HB 4894 (2009) Purchase Permit Exemption for Police Officers

[PhotoTom]

HB 4894 of 2009 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2009-HB-4894)
Weapons; licensing; waiver of requirements for certain individuals to purchase a handgun permit; provide for. Amends sec. 2 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.422).

Introduced: 5/6/2009
Last Action: 8/19/2009 referred to second reading

[AMSProcessing]

Why shouldn't cops be required to put up with the same crap everyone else is? If they want a personal handgun, make them go thru the same BS. Why should they be special?

PS before someone spouts off about making them get the permit for the dept-issued sidearm, that's BS. The Dept already handles all of that. This legislation ONLY applies to the personal purchase or possession of a personal handgun.

[Bad Monkey]

Why shouldn't cops be required to put up with the same crap everyone else is? If they want a personal handgun, make them go thru the same BS. Why should they be special?

PS before someone spouts off about making them get the permit for the dept-issued sidearm, that's BS. The Dept already handles all of that. This legislation ONLY applies to the personal purchase or possession of a personal handgun.
:yeahthat: We have enough of those working for us the people not being held to the same laws we are.

[pgaplayerless]

Why shouldn't cops be required to put up with the same crap everyone else is? If they want a personal handgun, make them go thru the same BS. Why should they be special?

PS before someone spouts off about making them get the permit for the dept-issued sidearm, that's BS. The Dept already handles all of that. This legislation ONLY applies to the personal purchase or possession of a personal handgun.


Agreed! They are not special........Back in line, boys!

[Scoop]

Agreed! They are not special........Back in line, boys!I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want a true comparison, compare a certified police officer to a concealed pistol license holder.

To get your CPL, you have to take a class that meets certain "training requirements, right"?.
As a result, when you get a CPL, it exempts you from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun, right?

Well, when a police officer attends the academy, he takes many classes, and the material taught in those classes EASILY exceeds the same "training standards" that are required to get a CPL, right?

Rather than issue an officer a CPL, the state is simply using his MCOLES certification as proof of equivalent "training" to exempt him - just like the average CPL holder is exempt - from having to get a purchase permit.

So ... saying that a PO should have to get a purchase permit when you, a CPL holder with MUCH LESS minimum training requirements, does not have to get a purchase permit is ... well ... rather hypocritical, now, isn't it? :)

[Scoop]

Why shouldn't cops be required to put up with the same crap everyone else is? If they want a personal handgun, make them go thru the same BS. Why should they be special?Their initial training (e.g., police academy, mandatory to work as a PO in MI) exceeds the minimum standards that YOU must complete to obtain your CPL.

You CPL exempts YOU from having to obtain a purchase permit.

The PO is simply being granted the same exact exemption that you, the CPL holder, has.

[ChaneyD]

Their initial training (e.g., police academy, mandatory to work as a PO in MI) exceeds the minimum standards that YOU must complete to obtain your CPL.

You CPL exempts YOU from having to obtain a purchase permit.

The PO is simply being granted the same exact exemption that you, the CPL holder, has.

DISAGREE. Our club is open year round for the local PD's and SP to use for their yearly qualifications. The average LEO can't keep his shots inside a paper plate at 21ft. Why is that? They only shoot yearly to qualify. They're no more qualified as are those who get their CPL's and nevr get to the range. Those that are excellent shots are those I see weekly along side myself that shoot regularly. Why shouldn't we, the retired military and those that have served be exempt from all these regulations? Retired LEO's are. I can guarantee you those of us who served overseas no more about weapons than the average LEO yet it doesn't count for anything.

[Daniels]

DISAGREE. Our club is open year round for the local PD's and SP to use for their yearly qualifications. The average LEO can't keep his shots inside a paper plate at 21ft. Why is that? They only shoot yearly to qualify. They're no more qualified as are those who get their CPL's and nevr get to the range. Those that are excellent shots are those I see weekly along side myself that shoot regularly. Why shouldn't we, the retired military and those that have served be exempt from all these regulations? Retired LEO's are. I can guarantee you those of us who served overseas no more about weapons than the average LEO yet it doesn't count for anything.

I know cops that only shoot to qualify and never shoot again until they have to qualify again. LOL

[pgaplayerless]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

If you want a true comparison, compare a certified police officer to a concealed pistol license holder.

To get your CPL, you have to take a class that meets certain "training requirements, right"?.
As a result, when you get a CPL, it exempts you from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun, right?

Well, when a police officer attends the academy, he takes many classes, and the material taught in those classes EASILY exceeds the same "training standards" that are required to get a CPL, right?

Rather than issue an officer a CPL, the state is simply using his MCOLES certification as proof of equivalent "training" to exempt him - just like the average CPL holder is exempt - from having to get a purchase permit.

So ... saying that a PO should have to get a purchase permit when you, a CPL holder with MUCH LESS minimum training requirements, does not have to get a purchase permit is ... well ... rather hypocritical, now, isn't it? :)

When he's off the clock he's plain old joe blow civilian like everybody else.

[ChaneyD]

I know cops that only shoot to qualify and never shoot again until they have to qualify again. LOL

Exactly. The average cop couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I remember last summer a bunch of us were gathered watching the Sheriff's dept qualify. They had one Barney Fife that was just horrible. He asked his SGT to ask us politely to leave because we made him nervous. I made the comment to the SGT that if we made him nervous, he shouldn't have a firearm on his person in case SHTF would happen. Now that's scary.

[Daniels]

Exactly. The average cop couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I remember last summer a bunch of us were gathered watching the Sheriff's dept qualify. They had one Barney Fife that was just horrible. He asked his SGT to ask us politely to leave because we made him nervous. I made the comment to the SGT that if we made him nervous, he shouldn't have a firearm on his person in case SHTF would happen. Now that's scary.

LOL That sucks. I just don't understand why someone would want to do that for a living and not be proficient at it.

[ChaneyD]

Because. It's just a job! Some do their jobs no matter what they are, some just like to GET BY.

[Super Trucker]

Why not, most of them get a pass on many other laws, why not add this one as well.

[PhotoTom]

DISAGREE. Our club is open year round for the local PD's and SP to use for their yearly qualifications. The average LEO can't keep his shots inside a paper plate at 21ft. Why is that? They only shoot yearly to qualify.

