HB 4593 Exempt license application and licensing fee for Vets

[Tallbear]

HB 4593 of 2015 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2015-HB-4593)
Weapons; licensing; concealed pistol license application and licensing fee; provide exemption for veterans. Amends secs. 5b & 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425b & 28.425l).
Last Action: 5/13/2015 referred to Committee on Appropriations

[ninjatoth]

It's the least we can do. I'm in favor.

[Roundballer]

"Exempt license application and licensing fee for Vets" for those that meet the definition of "Veteran" under MCL 35.61.


This is a good thing.

[Kaeto]

So if you didn't serve during a war or "police action" you aren't considered a veteran? Because that's what the definition says under MCL 35.61 . Gee thanks for throwing someone like me under the bus.

[luckless]

I thought they had to raise the price this year because they needed the money to keep the program going.

[ninjatoth]

So if you didn't serve during a war or "police action" you aren't considered a veteran? Because that's what the definition says under MCL 35.61 . Gee thanks for throwing someone like me under the bus.

If it does indeed say it that way than it should be changed to include you. You have more guts than most people for just enlisting, and would you have given your life if given opportunity. You deserve better and I thank you.

[Roundballer]

It is a LITTLE more than only those that served during "war", but not much:

MCL 35-61 (http://http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-35-61)


35.61 Uniformity of service dates for veterans; definitions, dates, and terms.

Sec. 1.

In order to provide for the uniformity of service dates for veterans, the following dates and terms shall be applicable to all acts of the state relative to veterans:

(a) “Veteran” means a person, who served in the active military forces, during a period of war or who received the armed forces expeditionary or other campaign service medal during an emergency condition and who was discharged or released therefrom under honorable conditions. “Veteran” also includes a person who died in active military forces.

(b) “Spanish-American war” means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 4, 1902, includes the Philippine insurrection and the Boxer rebellion, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro province, means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 15, 1903.

(c) “World War I” means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on November 11, 1918, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces in Russia, means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on April 1, 1920.

(d) “World War II” means the period beginning December 7, 1941, and ending December 31, 1946, both dates inclusive.

(e) “Korean conflict” means the period between June 27, 1950, to January 31, 1955.

(f) Civil war and confederate veterans who served between April 12, 1861, and May 26, 1865.

(g) Indian wars. Since the Indian wars were fought intermittently over a period of years, the determination as to whether a person shall be considered as having rendered military service during these wars will be carefully considered by the state veterans' trust fund. January 1, 1817, through December 31, 1898, is considered Indian war period.

(h) Mexican wars. Since there were several skirmishes involving the Mexican border, such as Mexican border troubles 1911-1916; Veracruz expedition April 21, 1914, to November 26, 1914; punitive expedition into Mexico, March 15, 1916, to February 5, 1917; therefore the persons rendering military service in any of these skirmishes shall be considered veterans of the Mexican wars between 1911 and February 5, 1917.

(i) Future dates. The period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the congress or the beginning of an emergency condition recognized by the issuance of a presidential proclamation or a presidential executive order and in which the armed forces expeditionary medal or other campaign service medals are awarded according to presidential executive order and ending on a date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the congress.

(j) Veterans of the Korean conflict and veterans having served after January 31, 1955, in an area of hazardous duty for which an armed forces expeditionary or Vietnam service medal was received or veterans having served in the Vietnam era, which is that period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975.

The Middle East "conflicts" are not spelled out, but there were "Executive Orders" and other "campaign" medals involved.

I don't know how National Guard deployment to Kosovo would be counted, or any other NATO-US involved actions.

[Gray Man]

I support this.

[Kaeto]

I served in the Navy 1981-1985. Nothing happened then so by the state's definition my service is worth less than garbage.

[ChaneyD]

I don't support this and am a Vietnam Vet. Now they're trying to start another class warfare involving veterans. A Vet is a Vet. Period. I think I know where they're going with this. If they included ALL veterans there wouldn't be any financial support. But then again, I feel that the 2d Amendment IS my license. Period.

[Kaeto]

The definition has been in place since 1965. It needs to be expanded to include all those who served in the armed forces.

[Roundballer]

The definition has been in place since 1965. It needs to be expanded to include all those who served in the armed forces.

Agreed!

