http://conservativetribune.com/mi-signs-pro-gun-bill-into-law/

http://miopencarry.org/news/2015/05/Brandishing-Reform-Signed

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150304/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-cpl-reform-bills

https://db0a4kq1jrpf.cloudfront.net/articles/20150512/michigan-air-gun-reclassification-package-signed-into-law

http://westmipolitics.blogspot.com/2015/01/gov-snyder-signs-bill-strongly.html?m=1

http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Governor-Snyder-Signs-Concealed-Carry-Bill-359007591.html?device=phone&c=y

http://gophouse.org/gov-snyder-signs-legislation-protecting-privacy-gun-owners/

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/governor-snyder-signs-michigan-gun.html?m=1

:banghead: Try looking at the discussions on this board regarding these legislative actions. The spin of the victors won't provide the information you seek. I think you will find that some folks will claim a victory when there is none. The best one in your list is the air gun bill, which was only a half measure of victory.

[dpa]

:banghead: Try looking at the discussions on this board regarding these legislative actions. The spin of the victors won't provide the information you seek. I think you will find that some folks will claim a victory when there is none. The best one in your list is the air gun bill, which was only a half measure of victory.
They are all positives. Little by little is a win in my book. Can't have it all at once. It seems many here are just, simply, hard to please, or are never pleased. Why are you so negative about everything? Try thinking that "the glass is half full". Life is too short.

[Gray Man]

When you say support, i assume you mean physically going and speaking, rallying in Lansing, giving your time to pro gun legislators, or anything other than just verbally saying you support?
How many right here on this pro gun forum can you say have done exactly what your denigrating leo for not doing?
I bet, regardless of what leo do or don't do to support pro gun laws, you'd still attempt to find fault in leo, regardless. Why so much hatred for leo?

As an LEO, I did just that. Both in front of the Michigan Legislature (subcommittee) and the Wayne County Board of Commissioners. The latter was very hostile too.

But hey, even our esteemed Board of Director Member says that my efforts don't/didn't count because I am a "special class". Funny thing is back then, I never held gun owners in such contempt as MGO members here hold those of us in LE now. To include an elected member who represents this organization.

[dpa]

As an LEO, I did just that. Both in front of the Michigan Legislature (subcommittee) and the Wayne County Board of Commissioners. The latter was very hostile too.

But hey, even our esteemed Board of Director Member says that my efforts don't/didn't count because I am a "special class". Funny thing is back then, I never held gun owners in such contempt as MGO members here hold those of us in LE now. To include an elected member who represents this organization.
I commend you for that.

[Roundballer]

"You really don't have a clue, do you. The price for either is $115.00! They just split up and listed the costs differently. They BOTH went up."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/11/27/michigan-concealed-gun-licensing/76451244/
No they both didn't go up. Original app fee went down$5 and renewal went up$10. Between the two your losing $5. Big deal.
We can see that you are just using "news spin" to back up your position. That is at best, a poor choice.
Even from your own cite:

The cost of an initial application and license will drop from $105 to $100, not including a fingerprinting fee. The cost of a renewal application and license, which are good for four to five years, will rise from $105 to $115.
Right there is the first bit of spin, $100 PLUS fingerprints.

Let's look at the actual law for an initial application:

MCL 28-425b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425b)

(1) <snip>
Beginning December 1, 2015, the county clerk shall issue the applicant a receipt for his or her application at the time the application is submitted containing the name of the applicant, the applicant's state-issued driver license or personal identification card number, the date and time the receipt is issued, the amount paid, the name of the county in which the receipt is issued, an impression of the county seal, and the statement, "This receipt was issued for the purpose of applying for a concealed pistol license and for obtaining fingerprints related to that application. <snip>"
You will receive one receipt that covers the application AND the fingerprint costs.


(5) <snip> Beginning December 1, 2015, each applicant shall pay an application and licensing fee of $100.00 by any method of payment accepted by that county for payments of other fees and penalties. Except as provided in subsection (9), no other charge, fee, cost, or assessment, including any local charge, fee, cost, or assessment, is required of the applicant except as specifically authorized in this act. <snip>
There is the statement of the initial cost, and a reference to the section that contains "other" acceptable charges. Let's check that one out:


(9) <snip> Beginning December 1, 2015, an individual who has had classifiable fingerprints taken under section 5a(4) does not need additional fingerprints taken under this subsection. If the individual requests that classifiable fingerprints be taken by the county clerk, department of state police, county sheriff, a local police agency, or other entity, the individual shall also pay a fee of $15.00 by any method of payment accepted for payments of other fees and penalties. <snip>
So, as stated before, the cost is just split up and listed in different places. $100 + $15 = $115.