I know a number of LEOs that are OUTSTANDING shooters. I know a number of CPL holders that are OUTSTANDING shooters.

I know a number of LEOs that barely qualify after numerous retries. I know a number of CPL holders that scare me with their poor shooting "skills".

But...
Both the really good and really bad "shooter" CPL holders can bypass the purchase permit process...simply by virtue of having the CPL. This bill would simply make the same provision for both the really good and really bad "shooter" LEOs. If they couldn't qualify for a purchase permit, they wouldn't be a LEO anyway...and that's what this is really about...redundant background checks required for purchasing a pistol. CPL holders have already been exempted from the purchase permit process...

[pgaplayerless]

I know a number of LEOs that are OUTSTANDING shooters. I know a number of CPL holders that are OUTSTANDING shooters.

I know a number of LEOs that barely qualify after numerous retries. I know a number of CPL holders that scare me with their poor shooting "skills".

But...
Both the really good and really bad "shooter" CPL holders can bypass the purchase permit process...simply by virtue of having the CPL. This bill would simply make the same provision for both the really good and really bad "shooter" LEOs. If they couldn't qualify for a purchase permit, they wouldn't be a LEO anyway...and that's what this is really about...redundant background checks required for purchasing a pistol. CPL holders have already been exempted from the purchase permit process...


LEO's can get CPL like everybody else and be exempt too.

I'm FFL and I still had to get PP before getting my CPL....if I didn't qualify for a purchase permit, I wouldn't be a FFL... *shrugs*

;)

[Tallbear]

So, if they're going to have to fill out and file a form for each purchase, why not use the permit to purchase form and reduce the need for "another" purchase form?

[Lloyd H]

I say support the bill. Let's lower the restrictions for as many law abiding citizens as possible to personally exercise their constitutional rights. Besides, as LEO purchase their own personal pistols, maybe some of the ones that need to will spend a little more time on the range. :-)

[pgaplayerless]

I say support the bill. Let's lower the restrictions for as many law abiding citizens as possible to personally exercise their constitutional rights. Besides, as LEO purchase their own personal pistols, maybe some of the ones that need to will spend a little more time on the range. :-)

You mean lower the restrictions as long as you are the correct social class: :cop:

meh!

[PhotoTom]

So, if they're going to have to fill out and file a form for each purchase, why not use the permit to purchase form and reduce the need for "another" purchase form?

Two words..."impulse buy" ;)

[Super Trucker]

I know a number of LEOs that are OUTSTANDING shooters. I know a number of CPL holders that are OUTSTANDING shooters.

I know a number of LEOs that barely qualify after numerous retries. I know a number of CPL holders that scare me with their poor shooting "skills".

But...
Both the really good and really bad "shooter" CPL holders can bypass the purchase permit process...simply by virtue of having the CPL. This bill would simply make the same provision for both the really good and really bad "shooter" LEOs. If they couldn't qualify for a purchase permit, they wouldn't be a LEO anyway...and that's what this is really about...redundant background checks required for purchasing a pistol. CPL holders have already been exempted from the purchase permit process...

So would you consider it the same, that a cop gets paid training gets a free pass on the purchase, as opposed to a regular person that has to pay for their training/CPL class, then pay for their CPL to get a free pass on the PP?

I think if the cops want to not get a purchase permit let them shell out the cash like the rest of us did.

[PhotoTom]

So would you consider it the same, that a cop gets paid training gets a free pass on the purchase, as opposed to a regular person that has to pay for their training/CPL class, then pay for their CPL to get a free pass on the PP?

I think if the cops want to not get a purchase permit let them shell out the cash like the rest of us did.

I don't think anyone is going through the process/expense of obtaining a CPL simply to avoid having to get purchase permits.

Again, the reason for the purchase permit is to verify that the person is qualified (by law) to purchase/own a pistol. LEOs go though extensive background investigations to qualify for the job, so it is completely redundant to have to go through the same (lesser) process again prior to purchasing a pistol.

The bottom line is...
This bill will probably sail though due to heavy "support" from the law enforcement community. The only way to stop it is for a greater segment of lobbyist to oppose it with substantive basis. Who is going to do that?

[Knightrider03m]

lol

This bill doesn't matter. A cop still isn't going to deal with the same "hassle" as a civilian even if this bill don't pass. Even more so if the LEO live in the same city that they work in. If you guys don't like it, become a cop. I say let the police have this bill.

[pgaplayerless]

I don't think anyone is going through the process/expense of obtaining a CPL simply to avoid having to get purchase permits.

Again, the reason for the purchase permit is to verify that the person is qualified (by law) to purchase/own a pistol. LEOs go though extensive background investigations to qualify for the job, so it is completely redundant to have to go through the same (lesser) process again prior to purchasing a pistol.

The bottom line is...
This bill will probably sail though due to heavy "support" from the law enforcement community. The only way to stop it is for a greater segment of lobbyist to oppose it with substantive basis. Who is going to do that?

That is not what this is all about. If it was about that.... FFL holders, Secret/Top Secret clearance holders, etc will all be included on the bill.

This is nothing more the favoritism legislature to cater to one social class. "Cops can do no wrong".....except shooting each other over marital dispute in a PD parking lot.

Call it for what it is! ;)

[PhotoTom]

That is not what this is all about. If it was about that.... FFL holders, Secret/Top Secret clearance holders, etc will all be included on the bill.

The difference being...those folks have not taken the initiative to get a bill introduced...this didn't just happen all by itself.

[pgaplayerless]

The difference being...those folks have not taken the initiative to get a bill introduced...this didn't just happen all by itself.

Well at least you agree it's about favoritism, not about equality :)

[ChaneyD]

I don't think anyone is going through the process/expense of obtaining a CPL simply to avoid having to get purchase permits.

Again, the reason for the purchase permit is to verify that the person is qualified (by law) to purchase/own a pistol. LEOs go though extensive background investigations to qualify for the job, so it is completely redundant to have to go through the same (lesser) process again prior to purchasing a pistol.

The bottom line is...
This bill will probably sail though due to heavy "support" from the law enforcement community. The only way to stop it is for a greater segment of lobbyist to oppose it with substantive basis. Who is going to do that?