[Leader]

I qualify but I don't like special groups.
And the people who served during piece time offered their lives to this country, they deserve recognition too.

[Roundballer]

I served in the Navy 1981-1985. Nothing happened then so by the state's definition my service is worth less than garbage.

Granada Oct 25, 1983, Lebanon 1982-1984?

There was Executive orders, were there any "conflict medallions" issued?

[Kaeto]

Not on the USS Enterprise. We were just on a normal West-Pac Deployment. Then at NAS North Island.


I was with VS-37 (Air Anti-Submarine Squadron-37) 'The Sawbucks'
When I was a Plane Captain this was my plane. I only "loaned" it to the crew.
The pic is from when they deployed on the USS Constellation in 1985 just as my term was ending.


34113

[45 acp]

Yes my service time makes me a Veteran just because it does not meet some 1965 law it is not worth less.
I could support this if this part could be changed. I would suggest that if you qualify for Michigan veteran designation for licenses and ID cards with the SOS then you would qualify as a vet for the no fee CPL.

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets

[Leader]

Yes my service time makes me a Veteran just because it does not meet some 1965 law it is not worth less.
I could support this if this part could be changed. I would suggest that if you qualify for Michigan veteran designation for licenses and ID cards with the SOS then you would qualify as a vet for the no fee CPL.

https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets

Yup... That definition I could accept.

[cmr19xx]

Why do we need all of these special classes of people and special rules for those classes? Is there a reason everyone just can't be treated the same? If you want a CPL, the rules and prices should be the same regardless of whether your a police officer, veteran or dishwasher.

[SADAacp]

Why do we need all of these special classes of people and special rules for those classes? Is there a reason everyone just can't be treated the same? If you want a CPL, the rules and prices should be the same regardless of whether your a police officer, veteran or dishwasher.

There shouldn't even be a requirement for a license/permit in the first place, let alone any application fee(s). A laminated piece of paper the size of a credit card is not some magic item which guaranties a person will remain lawful throughout the term of the license/permit. Besides, we already have laws in this state/country which penalizes folks for shooting police officers and even the mere citizenry. Last I knew, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont and Wyoming, doesn't seem to have a problem with unlicensed folks carrying on foot or in a vehicle. Nor have I heard any reports of the morgues in those states having over-crowding issues with bodies stacked-up like firewood.

[45 acp]

Why do we need all of these special classes of people and special rules for those classes? Is there a reason everyone just can't be treated the same? If you want a CPL, the rules and prices should be the same regardless of whether your a police officer, veteran or dishwasher. I agree with you. But out of all the special classes that are already carved out on the stupid CLP law I also believe the Veteran's are the most deserving of any breaks on the price.
It is the veterans that you can thank for your right to even own guns. The veterans served, fought and some even died up holding their oath of enlistment.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic-------------

[CnA]

I'm opposed to this even though I'm a vet. USN 1979-85

Just because someone served in the government does not mean you should get special privileges over those who did not. This law creates a special class of people, something I'm very opposed to. Same for giving ex-cops special treatment.

[Leader]

Most of the people I know, I don't know their history .
A few I know did volunteer but for one reason or another were not qualified or accepted.
Those people should not be discriminated against and there should be NO WAY to find out who they are.
Therefor, no special class should be created.

[Roundballer]

How about writing to the bill Sponsor and the Appropriations Committee with a suggestion to change the definition from MCL 35.61 to MCL 3.1041, Sec 1, ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS, subsection (S)?

MCL 3-1041 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-3-1041)


S. "Veteran" means: a person who served in the uniformed services and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable.

Appropriate reasons for support or opposition for the bill should be given as to the language as it stands.

[45 acp]

How about writing to the bill Sponsor and the Appropriations Committee with a suggestion to change the definition from MCL 35.61 to MCL 3.1041, Sec 1, ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS, subsection (S)?

MCL 3-1041 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-3-1041)



Appropriate reasons for support or opposition for the bill should be given as to the language as it stands.

NO I saw too many guys discharged for using drugs, AWOL, and excessive drinking and other types of trouble. At that time it was typical to give these types an unfit for military service discharge.

I would support using the Michigan SOS Definition for the Veterans designation on the Drivers License.