The law that lists the renewal is:

MCL 28-425l (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425l)

(1) <snip> Beginning December 1, 2015, each applicant who submits an application for a renewal license to a county clerk under this section shall pay an application and licensing fee of $115.00 by any method of payment accepted by that county for payments of other fees and penalties. No other charge, fee, cost, or assessment, including any local charge, fee, cost, or assessment, is required of the applicant except as specifically authorized in this act. <snip>

Now, when the bill that changed all of this was introduced, they acknowledged that fingerprints didn't need to be "re-taken" for a renewal. And the original bill had it in there that $105 minus the fingerprint cost of $15, dropped a renewal to $90. The MSP then got involved, and they instead RAISED the prices across the board.

So tell us again how we didn't get boned and that it is only $100 for a CPL.

[Gray Man]

I commend you for that.

Thank you. And for the record, I would do it again today. A group of us (LEO's and retired LEO's) also met with a township board member who was "on the fence" about AR-15 ownership awhile back. On our own time and with our own ammunition, we attempted to educate him about semi-automatic weapons and those who own them. We tried to use our "special carve out status" to convince this person that AR-15's are owned by responsible, law abiding gun owners and that they are in fact a tool that everyday citizens have a right to own to defend themselves against an over-reaching government.

But a few here don't want to hear that, they don't want to recognize that and even further, your own MGO Board of Directors has a standing member who has demonstrated many times on this forum that he is not a fan of law enforcement officers.

[dpa]

Thank you. And for the record, I would do it again today. A group of us (LEO's and retired LEO's) also met with a township board member who was "on the fence" about AR-15 ownership awhile back. On our own time and with our own ammunition, we attempted to educate him about semi-automatic weapons and those who own them. We tried to use our "special carve out status" to convince this person that AR-15's are owned by responsible, law abiding gun owners and that they are in fact a tool that everyday citizens have a right to own to defend themselves against an over-reaching government.

But a few here don't want to hear that, they don't want to recognize that and even further, your own MGO Board of Directors has a standing member who has demonstrated many times on this forum that he is not a fan of law enforcement officers.
Were you able to convince him?
Yeah, I'm getting that impression. Instead of being divided, maybe more would be accomplished if we at least tried to work together and stopped all the resentment.

[Jared1981]

HERE'S A FEW:

http://wwmt.com/news/local/new-legislation-would-allow-concealed-carry-without-a-permit

I will give you my Wilson Combat Supergrade if no police entity comes out against this bill. It's as sure as the sun setting in the west.


https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151124/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-firearm-inheritance-protection-act

This was only necessary because the MSP opposed HB 5225 in 2012 which would have repealed purchase permits and registration. Because of their whining, the bill was watered down and passed. Because of this, the inheritance bill was needed. Again, this is only because of the MSP whining, if HB 5225 passed as originally written. Michigan would have been like the rest of the real United States and this bill would not have been necessary.


http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=138878

Was only necessary because they messed with the 5 year license. It was fine the way it was but they put the "until your next birthday" crap in there. This resulted in people being issued licenses for as short as 4 years and one day.


http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=125252

This was not a pro 2nd Amendment bill. The stun gun ban and the ban on carrying them openly was struck down in People v Yanna. This bill re-passed the ban on all but a select type of stun gun and put all sorts of restrictions on it.

http://conservativetribune.com/mi-signs-pro-gun-bill-into-law/

This was an excellent bill. I honestly can't say who opposed this bill if anyone, I wasn't in Michigan when this bill was passed. While this bill does benefit gun owners, if benefits all people engaged in self defense, especially police.

http://miopencarry.org/news/2015/05/Brandishing-Reform-Signed

This was a Michigan Open Carry bill. There was no opposition from any police unions or associations that I can remember, this bill codified the AG opinion on brandishing into law.


https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150304/michigan-governor-snyder-signs-cpl-reform-bills