Tom, have to disagree on the reason for CPL. I have friends that collect firearms and that was the only reason they got the CPL so they could buy without hassling with the permit to purchase. My son did the same thing before he started carrying a year ago. I hear people at the gun shows talking about the same thing. They don't fee the need to carry but just want to buy a firearm when ever the mood strikes without running to get a PP.

I think the only background check that someone applying for a LEO position goes through that we civilians do not is the credit and friends/family check. We go through the same CRIMINAL background check that they do.

[PhotoTom]

Tom, have to disagree on the reason for CPL. I have friends that collect firearms and that was the only reason they got the CPL so they could buy without hassling with the permit to purchase.

Yep...I was thinking about going back and editing the "absolute" statement made after I posted it...but alas, I agree...I'm sure there are a *few* folks that get a CPL for this reason.


I think the only background check that someone applying for a LEO position goes through that we civilians do not is the credit and friends/family check. We go through the same CRIMINAL background check that they do.

Correct...that is why the LEO community feels that having to obtain a purchase permit is redundant...just as it would be with a CPL holder.

[ChaneyD]

Agreed! Hopefully in the near future we can get this to pass.

[Scoop]

When he's off the clock he's plain old joe blow civilian like everybody else.Jobe blow civilian with a CPL does NOT have to obtain a purchase permit.

You're missing the point.

His training that he received is at least the equivalent to the garbage minimum requirements for obtaining a CPL. Being "off the clock" doesn't mean he didn't take the training.

[Scoop]

LEO's can get CPL like everybody else and be exempt too. That's silly.

The ONLY thing that this would accomplish is costing the county clerks, the county gun boards, the sheriff's office, and the state additional time and money to print an additional card with a guy's picture on it.

[pgaplayerless]

Jobe blow civilian with a CPL does NOT have to obtain a purchase permit.

You're missing the point.

His training that he received is at least the equivalent to the garbage minimum requirements for obtaining a CPL. Being "off the clock" doesn't mean he didn't take the training.

It's not about his training. It's about his background being clean.

They are trying to bypass PP, which checks background. They are not trying to bypass CPL, which deals with training. So LEO's training is irrelevant for this exercise.

[pgaplayerless]

That's silly.

The ONLY thing that this would accomplish is costing the county clerks, the county gun boards, the sheriff's office, and the state additional time and money to print an additional card with a guy's picture on it.

Good. Same as rest of us. :thup:

[Scoop]

That is not what this is all about. If it was about that.... FFL holders, Secret/Top Secret clearance holders, etc will all be included on the bill.

This is nothing more the favoritism legislature to cater to one social class. "Cops can do no wrong".....except shooting each other over marital dispute in a PD parking lot.

Call it for what it is! ;)You're not making one iota of sense.

This has nothing to do with favoritism or special groups. Further, this has nothing to do with how proficient someone is or is not with a handgun.

A police officer MUST complete firearms training (much more than the state's minimum requirement to obtain a CPL, actually) and a background check, the same as you have to complete to apply for and obtain a CPL.

As a result of your training, you receive a card that exempts you from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun.

As a result of their training, they receive a card (their agency ID) that exempts them from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun.

This is nothing more than a logistics issue. To say that this is anything other than that is absurd.

[Scoop]

It's not about his training. It's about his background being clean.

They are trying to bypass PP, which checks background. They are not trying to bypass CPL, which deals with training. So LEO's training is irrelevant for this exercise.Do you think that a person can be hired and work as an MCOLES certified police officer in the State of MI without a background check?

My GOD, they run everything they have up and down a PO applicant's anus, looking for anything and everything they can, to disqualify him/her. They are subjected not only to *mere* CCH (computerized criminal history) checks, but to a BATTERY of psychological and sociological test, lie detector tests, etc.

Do you actually think that you have to pass a more stringent background evaluation to obtain a CPL than someone does to work as a police officer?

[pgaplayerless]

You're not making one iota of sense.

This has nothing to do with favoritism or special groups. Further, this has nothing to do with how proficient someone is or is not with a handgun.

A police officer MUST complete firearms training (much more than the state's minimum requirement to obtain a CPL, actually) and a background check, the same as you have to complete to apply for and obtain a CPL.

As a result of your training, you receive a card that exempts you from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun.

As a result of their training, they receive a card (their agency ID) that exempts them from having to obtain a purchase permit to buy a handgun.

This is nothing more than a logistics issue. To say that this is anything other than that is absurd.

Issuing a PP has NOTHING to do with one's training, period. The reason why CPL holders are exempt from getting a PP is not because they had training, it's because they already went thru more extensive background check.

[Scoop]

Good. Same as rest of us. :thup:I said all it will change is how much it costs the state and local government to do something, and you say that that is a GOOD thing?

Genius: YOU PAY TAXES. YOU PAY FOR THIS.

[pgaplayerless]

Do you think that a person can be hired and work as an MCOLES certified police officer in the State of MI without a background check?

My GOD, they run everything they have up and down a PO applicant's anus, looking for anything and everything they can, to disqualify him/her. They are subjected not only to *mere* CCH (computerized criminal history) checks, but to a BATTERY of psychological and sociological test, lie detector tests, etc.

Do you actually think that you have to pass a more stringent background evaluation to obtain a CPL than someone does to work as a police officer?

As i already mentioned there are other groups that go thru the same background checks, the basis of issuing PP, as LEOs do. Yet none of those groups are mentioned in this legislative change.

If people are after reduction in paperwork......rather then plain ol' social class favoritism.....why aren't any of the other groups mentioned???

[Scoop]

Issuing a PP has NOTHING to do with one's training, period. The reason why CPL holders are exempt from getting a PP is not because they had training, it's because they already went thru more extensive background check. And why the ***** do you think I said this:


A police officer MUST complete firearms training (much more than the state's minimum requirement to obtain a CPL, actually) and a background check,
Somehow, you failed to quote THAT part of the message.

For the seventy-second time: The PO *already* has to complete ALL THE SAME REQUIREMENTS that you do to obtain a CPL in order to get MCOLES certified and work as a PO in Michigan.

It's not like this bill exempts people who do NOT completely any training. If THAT was the case, then you'd have a point. But you're not paying attention here.

[PhotoTom]

Issuing a PP has NOTHING to do with one's training, period. The reason why CPL holders are exempt from getting a PP is not because they had training, it's because they already went thru more extensive background check.