Military veterans who served in any branch of the U.S. armed forces and have an honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge may have a veteran designation printed on their Michigan driver's license or state identification card.


https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets

[Leader]

NO I saw too many guys discharged for using drugs, AWOL, and excessive drinking and other types of trouble. At that time it was typical to give these types an unfit for military service discharge.

I would support using the Michigan SOS Definition for the Veterans designation on the Drivers License.

Military veterans who served in any branch of the U.S. armed forces and have an honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge may have a veteran designation printed on their Michigan driver's license or state identification card.


https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets

MOST veterans alive today volunteered to serve.
That meant voluntary putting their life on the line for whatever was needed by this country.
Some presented themselves better then others and some of the worst were some of the bravest when push came to shove.
All at least offered.

[CnA]

Granada Oct 25, 1983, Lebanon 1982-1984?

There was Executive orders, were there any "conflict medallions" issued?

I have an Armed Forces Expeditionary medal from the Lebanon conflict. US Navy.

[Kaeto]

So you would be eligible for a free CPL under this bill.

[Draken]

The definition has been in place since 1965. It needs to be expanded to include all those who served in the armed forces.

Well, unless they have a dishonorable type discharge.

But I agree with others, I qualify for my year is Bosnia, but I do NOT agree with special groups. Cut the fee down to a REASONABLE amount, like the $50 IN has, and this is truly a non-issue.

[Roundballer]

NO I saw too many guys discharged for using drugs, AWOL, and excessive drinking and other types of trouble. At that time it was typical to give these types an unfit for military service discharge.

I would support using the Michigan SOS Definition for the Veterans designation on the Drivers License.

Military veterans who served in any branch of the U.S. armed forces and have an honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge may have a veteran designation printed on their Michigan driver's license or state identification card.


https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets


Military veterans who served in any branch of the U.S. armed forces and have an honorable or under honorable conditions (general) discharge may have a veteran designation printed on their Michigan driver's license or state identification card. (https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1627_68162---,00.html?cm_mmc=MDOS-_-BB-_-vets)



S. "Veteran" means: a person who served in the uniformed services and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable. (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-3-1041)

These two say nearly the same thing, one is encoded in law, the other isn't! They BOTH limit it to those discharged outside of a dishonorable discharge. Those discharges that fall in between are judgments of moral nature, or other problems that are not criminal or are civil criminal in nature. Of those, one should not be held against them, the other should only be held against them if they are one of the "dis-qualifiers" listed in 28.425.

[Donut]

Should be all veterans that have an Honarable discharge. Only those. If you were booted out that's your problem.

[Roundballer]

Should be all veterans that have an Honarable discharge. Only those. If you were booted out that's your problem.
Discharge from service is NOT black/white Honorable/Dishonorable. There are shades of gray, where the separation is neither Honorable nor Dishonorable. Service personnel would have to have been subject to court martial before they would be dishonorably discharged, but those can't own firearms anyway.




Honarable ?

[Revdrshad]

I served in the Navy 1981-1985. Nothing happened then so by the state's definition my service is worth less than garbage.

Army. Late 90's. So, you and I are in the same boat... (No pun intended.) Somehow my reserve time has vanished, and my Active time gets me nothing... (9 Active duty days shy of qualifying for a V.A. home loan too...)

[Jared1981]

Any individual making under $100k (200k for join filers) should be able to get a 100% tax credit on this excessive tax.

If that's too complicated then we should go back to the $60 price as a starting point.

The fee was $60 until 2003.

[historicfirearms]

Any individual making under $100k (200k for join filers) should be able to get a 100% tax credit on this excessive tax.

If that's too complicated then we should go back to the $60 price as a starting point.

The fee was $60 until 2003.

I agree, but why stop there? I mean what if we had to pay for all of our rights? Want to write an article in your local newspaper? Fine, just pay $105 for a license. Pay for a $105 license if you don't want the government randomly searching your property. Want to vote? Just pay a $60 poll tax......
What we really need is a constitutional carry bill to be passed.

[ninjatoth]

5 years ago I would never have imagined constitutional carry being in the realm of possibility, but over the last few months I have began to hope because it feels like we could go in that direction, especially if our closest neighbors start to.