This bill fits the definition of gaining something and giving stuff up. The fees did go up as I and others mentioned, and now there is no due process, your CPL is revoked as you are guilty until proven innocent (in circuit court after spending mucho dinero on a lawyer).


https://db0a4kq1jrpf.cloudfront.net/articles/20150512/michigan-air-gun-reclassification-package-signed-into-law

Nothing was given up in this bill. I don't remember there being any opposition. MI was one of 5 states that treated air guns as firearms. Glad this changed.


http://westmipolitics.blogspot.com/2015/01/gov-snyder-signs-bill-strongly.html?m=1

He vetoed this bill. MCRGO jumped the gun and said it was signed. It was a website error. It was vetoed which is why SB 34 was created. It had all the added stuff where we gave stuff up.


http://www.wilx.com/home/headlines/Governor-Snyder-Signs-Concealed-Carry-Bill-359007591.html?device=phone&c=y

This was another carveout, not a "pro gun bill". Most of what this bill did was already preempted by LEOSA. But as I said earlier, many in lansing seem to have a hard time understanding federal law and the concept of preemption.


http://gophouse.org/gov-snyder-signs-legislation-protecting-privacy-gun-owners/

Good bill, didn't give us anything as Michigan courts already ruled this information was private back in the late 1990's. The LEIN portion was passed to clean up what the MSP and sheriff's association demanded back when shall issue was passed in 2000.


http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/03/governor-snyder-signs-michigan-gun.html?m=1

You already quoted this one.

[wsr]

Were you able to convince him?
Yeah, I'm getting that impression. Instead of being divided, maybe more would be accomplished if we at least tried to work together and stopped all the resentment.

Divided as in one group getting special treatment and consideration???

[wsr]

Thank you. And for the record, I would do it again today. A group of us (LEO's and retired LEO's) also met with a township board member who was "on the fence" about AR-15 ownership awhile back. On our own time and with our own ammunition, we attempted to educate him about semi-automatic weapons and those who own them. We tried to use our "special carve out status" to convince this person that AR-15's are owned by responsible, law abiding gun owners and that they are in fact a tool that everyday citizens have a right to own to defend themselves against an over-reaching government.

But a few here don't want to hear that, they don't want to recognize that and even further, your own MGO Board of Directors has a standing member who has demonstrated many times on this forum that he is not a fan of law enforcement officers.

Thank you
It's great that you do this and it is appreciated but you know you are a extreme minority

[dpa]

Thank you
It's great that you do this and it is appreciated but you know you are a extreme minority

And I would bet anything, that gray man, is in the minority on this forum, as well.

[PhotoTom]

Let's look at the actual law for an initial application:

MCL 28-425b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425b)

(1) <snip>
Beginning December 1, 2015, the county clerk shall issue the applicant a receipt for his or her application at the time the application is submitted containing the name of the applicant, the applicant's state-issued driver license or personal identification card number, the date and time the receipt is issued, the amount paid, the name of the county in which the receipt is issued, an impression of the county seal, and the statement, "This receipt was issued for the purpose of applying for a concealed pistol license and for obtaining fingerprints related to that application. <snip>"
You will receive one receipt that covers the application AND the fingerprint costs.

Incorrect. The one receipt MAY cover the fingerprint costs, too…and if so, additional language is needed on that receipt. However, you may elect to be fingerprinted at your local PD, at which point, you will pay THEM $15 and THEY will issue a fingerprinting receipt with the required language that serves as your CPL 45 days afterward IF you have not yet received your issued CPL (or letter of denial). The receipt that you are referencing is needed to show to the fingerprinting agency that you have already applied and you are being fingerprinted for a CPL license.

[Roundballer]

Incorrect. The one receipt MAY cover the fingerprint costs, too…and if so, additional language is needed on that receipt. However, you may elect to be fingerprinted at your local PD, at which point, you will pay THEM $15 and THEY will issue a fingerprinting receipt with the required language that serves as your CPL 45 days afterward IF you have not yet received your issued CPL (or letter of denial). The receipt that you are referencing is needed to show to the fingerprinting agency that you have already applied and you are being fingerprinted for a CPL license.
Sure, do you know of someone providing this service for LESS than $15?