Edited for the point:

Issuing a PP has NOTHING to do with one's training, period. The reason why LEOs would be exempt from getting a PP is not because they had training, it's because they already went thru more extensive background check.

Which is exactly why this bill will probably pass with ease!

[pgaplayerless]

I said all it will change is how much it costs the state and local government to do something, and you say that that is a GOOD thing?

Genius: YOU PAY TAXES. YOU PAY FOR THIS.

If you wish to make the whole tax savings argument, then the legislature should be reading that they want to get rid of PP for everybody that went thru extensive background check, period. Not just one specific social group. Until it does, your point is moot.

[pgaplayerless]

Which is exactly why this bill will probably pass with ease!

Oh I'm not saying it won't. Just saying it's a classic PC favoritism BS. ;)

[PhotoTom]

As i already mentioned there are other groups that go thru the same background checks, the basis of issuing PP, as LEOs do. Yet none of those groups are mentioned in this legislative change.

If people are after reduction in paperwork......rather then plain ol' social class favoritism.....why aren't any of the other groups mentioned???

Again...because they haven't gotten a bill introduced to do so! Really, it IS that simple!
It would probably be even easier to "reason" that those groups should be exempted as well after this one passes...

[Scoop]

As i already mentioned there are other groups that go thru the same background checks, the basis of issuing PP, as LEOs do. Yet none of those groups are mentioned in this legislative change.

If people are after reduction in paperwork......rather then plain ol' social class favoritism.....why aren't any of the other groups mentioned???The only other "groups" you mentioned were "FFL holders and Secret/Top Secret clearance holders".

I supposed you'd have to ask the sponsor of the legislation why they are not included, but I'd probably venture a guess that it would be because the State of MI doesn't set the requirements (e.g., standards for a "passing" background check) for those agents/licensees.

You are purposely ignoring the similarities between a CPL holder and a PO with regard to background checks.

Do you or do you not believe that the standards for passing a background check to work as an MCOLES certified police officer is at least equal to the same standards for passing a background check to obtain a CPL?

[Scoop]

If you wish to make the whole tax savings argument, then the legislature should be reading that they want to get rid of PP for everybody that went thru extensive background check, period. Not just one specific social group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the FIRST "special group", if not THE first group, that was exempted from having to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun a group referred to as "CPL HOLDERS"?

(Yes, it was).

Given that, why did I not see you completely up in arms because the state had exempted ONE special group - CPL holders - and not "every OTHER group that has passed a background check?


Until it does, your point is moot.LOL. You and your childish little retorts crack me the ***** up.

[Scoop]

I'm STILL waiting for an answer to this one (the question you must have accidentally overlooked):

Do you think that a person can be hired and work as an MCOLES certified police officer in the State of MI without a background check?

[pgaplayerless]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the FIRST "special group", if not THE first group, that was exempted from having to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun a group referred to as "CPL HOLDERS"?

(Yes, it was).

Given that, why did I not see you completely up in arms because the state had exempted ONE special group - CPL holders - and not "every OTHER group that has passed a background check?

LOL. You and your childish little retorts crack me the ***** up.

Being CPL and being LEO are not two mutually exclusive groups. Thus your point is moot.

[pgaplayerless]

The only other "groups" you mentioned were "FFL holders and Secret/Top Secret clearance holders".

I supposed you'd have to ask the sponsor of the legislation why they are not included, but I'd probably venture a guess that it would be because the State of MI doesn't set the requirements (e.g., standards for a "passing" background check) for those agents/licensees.

You are purposely ignoring the similarities between a CPL holder and a PO with regard to background checks.

Do you or do you not believe that the standards for passing a background check to work as an MCOLES certified police officer is at least equal to the same standards for passing a background check to obtain a CPL?

I never ignored the similarities on CPL background checks to LEO ones. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I admitted they are equivalent.

I said that's it's legislature catering to specific PC social group with extensive background checks, while leaving out the other ones.

LEOs can do no wrong, but FFLs can, thus they must still get PP :coocoo:

[Roundballer]

They (legislature) are working to get rid of PP's for everyone:

H.B. 5972 & 5973 Elimination of purchase permit (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=84982)

I am not sure what they are doing will free it up or if it is an end run to further carry restrictions. I'm still waiting for others' opinions on this one. IANAL

[jeepinrrt]

I don't think anyone is going through the process/expense of obtaining a CPL simply to avoid having to get purchase permits.

Again, the reason for the purchase permit is to verify that the person is qualified (by law) to purchase/own a pistol. LEOs go though extensive background investigations to qualify for the job, so it is completely redundant to have to go through the same (lesser) process again prior to purchasing a pistol.

The bottom line is...
This bill will probably sail though due to heavy "support" from the law enforcement community. The only way to stop it is for a greater segment of lobbyist to oppose it with substantive basis. Who is going to do that?

Exactly the point. The whole reason CPL holders are exempt from getting another PP is that they are set to higher standards than the PP calls for. It has nothing to do with shooting ability as some have suggested. I do not know anything about PO background checks for the job but one would assume that it is on par with the CPL qualifications. If this is indeed the case, by all means let them have the impulse buy capability as well, it might take some of the heat off me when something new follows me home :whistle:

[Super Trucker]

Exactly the point. The whole reason CPL holders are exempt from getting another PP is that they are set to higher standards than the PP calls for. It has nothing to do with shooting ability as some have suggested. I do not know anything about PO background checks for the job but one would assume that it is on par with the CPL qualifications. If this is indeed the case, by all means let them have the impulse buy capability as well, it might take some of the heat off me when something new follows me home :whistle:

So you having to pay big money to be cleared from needing a PP is the same as somebody on a payroll getting cleared. Last week you were all about everybody being treated equal, now this week that idea changed?

Again if they don't want the hassle of getting a PP, let them pay the fee that I have to pay.

[Super Trucker]

That's silly.

The ONLY thing that this would accomplish is costing the county clerks, the county gun boards, the sheriff's office, and the state additional time and money to print an additional card with a guy's picture on it.

What exactly does that $105.00 I have to pay cover?
I was told it pays the clerk, gun board, sherriff office, and cover the additional card with the poicture on it.

Did they lie to me?

[AMSProcessing]

The funny thing I just realized?

As a (recently issued) CPL holder, I can walk into my favorite fun shop, buy a gun, not get run thru NICS, and walk out with my new acquisition.