[jgillmanjr]

Army. Late 90's. So, you and I are in the same boat... (No pun intended.) Somehow my reserve time has vanished, and my Active time gets me nothing... (9 Active duty days shy of qualifying for a V.A. home loan too...)

How much reserve time did you have? I'm a slick sleeved ******* (haven't been deployed) but after 6 years Army Guard I was able to get a VA Loan.

[Revdrshad]

How much reserve time did you have? I'm a slick sleeved ******* (haven't been deployed) but after 6 years Army Guard I was able to get a VA Loan.

Two years reserve. 6 years IRR. Total waste of time and energy. :(

[langenc]

Your are in or not-- YES or NO.

[Jared1981]

I agree, but why stop there? I mean what if we had to pay for all of our rights? Want to write an article in your local newspaper? Fine, just pay $105 for a license. Pay for a $105 license if you don't want the government randomly searching your property. Want to vote? Just pay a $60 poll tax......
What we really need is a constitutional carry bill to be passed.

Because it's out of the realm of possibility for now. We can't even repeal registration for those who still follow it for some crazy unknown reason.

Many states that have pushed con carry have done so to their detriment. (SC being the most recent example). They should have first tried to repeal the laundry list of places off limits that some of these states have.

It's all about the totality of the situation. Indiana is not con carry but they are overall much better than most states, lifetime license, 18 years old and up, not many places off limits, recognize out of state permits from anywhere on the planet.

[luckless]

Am I the only one that thinks they should pass gun laws that benefit everyone rather than making winners and losers out of citizens?

[Leader]

Am I the only one that thinks they should pass gun laws that benefit everyone rather than making winners and losers out of citizens?

Have you read this thread?

[ChaneyD]

Am I the only one that thinks they should pass gun laws that benefit everyone rather than making winners and losers out of citizens?

That would be impossible to do. SOMEONE is going to feel either as a winner or loser.

[luckless]

I think there are plenty of gun laws that could be reformed and help all gun owners. Some have even managed to pass the legislature.

[luckless]

Have you read this thread?

Yup, most seem to be along the lines of, "that's great" to, "meh" to, " I hope I'm included in the new group". Not too many, "This is a stupid law and I am calling my rep to tell him" type comments. We have to stick together or they will succeed in driving us apart.

[Kaeto]

Luckless even if this does pass where I'm included I'll still work towards making it free for everyone to get a CPL. And then towards Con Carry.

[luckless]

Luckless even if this does pass where I'm included I'll still work towards making it free for everyone to get a CPL. And then towards Con Carry.

Thank you, sir. I pray you are the rule and not the exception.

[oldmann1967]

Am I the only one that thinks they should pass gun laws that benefit everyone rather than making winners and losers out of citizens?

Nope, I am with you. No more special classes of people. I am very thankful for our veterans, but 2a should benefit everyone.

[ninjatoth]

Vets and people that have hunter's safety certificates should be able to do a "lite" CPL class only dealing with laws but no range time requirement. In a slightly more perfect world.

[DP425]

So if you didn't serve during a war or "police action" you aren't considered a veteran? Because that's what the definition says under MCL 35.61 . Gee thanks for throwing someone like me under the bus.

Their definition should likely parallel with that of the VA. However, this definition may be primarily intended for some purpose which needs such a narrow definition. If that is the case, it should be modified to say "combat/wartime veteran" and add a definition for Veteran as appropriate to cover the same persons as the VA's definition covers.

At first I read this as it were an exemption from the licensing requirements. Despite being a veteran myself, my support for such an exception would have been fairly mixed. Exemption from the fee I'm fine with. This sort of follows along the same lines as the combat veteran bonuses the state has given out, and the property tax exemption to disabled veterans.

[DP425]

It is a LITTLE more than only those that served during "war", but not much:

MCL 35-61 (http://http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-35-61)



The Middle East "conflicts" are not spelled out, but there were "Executive Orders" and other "campaign" medals involved.

I don't know how National Guard deployment to Kosovo would be counted, or any other NATO-US involved actions.

Kosovo campaign medal.

[DP425]

Granada Oct 25, 1983, Lebanon 1982-1984?

There was Executive orders, were there any "conflict medallions" issued?

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal

[RayMich]

Veterans who volunteered during time of peace had NO IDEA if a conflict would break out during their time in the service or if they would be sent to put down a revolt somewhere in the world. It was NOT their decision.