MCL 28-425b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425b)

(9) <snip> Beginning December 1, 2015, the entity providing fingerprinting services shall issue the applicant a receipt at the time his or her fingerprints are taken. Beginning December 1, 2015, the county clerk, department of state police, county sheriff, local police agency, or other entity shall not provide a receipt under this subsection unless the individual requesting the fingerprints provides an application receipt received under subsection (1). Beginning December 1, 2015, a receipt under this subsection shall contain all of the following:

(a) The name of the applicant.

(b) The date and time the receipt is issued.

(c) The amount paid.

(d) The name of the entity providing the fingerprint services.

(e) The applicant's state-issued driver license or personal identification card number.

You will pay them up front, and it still gets recorded on the Receipt.

[PhotoTom]

MCL 28-425b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425b)

(9) <snip> Beginning December 1, 2015, the entity providing fingerprinting services shall issue the applicant a receipt at the time his or her fingerprints are taken. Beginning December 1, 2015, the county clerk, department of state police, county sheriff, local police agency, or other entity shall not provide a receipt under this subsection unless the individual requesting the fingerprints provides an application receipt received under subsection (1). Beginning December 1, 2015, a receipt under this subsection shall contain all of the following:

(a) The name of the applicant.

(b) The date and time the receipt is issued.

(c) The amount paid.

(d) The name of the entity providing the fingerprint services.

(e) The applicant's state-issued driver license or personal identification card number.

You will pay them up front, and it still gets recorded on the Receipt.

Yes, that is the language specific to the FINGERPRINTING receipt that the "entity providing fingerprinting services" must put on the FINGERPRINTING receipt so that the applicant can then use the FINGERPRINTING receipt as their CPL 45 days afterward.

Unless the Clerk's office is doing the fingerprinting (which some do) or where the Clerk's Office is in the same building/complex as the Sheriff's Office (like Wayne County Western Satellite location), the Clerk's office does NOT charge the $15 and issue both receipts in one as you originally stated.

I'm not arguing the $15 cost…only that it is incorrect that the Clerk's receipt is for both the application and the fingerprinting.

[Gray Man]

Were you able to convince him?
Yeah, I'm getting that impression. Instead of being divided, maybe more would be accomplished if we at least tried to work together and stopped all the resentment.

Sadly no. He's a Plymouth Township Board member who wrote a very nasty, anti-gun letter to the local paper. I reached out to him and tried to show him with facts where he was wrong. He left with his mind unchanged.

[Gray Man]

Thank you
It's great that you do this and it is appreciated but you know you are a extreme minority

I say thank you to you. You and I have directed some strong words at one another on this forum. I have and always will contend that I am a pro-gun, Constitutionalist LEO and many, many of my co-workers are of the same mindset. I simply do not agree with you on this point. And for me personally, I do not care that I am in a minority as it changes nothing that I feel. I don't just go along to get along and I strive to do what it right, moral and lawful.

[Tallbear]

HB 4535 of 2015 (PA 6 of 2016)
Weapons; licensing; requirement to obtain a license to purchase, carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 2/3/2016 assigned PA 6'16 with immediate effect

[Leader]

HB 4535 of 2015 (PA 6 of 2016)
Weapons; licensing; requirement to obtain a license to purchase, carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol; exempt law enforcement officers. Amends sec. 2a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422a).
Last Action: 2/3/2016 assigned PA 6'16 with immediate effect

Why is it that this comes as no surprise?

[ThatsJusticeBro]

This is ridiculous! A LEO can actually be licensed under State law to be a LEO, yet be federally prohibited from purchasing firearms under domestic violence laws.

Now someone has come up with the idea that they will create a hole for them. No back-ground in a private sale!

The pistol registration data base will officially be junk and pointless.

Actually, speaking as an MI LEO, if you are convicted of Domestic Violence, and are prohibited under Federal law to possess a firearm, you cannot act as an LEO in MI.

[Roundballer]

Actually, speaking as an MI LEO, if you are convicted of Domestic Violence, and are prohibited under Federal law to possess a firearm, you cannot act as an LEO in MI.
You are little late to the party here officer. This piece of "just us" has already passed.

Read what was said AGAIN!

Just as there is a difference between "any possible cause" and "probable cause", there is a difference between "purchase from an FFL" and a person prohibited from "possession as a felon". One this law circumvents, the other is what you are referring to.