Someone with a purchase permit (once they've gotten it) walks into their favorite fun shop, buys a gun, doesn't have to bother with NICS, and walks out with their new acquisition.

Without the police officer obtaining a purchase permit, or having to have a CPL, the walk into their favorite fun shop, buy a handgun, wait for the NICS call, possibly get a "Delay" or (probably wrongful) "Denied", and have MUCH more hassle than either one above.

It seems to me, that a police officer would probably be better off either obtaining a CPL or obtaining a purchase permit if they wanted to go shopping.

Frankly, as a CPL holder, with all the crap I have to go thru just to prove that I am an upstanding citizen and able to get (and keep) my license, and with all the BS rules and CEZ's that I have to be careful of, I don't have any problem having the easiest option.

As a side note - after some of the initial postings, I've changed my mind, I don't care if a police officer has to get a purchase permit or not. If they were smart, they'd probably get a CPL just for ease of use on those "impulse buys".

just my .0000000000125 (.02 after obamassiah's economy gets thru with it...)

[PhotoTom]

Someone with a purchase permit (once they've gotten it) walks into their favorite fun shop, buys a gun, doesn't have to bother with NICS, and walks out with their new acquisition.


Since when?

[pgaplayerless]

Since when?


always?

[PhotoTom]

always?
LOL...well...since 1998 anyway!

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/03/032406-openletter-ffl-michigan-concealed-permit.html


The permanent provisions of the Brady Law took effect on November 30, 1998. The Brady Law generally requires licensed dealers to initiate a NICS background check through the FBI (or the State in a Point of Contact State) before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual.

In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent an Open Letter to all Michigan FFLs stating Michigan’s Permit to Purchase a Handgun would qualify as an alternative to the background check required under the Brady Law
Learned somethin' new today!

[ChaneyD]

If your're purchasing a firearm only with a PP you undergo a NICS checks. Period. If your CPL is dated after 2006, I believe, you don't.

[pgaplayerless]

If your're purchasing a firearm only with a PP you undergo a NICS checks. Period. If your CPL is dated after 2006, I believe, you don't.


That is incorrect. PP waives NICS.

[Scoop]

Being CPL and being LEO are not two mutually exclusive groups.With regard to having a CCH (computerized criminal history) background check, NO, they are not.


Thus your point is moot.You simply refuse to accept the fact that you're wrong, so you tell people their points are moot. Grow up, will ya?

This has NOTHING to do with "special groups" or "favoritism". It's about reducing redundancy when someone has ALREADY far exceeded any background check that YOU, the CPL holder, has passed.

[ChaneyD]

That is incorrect. PP waives NICS.

Your local PD does the NICS when you apply for the PP.

[pgaplayerless]

With regard to having a CCH (computerized criminal history) background check, NO, they are not.

You simply refuse to accept the fact that you're wrong, so you tell people their points are moot. Grow up, will ya?

This has NOTHING to do with "special groups" or "favoritism". It's about reducing redundancy when someone has ALREADY far exceeded any background check that YOU, the CPL holder, has passed.

I'm not wrong. As mentioned, there are other groups that pass background checks far exceeding those of LEOs, yet they are not mentioned.

Bet the bill would have much harder time passing, if at all, if any of the other groups were mentioned on it.

It's easy to see this legislature aims to cater to one "special" social class whine ignoring all the others.

And I'm aware of your bias as ex-LEO too ;)

[pgaplayerless]

Your local PD does the NICS when you apply for the PP.

LEIN actually, not NICS.

[ChaneyD]

If LEIN trumps NICS what is the real difference between them?

[pgaplayerless]

If LEIN trumps NICS what is the real difference between them?


One is setup for law enforcement other is setup for FFLs. LEIN supposedly shows more stuff as it's more up to date and shows local stuff that fed level doesn't see.

[Scoop]

One is setup for law enforcement other is setup for FFLs. LEIN supposedly shows more stuff as it's more up to date and shows local stuff that fed level doesn't see.It's not that there is "more stuff" in LEIN. Rather, there is DIFFERENT stuff in LEIN vs. NICS.

LEIN is a Michigan resource (system) that aggregates a bunch of different STATE data repositories, and makes them available to STATE agencies.

LEIN is not setup just for law enforcement. This is because LEIN doesn't contain ONLY criminal history/information. Family services, community health, fire, FOTC, public housing agencies, and other non-LE STATE agencies have access. Private police have access to LEIN. Heck, public and private SCHOOLS have limited access to LEIN.

NICS is a CCH repository for federal criminal background history (e.g., federal arrest warrants, federal convictions, etc.). There are no STATE warrants, convictions, or other information contained in NICS. NICS maintains a list of which state(s) have a CCH for a particular person, but not the actual detailed information. It also houses federal information (e.g., federal warrants, convictions, etc.). LEIN is only for MI information. LEIN does not have federal information.

(Man, I HATE typing NICS. I always type the name of that damn TV show instead ... LOL).

[Scoop]

If LEIN trumps NICS what is the real difference between them?LEIN doesn't necessarily "trump" NICS, per se. See above.

[ChaneyD]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[PhotoTom]

LEIN is only for MI information. LEIN does not have federal information.

NCIC and NLETS are part of the LEIN "network"...

[Scoop]

NCIC and NLETS are part of the LEIN "network"...Correct. I was referring to the state's CCH repository. It doesn't have federal info in it. Sorry for the confusion.

[AMSProcessing]

My point being that the purchase permit is run by the locals, who have access to your specific information, and not a generic call-in where you come away with three options.

Yes, similar data is run by the local PD for the purchase permit, but the NICS check probably has more room for confusion, due to its stated purpose and limitations. I still stand by my statement - it's generally less hassle to walk into a fun store and make a purchase with either a (recent) CPL or a purchase permit. And for all the crap we have to put up with, including ridiculous CEZs and other weird rules, I'm ok with having that advantage as a CPL holder....

[Super Trucker]

This has NOTHING to do with "special groups" or "favoritism". It's about reducing redundancy when someone has ALREADY far exceeded any background check that YOU, the CPL holder, has passed.

Got to disagree with ya. how is not making the cop pay $105.00 to get a pass not favoritism?