If they are going to honor veterans for their service, they should include ALL veterans regardless of whether they were sent to war or not.

Is there any way for this bill to be amended to include ALL veterans?

[DP425]

Veterans who volunteered during time of peace had NO IDEA if a conflict would break out during their time in the service or if they would be sent to put down a revolt somewhere in the world. It was NOT their decision.

If they are going to honor veterans for their service, they should include ALL veterans regardless of whether they were sent to war or not.

Is there any way for this bill to be amended to include ALL veterans?

Okay, I understand your position...

But then what is the difference between this and the bonuses that were given to WWII, Korea and Vietnam veterans? Do you think all veterans should be entitled to those bonuses?



I'm not saying combat veterans are intrinsically better than non-combat veterans, but there is a difference between joining with a possibility of having to go to war, and actually spending time in combat or a war zone. Yes, it may be luck of the draw, but so is leaving the battlefield in a bag as a collection of parts; simply joining with the possibility that you could end up the same doesn't entitle you to the same recognition and benefits (family receiving benefits). A PHM is luck of the draw (mostly), and anyone who joins stands a chance of getting one. That doesn't mean they don't deserve recognition above that of veterans not holding a PHM.

Long story short, joining with the understand that you MIGHT have to sacrifice, isn't the same as actually sacrificing. Deploying to a combat zone IS a sacrifice; thus is why we honor those who have done so with medals, awards and patches.

[ninjatoth]

Veterans who volunteered during time of peace had NO IDEA if a conflict would break out during their time in the service or if they would be sent to put down a revolt somewhere in the world. It was NOT their decision.

If they are going to honor veterans for their service, they should include ALL veterans regardless of whether they were sent to war or not.

Is there any way for this bill to be amended to include ALL veterans?

I agree. They may not have lost limbs and the lives of their friends, but they would have and they made that dedication the moment they enlisted. They still had to go through hell and back with their training and that in itself deserves respect. I even think it's a slap in the face to have a trained veteran being required to take a cpl class as well, they are already better trained than that joke of a cpl class would make them.

[Kaeto]

Okay, I understand your position...

But then what is the difference between this and the bonuses that were given to WWII, Korea and Vietnam veterans? Do you think all veterans should be entitled to those bonuses?



I'm not saying combat veterans are intrinsically better than non-combat veterans, but there is a difference between joining with a possibility of having to go to war, and actually spending time in combat or a war zone. Yes, it may be luck of the draw, but so is leaving the battlefield in a bag as a collection of parts; simply joining with the possibility that you could end up the same doesn't entitle you to the same recognition and benefits (family receiving benefits). A PHM is luck of the draw (mostly), and anyone who joins stands a chance of getting one. That doesn't mean they don't deserve recognition above that of veterans not holding a PHM.

Long story short, joining with the understand that you MIGHT have to sacrifice, isn't the same as actually sacrificing. Deploying to a combat zone IS a sacrifice; thus is why we honor those who have done so with medals, awards and patches.

Ah I see. So why not further segregate those who served by if they volunteered or were drafted? That is just as insulting as dividing up veterans by if you got a combat zone ribbon or not. After all the guy from my squadron I saw get inhaled by a jet engine, ground up, and spit out the other end as chunky salsa didn't die in a combat zone, so his death means nothing.

[DP425]

Ah I see. So why not further segregate those who served by if they volunteered or were drafted? That is just as insulting as dividing up veterans by if you got a combat zone ribbon or not. After all the guy from my squadron I saw get inhaled by a jet engine, ground up, and spit out the other end as chunky salsa didn't die in a combat zone, so his death means nothing.

So he should have received a PHM in your opinion?


The fact of the matter is, things are done to recognize the level of sacrifice; that is why they have given bonuses to WWII, Korea and Vietnam veterans, but not ALL veterans. The entire military is structured to award SMs for their sacrifices; from army combat patches, campaign ribbons, combat designator awards, medals for valor, medal of honor. The entire system is built upon rewarding degrees of sacrifice and especially those that are associated with war/combat.

Guess we should just give all vets a participation trophy and Medal of Honor.




As far as your comment about drafted vs volunteered; I was unfortunate enough to see the downside to a peace time, all volunteer military. Once conflict starts, many of those volunteers scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on. So yeah- if we're going to compare the guy drafted in 1968 vs the guy who was at the end of his three year voluntary enlistment and missed the pre-deployment stop-loss cut-off (90 days), and went ahead with his discharge instead of continuing for the culmination of all of his training (I saw a lot more running for the hills with their DD214 than I did last minute re-enlistments). Yeah... those draftee's are far and away better. So in terms of volunteer vs draftee, it depends on what metrics you use.



When the dust settles, like it or not, some veterans sacrificed more (even though it may have been luck of the draw).... and yes, some veterans are better than others. All who served honorably deserve respect and credit for doing their duty, but all veterans are not equal, not by a long-shot.

I didn't have a problem with combat veterans only exclusions before I went to combat, and I don't have a problem with it now.

[datolsarge]

I sure support this, If you were shot at or not because that balloon could have gone up any time and you were in it! Before in country service in Vietnam I served 3 years in Wildflecken Germany on the Cold War border and that alone was edgy We had life about 20 minutes if they come across, This was back in 1964-1967, If ya served you qualify!! Michigan does so little for Vets!!

[gmanbp88]

As a service connected..non-combat vet.. USAF..'79-83....Grenada..I support it...I will take the money I save and donate it to MGO,NRA,GOA..a charity...DAV...purple heart..whatever...why do some folks here get so wrapped around the axle about special class crap...its too freakin bad someone gets something you dont...go do what I/we did...some more than others...because we chose to...or were able/eligable to do....welcome to the real world ladies....when is the last time anyone donated time to a cause..homeless...animal shelter...VA..habitat for humanity... ect...or just gave a guy five buck begging on the corner..from your air conditioned..$40k new truck...WTF?...get real

[jgillmanjr]

why do some folks here get so wrapped around the axle about special class crap

Because it's just that - crap



its too freakin bad someone gets something you dont

When it's the government picking winners and losers, it is wrong


go do what I/we did

Why should someone be forced to have a particular occupation in order to not pay for something that they shouldn't have to pay for in the first place?


some more than others...because we chose to...or were able/eligable to do....welcome to the real world ladies...

Ahh yeah, so EVEN if someone wanted to serve, but couldn't, well, *** them anyways! YOU CAN STILL PAY FOR YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF IN A WAY YOU SEE FIT!


when is the last time anyone donated time to a cause..homeless...animal shelter...VA..habitat for humanity... ect...or just gave a guy five buck begging on the corner..from your air conditioned..$40k new truck...WTF?...get real

I can guarantee that there are *many* people here that have invested time and/or other resources to legitimate causes.

I'm not quite sure what a $40k truck has to do with anything though.

[gmanbp88]

Are you a Vet?..if not...then why does it matter to you..it does not effetct you...it offends you apparently...the $40k truck analagy was for effect... I will give it away...will you?..do you?..i am sure all vets will do what I suggest...pay it forward...who gives a F#%k..not me!

[G22]

Are you a Vet?..if not...then why does it matter to you..it does not effetct you...it offends you apparently...the $40k truck analagy was for effect... I will give it away...will you?..do you?..i am sure all vets will do what I suggest...pay it forward...who gives a F#%k..not me!

You've made that more than obvious in all your posts.

And please refrain from bypassing the cuss filter in the future. It's against the AUP, which you agreed to when signing up to use this forum. Thank you.

[CnA]

Vets and people that have hunter's safety certificates should be able to do a "lite" CPL class only dealing with laws but no range time requirement. In a slightly more perfect world.

During my six years in the Navy, I had virtually no firearm training even though I served many watches as Petty Officer of the Watch carrying a Colt .45 on the quarterdeck and managed who arrived and departed the ship as well as being the first line of security.

The firearm training I had was pathetic and was no where near what is needed to prepare someone for carrying with a CPL. Being a veteran doesn't automatically mean someone knows how to handle a firearm properly.

So as a veteran, I'll again state no special treatment for us.

[luckless]

Holly Hughes has no desire to help gun owners. Her office is bereft of information or understanding. This is just something for her to point at in the next election to say she is pro gun.