Speaking of redundancy, I must pay $95.00 every 4 years to have a haz-mat background check so I can haul gas to your local gas station. I also pay $105.00 every 5 years for the same background check to carry a gun.
Is that not redundant?

[Mike in Michigan]

As a long-time FFL, and a person who deals with LEO's purchasing firearms on a regular basis: Many Leo's CANNOT get a CPL because their department heads will not allow it. The reasoning is related to liability. According to dept. lawyers, an off-duty LEO involved in a shooting incident is open to a lawsuit, as a private citizen, not as a LEO, by virtue of him/her having a CPL.

On another point, having worked as an RSO at LEO-only shooting events, I can say I am appalled at the complete lack of firearms handling and marksmanship skills exhibited by too many LEO's at those events.

[dessique]

Got to disagree with ya. how is not making the cop pay $105.00 to get a pass not favoritism?


Local academy in my area is 5,440 – out-district tuition
On top of that there is a 1,862.00 fee for uniforms, books, and the application checks..

Oh I failed to mention that I am going to be putting myself through the academy since almost all of the departments in Michigan don't sponsor people through. (Yes I know some do so dont throw that in my face, but they arent the departments I have any interest in working for and are extremely few and far between anyways).

I think that is uh...even(?) to the $105. I many have to check my math... but even after 10 years you would have paid only 14% of what I will have.

I went ahead registered for my CPL 4 months before I start the academy simply because I didnt want to have to deal with PPs and I can see both sides of the argument, Im just playing devils advocate (dont flame me!)


Speaking of redundancy, I must pay $95.00 every 4 years to have a haz-mat background check so I can haul gas to your local gas station. I also pay $105.00 every 5 years for the same background check to carry a gun.
Is that not redundant?

At that point there is the "training" to consider. Most LEOs (some are required) carry off duty already and are trained accordingly.

Its not all about cost its also about training (even if that "training" is a somewhat not funny joke) and its not about skills because I KNOW some people that I am uncomfortable with when they carry around me. There are LEOs and CPL holders that are just as much a danger to themselves and others as the people they are hoping to defend themselves from

[Super Trucker]

Local academy in my area is 5,440 – out-district tuition
On top of that there is a 1,862.00 fee for uniforms, books, and the application checks..

Oh I failed to mention that I am going to be putting myself through the academy since almost all of the departments in Michigan don't sponsor people through. (Yes I know some do so dont throw that in my face, but they arent the departments I have any interest in working for and are extremely few and far between anyways).

I think that is uh...even(?) to the $105. I many have to check my math... but even after 10 years you would have paid only 14% of what I will have.

I went ahead registered for my CPL 4 months before I start the academy simply because I didnt want to have to deal with PPs and I can see both sides of the argument, Im just playing devils advocate (dont flame me!)



At that point there is the "training" to consider. Most LEOs (some are required) carry off duty already and are trained accordingly.

Its not all about cost its also about training (even if that "training" is a somewhat not funny joke) and its not about skills because I KNOW some people that I am uncomfortable with when they carry around me. There are LEOs and CPL holders that are just as much a danger to themselves and others as the people they are hoping to defend themselves from

So you are comparing your personal choice of footing the bill on your own, because there is not a demand for cops currently vs something we are forced to pay? You mentioned that not all cops pay their own way so I think you defeated your own arguement there.
Training, lets see I pay somebody for training while I am not on the clock, while the cop gets their training paid and they generally are getting paid during the training, I can see where that might be misunderstood?????????

Most of the cops I know didn't have too pay.

On the training, I hope you are not saying cops are safer with guns than non cops?

I know 2 cops that do not shoot other then to qualify, and have no interest in training. If I as one person know 2 that way, would it be safe to say they are not the only 2 in MI?

You are correct it is not ALL about cost, it is about right and wrong. This is wrong!

[dessique]

(1.) So you are comparing your personal choice of footing the bill on your own, because there is not a demand for cops currently vs something we are forced to pay? You mentioned that not all cops pay their own way so I think you defeated your own arguement there.Most of the cops I know didn't have too pay.

(2.)On the training, I hope you are not saying cops are safer with guns than non cops?

(3.)You are correct it is not ALL about cost, it is about right and wrong. This is wrong!


I've picked out three of your points instead of block quoting the whole thing.

1. Where and when did these LEOs you know start working? In MI today, it is exceptionally hard to find a department that pays for you to attend the academy, departments are laying people off because they cant pay them, let alone pay to train them. Believe me, I've been working and volunteering with police departments since I was a cadet at 14, Im heading off the the academy in August and I didnt just impulse decide to do that, I actually looked at what my options were. I several officer with 10+ years experience that have told me that Michigan departments were hardly sponsoring people when they went through and it has only gotten worse.

On personal choice v forced to pay? Im pretty sure that my personal choice to go to the academy and pay 6k+ dollars is the same as your personal choice to register for your CPL and pay 105 dollars. (The only difference is learning/training to carry firearms apart of certifying for my chosen profession). Its similar training and requirements in regards to carrying your firearm so why shouldn't it carry the same "perks"? (and Im using the term perks loosely because I couldnt think of a better term)

2. Im absolutely not saying that cops are safer than CPL holders. I personally feel that MOST CPL holders take their right to CC very seriously and are more likely to train and make sure they are proficient because they are not only defending themselves, they are defending EVERYONES right to CC.

I was referring to your statement about the Haz-mat background check when I said "training" was a factor (i.e. you might get a background check but you didnt get any firearms and gun-laws training) At the end of my post I said there were LEOs and CPL holders (BOTH) that made me nervous because they dont regularly train with their firearms.

3. Im not saying right or wrong, Im no expert, Im just average joe on some msg board stimulating conversation and debate :scratch:

[Super Trucker]

1. Where and when did these LEOs you know start working? In MI today, it is exceptionally hard to find a department that pays for you to attend the academy, departments are laying people off because they cant pay them, let alone pay to train them. Believe me, I've been working and volunteering with police departments since I was a cadet at 14, Im heading off the the academy in August and I didnt just impulse decide to do that, I actually looked at what my options were. I several officer with 10+ years experience that have told me that Michigan departments were hardly sponsoring people when they went through and it has only gotten worse.