[gmanbp88]

I apologize for the infraction..won't happen again....but not the content...if we are gonna have big boy conversations on the forum..i will reply by PM/email directly...as not to offend anyones sensibilities...because these are serious issues and deserve serious conversation....as far as me making my points/position clear in other posts...your right...I am no keyboard warrior...i can back up everything i say and do with experience and training...and if anyone would like to speak to me directly...please call..or email...i ain't shy...if you haven't noticed.

Ray Beattie
734-818-0936

[Jared1981]

Wrong thread. Sorry

[gmanbp88]

Just a quick review of the legislation...I ldid not see anything regarding a waiver of/for training....just the application fees..am I reading it correctly? I have Veteran on my Drivers Liscense..was in service during Grenada...but did not participate...as per section (i) of the PA 1 of 1965 sec. 35.61..would I qualify?...I don't think so...so therefor..a Veteran may not be a "qualified" Veteran.

(i) Future dates. The period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the congress or the beginning of an emergency condition recognized by the issuance of a presidential proclamation or a presidential executive order and in which the armed forces expeditionary medal or other campaign service medals are awarded according to presidential executive order and ending on a date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the congress.

[Kaeto]

If you weren't given an campaign service medal you aren't a veteran as far as the state of Michigan is concerned.

[lethean]

During my six years in the Navy, I had virtually no firearm training even though I served many watches as Petty Officer of the Watch carrying a Colt .45 on the quarterdeck and managed who arrived and departed the ship as well as being the first line of security.

The firearm training I had was pathetic and was no where near what is needed to prepare someone for carrying with a CPL. Being a veteran doesn't automatically mean someone knows how to handle a firearm properly.

So as a veteran, I'll again state no special treatment for us.

There was a young marine in my CPL class who had plenty of M4 experience but essentially no pistol experience at all. And having been in the military doesn't automatically teach you the CC laws of the state. I'm all for rewarding veterans for their service, which I truly do appreciate, but not at the cost of common sense.

[G22]

It seems some veterans are more special than others. Adding another layer of ridiculous to this proposed legislation.

[Leader]

There was a young marine in my CPL class who had plenty of M4 experience but essentially no pistol experience at all. And having been in the military doesn't automatically teach you the CC laws of the state. I'm all for rewarding veterans for their service, which I truly do appreciate, but not at the cost of common sense.

I owned & carried a firearm for many years before I took a CPL class (actually the NRA PPITH) and never had classes on MI firearm laws.
I know many people that still haven't had such classes & are allowed to own & carry firearms.
I don't see the majority of them killing people in violation of any laws.

I'm sure that even with classes, you don't know ALL of MI.'s firearm laws.

[CnA]

I owned & carried a firearm for many years before I took a CPL class (actually the NRA PPITH) and never had classes on MI firearm laws.
I know many people that still haven't had such classes & are allowed to own & carry firearms.
I don't see the majority of them killing people in violation of any laws.

That is not the issue. It's politicians giving privileges to some and exempting them from the law that they consider a special class of people whether it be judges, prosecutors, ex-cops, ex-military, or any other politically connected group of people.

The requirements needed to obtain a CPL should be equal for every person.

[lethean]

I owned & carried a firearm for many years before I took a CPL class (actually the NRA PPITH) and never had classes on MI firearm laws.
I know many people that still haven't had such classes & are allowed to own & carry firearms.
I don't see the majority of them killing people in violation of any laws.

I'm sure that even with classes, you don't know ALL of MI.'s firearm laws.

And you strike me as a largely rational (if opinionated :onthemic:) person. Having met many, many people, I am sad to say that this is not a universal attribute.

Perhaps a class wouldn't have kept Ms. "I want my bacon!" from firing into a McDonalds, but it either would have given her pause, or would have made it easier for the prosecutor to show intent.

[gmanbp88]

It seems some veterans are more special than others. Adding another layer of ridiculous to this proposed legislation.

At one time a Vet could do no wrong and was respected for what he did..now we go from respected...to special class...to some are special..some Ain't..by definition....to why should he or she have more than me...question the motives of the legislator/legislation..not the Vet..every Vet I know will give it back..if he doesn't..he aint worth his salt...the Vet continues to give..as he/she has done and will do...without complaint...the guys that are wrapped around the axle as to vet gets this or that...why not me...or why is it good for them not for me...goose/gander garbage..what have you done for your country lately...volunteered?...voted?...helped anyone? ..worked pro bono?..just did something right...if not shut your pie hole...put up or shut up...

[luckless]

At one time a Vet could do no wrong and was respected for what he did..now we go from respected...to special class...to some are special..some Ain't..by definition....to why should he or she have more than me...question the motives of the legislator/legislation..not the Vet..every Vet I know will give it back..if he doesn't..he aint worth his salt...the Vet continues to give..as he/she has done and will do...without complaint...the guys that are wrapped around the axle as to vet gets this or that...why not me...or why is it good for them not for me...goose/gander garbage..what have you done for your country lately...volunteered?...voted?...helped anyone? ..worked pro bono?..just did something right...if not shut your pie hole...put up or shut up...

Talk about getting wrapped around the axle...

[gmanbp88]

Coming from a ..i don't want to assume anything...a non vet...your missing the point..we by status are no better..we just did....did you?..if not why?..just a question brother..

Dont post some one liner and run...expand on your comment...you want to post and have a conversation...grow a set an post your opinion...comments...good..bad ...or otherwise..lets get it on..

[luckless]

Coming from a ..i don't want to assume anything...a non vet...your missing the point..we by status are no better..we just did....did you?..if not why?..just a question brother..

Dont post some one liner and run...expand on your comment...you want to post and have a conversation...grow a set an post your opinion...comments...good..bad ...or otherwise..lets get it on..

What's to expand upon? I don't believe our civil rights should be stratified, you do.

[gmanbp88]

[QUOTE=luckless;2625684]What's to expand upon? I don't believe our civil rights should be stratified, you do.[/QUOTE

So in your world..we are one ****genous...androgynous..being..no one better prepared than another...un-distinguishable..what world do you live in...minority, handicapped, money..who you know..color..sexual preference...ect...vets dont take anything...we earn it...whatever it is...we take nothing...that has not been earned...go live in your utopian world...lemme know how it works for you...

(i) Future dates. The period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the congress or the beginning of an emergency condition recognized by the issuance of a presidential proclamation or a presidential executive order and in which the armed forces expeditionary medal or other campaign service medals are awarded according to presidential executive order and ending on a date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the congress.

[DP425]

It seems some veterans are more special than others. Adding another layer of ridiculous to this proposed legislation.

Some vets ARE more special than others. Sorry to rehash this, but those who gave more are certainly more special. That doesn't make one "better" than the other; it simply means that they have sacrificed and given more, and thus may deserve greater recognition or compensation.

I don't get butthurt that Medal of Honor awardees get a number of benefits for life; they are more special- they gave and/or sacrificed more than most. I don't get upset when PHM recipients get special acknowledgement; they sacrificed more than myself.



Here in the real world, all is not equal. Yes, many of the things we are recognized for in the military are largely a product of chance; you may or may not go to war... you may or may not be wounded... you may or may not be killed. But just because it's a product of chance doesn't mean the sacrifice is the same across the board. We all raised our right hand, and that is very respectable and admirable across the board. But that is where the uniformity starts... and stops. From there, as people grow, careers progress and good ol' murphy has his say, the degree of sacrifice and the amount you give does differentiate each service member from the next. I'm sorry, but the typist that never left their air conditioned office or field trailer at Ft Bliss is not on the same level of the grunt who volunteers to spend five years straight in combat, and perhaps all he gets to show for it are a couple campaign stars, a PHM or two, and a leg he left in country.





I don't want this to sound like some sort of rant on entitlement; I don't believe I'm entitled to much. My retirement plan as understood when I signed my contract, healthcare while I serve, along with housing, food and a modest paycheck that I don't have to worry if it will show up... and good healthcare when I'm out for my problems related to service. Flag on my coffin and military honors at my funeral... and since I served under qualifying conditions, a plot at a national cemetery. I'm not entitled to anything more than that. If something is offered that is useful to me, I'll take advantage of it. If those who have done more than myself have more benefits available to them... good for them, but we are all only entitled to those things that the law and our contracts stated at the time of our service; anything else is just a bonus.

Crying because someone who did or gave more, gets more bonuses is entirely childish.

[Roundballer]

and 10

Sure do agree with a lot of things