On personal choice v forced to pay? Im pretty sure that my personal choice to go to the academy and pay 6k+ dollars is the same as your personal choice to register for your CPL and pay 105 dollars. (The only difference is learning/training to carry firearms apart of certifying for my chosen profession). Its similar training and requirements in regards to carrying your firearm so why shouldn't it carry the same "perks"? (and Im using the term perks loosely because I couldnt think of a better term)

OK Detroit just hired and is paying a bunch of "new" recruits to go to the academy. If you don't want to work there for 2 years then that is a personal choice.

Next I am forced to pay 105.00 for the ability to defend myself, because as you know the cops do not have to do that. And i am certainly not going to "wait" for somebody else to do it.
You could work for Detroit and not be forced to pay 6K to be a cop, right?


2The HazMat comment was directed at another person to show that if I have to have redundant background checks so should they. he said that because they are cops they don't need background checks.


3. Im not saying right or wrong, Im no expert, Im just average joe on some msg board stimulating conversation and debate
:cheers:

[bornyesterday]

I have a friend that, when the whole CPL legalization effort was happening, was also a new County Reservist. He had spent the hours and took the required classes at community college in order for the privilege to volunteer. The first thing that his Reservist superiors did was to have him fill out the CPL paperwork and they rushed it to the head of the next gun board's docket.

I don't think that this law needs to be passed. Make them LEO's go through the same CPL permitting process, let them check the box that allows them to carry everywhere. Keep the LEO's and non-LEO's in the same group in the Government lists.

And as far as liability goes, that's just small-minded thinking on the parts of people in responsibility that have been promoted to a position that exceeds the level of their competence. By the same logic, off-duty officers should not be allowed to drive to and from work because if they got in a traffic accident, their office could be involved in the liability lawsuit. Lawyers are lawyers: they will sue: it's what they do.

[Scoop]

I don't think that this law needs to be passed. Make them LEO's go through the same CPL permitting process, let them check the box that allows them to carry everywhere. Keep the LEO's and non-LEO's in the same group in the Government lists.Apparently you're not aware of the fact that MCOLES certified peace officers are *already* EXEMPT from having to have a CPL to carry concealed, on or off duty. Anywhere.

They don't need a "checkbox" checked because they don't need a CPL at all.

[Scoop]

OK Detroit just hired and is paying a bunch of "new" recruits to go to the academy.Detroit is an exception because nobody wants to work for DPD. They go there just to get their academy paid for, then put in enough time to be able to leave without having to reimburse the department for the academy. MSP runs their own academy, as does Flint and a couple others. But for the most part, this is the exception rather than the rule.

All the cop-haters have successfully moved the conversation from the intent of the legislation to the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory intent.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with "special groups" or "favoritism". It's about reducing redundancy when someone has ALREADY far exceeded any background check that YOU, the CPL holder, has passed. The SAME background check has ALREADY occurred. Not a DIFFERENT background check for a DIFFERENT license or a DIFFERENT reason.

You can disagree all you want. You can yell from the treetops that this is favoritism, Elvis is still alive, and that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't work alone. But I'm sorry, that doesn't make it so.

You can now safely return to your regularly-scheduled "cops are ignorant azzholes and I know more about life, guns, and the law than they do" thread.

[Scoop]

As a long-time FFL, and a person who deals with LEO's purchasing firearms on a regular basis: Many Leo's CANNOT get a CPL because their department heads will not allow it. The reasoning is related to liability. According to dept. lawyers, an off-duty LEO involved in a shooting incident is open to a lawsuit, as a private citizen, not as a LEO, by virtue of him/her having a CPL.First, certified LEOs do not NEED a CPL to carry concealed anywhere in this state (on or off duty).

Second, the presence or absence of a CPL does NOT change the culpability or liabilty of a department if an officer happens to be involved in an off-duty shooting. A certified officer who has a CPL is not criminally or civilly *different* from a certified officer who does NOT have a CPL. ANYBODY is "open to a lawsuit". There are no laws that restrict a "victims" ability to file a lawsuit against a department IF an officer of that department is off-duty, is involved in a shooting, and that officer has a concealed pistol license issued by the state. That's utter nonsense.


On another point, having worked as an RSO at LEO-only shooting events, I can say I am appalled at the complete lack of firearms handling and marksmanship skills exhibited by too many LEO's at those events.I shoot with both LEOs (quals) and non-LEOs (member of a gun club). Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "complete lack of handling and marksmanship skills" isn't limited to your brief stint working as an RSO at LEO-only shooting events. Point being, there are idiots EVERYWHERE.

[Super Trucker]

Detroit is an exception because nobody wants to work for DPD. They go there just to get their academy paid for, then put in enough time to be able to leave without having to reimburse the department for the academy. MSP runs their own academy, as does Flint and a couple others. But for the most part, this is the exception rather than the rule.

All the cop-haters have successfully moved the conversation from the intent of the legislation to the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theory intent.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with "special groups" or "favoritism". It's about reducing redundancy when someone has ALREADY far exceeded any background check that YOU, the CPL holder, has passed. The SAME background check has ALREADY occurred. Not a DIFFERENT background check for a DIFFERENT license or a DIFFERENT reason.

You can disagree all you want. You can yell from the treetops that this is favoritism, Elvis is still alive, and that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't work alone. But I'm sorry, that doesn't make it so.

You can now safely return to your regularly-scheduled "cops are ignorant azzholes and I know more about life, guns, and the law than they do" thread.

Scoop,
If it isn't favoritism, why does my co-worker that doesn't have a CPL but has passed a Federal backgroud check for having a Haz-Mat license have to get a PP?
You yourself said that because the cops had the backgroud check they don't need another one. Then why do non cops that have had a Federal check already done?



Elvis isn't still alive? I am crushed, I hope you don't tell me the easter bunny isn't real.

[Scoop]

If it isn't favoritism, why does my co-worker that doesn't have a CPL but has passed a Federal backgroud check for having a Haz-Mat license have to get a PP?Because driving a truck to haul Haz-Mat != carrying a firearm, and because a federal background check != a state background check.

Question: Using your logic, since I have a CPL and have passed a state background check, should I also be automatically granted a Haz-Mat license to drive around in a truck hauling hazardous material?


You yourself said that because the cops had the backgroud check they don't need another one. The BG check that was done was to clear them to work as a police officer AND CARRY A GUN, not drive a truck.


Then why do non cops that have had a Federal check already done?Is there a question in there somewhere?

If you're asking what you think you're asking: The CPL law is a state law, not a federal law. A non-cop who has had a federal background check performed has NOT completed the background check requirements for a STATE license.

Shorthand: Federal != state.


Elvis isn't still alive? I am crushed, I hope you don't tell me the easter bunny isn't real.If he was real, he'd probably be spending his time getting chased around by deranged, blood-thirsty ignorant cops who want nothing more than to take away his Rabbitutional privileges, right?

[langenc]

Brothers in blue let each other slide for all kinds of things. Just do the same w/ PP and who will know??

[Super Trucker]

Because driving a truck to haul Haz-Mat != carrying a firearm, and because a federal background check != a state background check.
So you are saying that I can be a wanted felon in OH and still get a CPL in MI because it is a state check, but if I wanted to haul gasoline I could not because it is a federal check?



Question: Using your logic, since I have a CPL and have passed a state background check, should I also be automatically granted a Haz-Mat license to drive around in a truck hauling hazardous material?
If you have a CPL and want to haul haz mat I have no problem with that. From what I was told the prints are run the same way for either so whats the difference?



The BG check that was done was to clear them to work as a police officer AND CARRY A GUN, not drive a truck.
And there is a difference? Driving a truck doesn't require a BG check, but hauling haz mat now does to the tune of $96.00 extra dollars every 4 years. How much is the BG checks costing each cop out of his pay every year again?





Is there a question in there somewhere?

If you're asking what you think you're asking: The CPL law is a state law, not a federal law. A non-cop who has had a federal background check performed has NOT completed the background check requirements for a STATE license.

Shorthand: Federal != state.

So you are saying that the background check for a CPL holder or for a cop applicant is not done on a federal level? I guess you have completely lost me. When i called about my CPL app in 2001 the MSP said the prints were not back from the FBI yet, so I would thing that since the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation was checking prints, how is it not a federal investigation?

I think you are saying a CPL holder gets a more through BG check then a HazMat applicant? So the guy hauling Gas or TNT could be on his way to blow up a city and nobody would seem to care?




In the end none of this matters, but it makes for good discussion.

[EricF517]

Wow is all I can say after reading 9 pages. The checks a LEO needs to go through to get a job compared to what you have to go through to get a job don't even start to compare. Today in MI when you attend a police academy you get your CPL training while your doing your firearms training.

Why does a cop need a CPL? They are already exempt from PFZ's.

[Arbor_Shooter]

When he's off the clock he's plain old joe blow civilian like everybody else.

No, when he is off the clock he still has a duty to respond to crimes and calls for help. Police officers are never really off the clock That is the difference between a police officer and a civilian and it is disgusting to need to remind anyone of that.

[Arbor_Shooter]

Brothers in blue let each other slide for all kinds of things. Just do the same w/ PP and who will know??

Really, as a responsible gun owner you are going to use the same logic liberals use against us all the time? "Guns are dangerous, so none of us should have them." That is a natural extension of your line of reasoning. First of all, you choose to live in a state that has a stupid registration requirement. Second, did you stop to consider that this proposed legislation could be the first step to getting the entire registration process repealed?

Allowing the legal introduction of non registered firearms (via LEO) means the registration process is already flawed, meaning we should abolish the whole thing. This is a good thing, regardless of all the anti-police sentiment that is suddenly emerging on this board.

ETA: Law as written does not exempt them from registration, just purchase permit process, just like CPL holders. I fail to see how they don't at least deserve the same consideration given to CPL holders, when in every case they have received more training than required for the CPL.

[Super Trucker]

Really, as a responsible gun owner you are going to use the same logic liberals use against us all the time? "Guns are dangerous, so none of us should have them." That is a natural extension of your line of reasoning. First of all, you choose to live in a state that has a stupid registration requirement. Second, did you stop to consider that this proposed legislation could be the first step to getting the entire registration process repealed?
Allowing the legal introduction of non registered firearms (via LEO) means the registration process is already flawed, meaning we should abolish the whole thing. This is a good thing, regardless of all the anti-police sentiment that is suddenly emerging on this board.

Third, I see somebody lives on cloud 9. they let cops carry guns in CEZ's, did that help you get to carry in a CEZ? Then they let reserve cops carry in a CEZ, hows that working for you? I see the citizen carry in CEZ's bill DIED REAL QUICK, while yet another "lets give cops more" bill will pass with great speed.

Dream on, this is just another favoritism thing, plain and simple.

I see as a slightly off topic story that the texting ban passed another hurdle today, to become a primary offense to stop people.
Care to guess who is EXEMPT from that POS law also?

[Quantum007]

Bigger Picture here:

Some of you already touched on this, but it needs to be said again. If there is something you all don't like about the law, do someting about it. The police who got the ball rolling on this got the attention of the powers that be and got them to introduce this bill.

However you stand on issue, what I'm saying is if see something you want to change then do someting about it. :salute:

[Done Deal]

No, when he is off the clock he still has a duty to respond to crimes and calls for help. Police officers are never really off the clock That is the difference between a police officer and a civilian and it is disgusting to need to remind anyone of that.

Duty?

I used to know guys that would check out for lunch at the hint of sheet hitting the fan. Or, stay at the PD on lunch when a backup is called for and a gun is involved. Or, be on the opposite end of town or heading that way when a call was put out. Or sit outside a bar fight in the car while another one man unit was inside. Or, stand outside a B&E in progress after telling the partner that he was right behind him. Or, stand outside a wrestling match for a gun inside supposedly keeping the area secure from interference while his partner was inside trying to come up with the gun.

And you expect cops to get involved off duty? My word...you are dreaming sir. I am not saying that they won't but.....



But, on topic....I don't believe that LEO's should have to mess with purchase permits either. Heck, back in the day, off duty or second guns very often weren't registered anyway.... And, I gotta ask, if we are so all fired up about eliminating restrictions for everybody on permits and registrations, which side of our mouth are we talking out of on that very issue?

[pgaplayerless]

Bigger Picture here:

Some of you already touched on this, but it needs to be said again. If there is something you all don't like about the law, do someting about it. The police who got the ball rolling on this got the attention of the powers that be and got them to introduce this bill.

However you stand on issue, what I'm saying is if see something you want to change then do someting about it. :salute:


Police who got the ball rolling because they have their own buddies in the state congress. One hand washes another.