HB 4295 of 2019
Weapons; licensing; carrying of concealed pistols by certain pistol instructors in no-carry zones; allow. Amends secs. 1, 5b & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.).
Last Action: 3/7/2019 bill electronically reproduced 03/06/2019
Printable View
HB 4295 of 2019
Weapons; licensing; carrying of concealed pistols by certain pistol instructors in no-carry zones; allow. Amends secs. 1, 5b & 5o of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.).
Last Action: 3/7/2019 bill electronically reproduced 03/06/2019
There are three requirements:
1. An individual be a certified instructor that meets Michigan's requirements for teaching CPL classes
2. The above individual must have taught classes for 2 years or more
3. The above individual must have received County Sheriff approved training from the County Sheriff in which the individual resides
Even if we get past "it's another carve-out"…#3 is a deal breaker. It smacks in the face of 28.421a:
What #3 does is gives local County Sheriff's the ability to create a different training criteria vs other County Sheriffs, depending on if they personally support the idea of citizen's being able to carry concealed pistols, and especially, carrying in otherwise restricted areas.Quote:
28.421a Concealed pistol licenses; issuance; creation of standardized system.
Sec. 1a.
It is the intent of the legislature to create a standardized system for issuing concealed pistol licenses to prevent criminals and other violent individuals from obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol, to allow law abiding residents to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol, and to prescribe the rights and responsibilities of individuals who have obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol. It is also the intent of the legislature to grant an applicant the right to know why his or her application for a concealed pistol license is denied and to create a process by which an applicant may appeal that denial.
If a local County Sheriff doesn't support that idea, they can create a near impossible to pass training criteria. If a local County Sheriff does support that idea, they can make a cake-walk class. AND, beyond that, if you're a political supporter of the Sheriff, they can give the old nod and wink pass to an otherwise near impossible to pass training class.
This bill is ripe for abuse, as currently written.
How many Sheriffs are going to write that letter?
How big of a campaign/favorite charity contribution will it take?
They call this supporting the 2A.
What course does the Sheriff teach? How long is it good for? Do you have to possess a CPL first or is this a work around? It also seems to fix the switch blade law a bit.
Not to mention the preemption issues this creates. How can the legislature delegate to the county sheriffs a matter that they have intended to be the sole regulators of? We would end up with each of the 83 counties doing their own thing in regulating which of the instructors to sign off on. This is a huge issue that I don't think Rep Eisen thought of, or he just didn't care.
From MCRGO Facebook page:
I copied and pasted PhotoTom's post as a reply and asked if their reason for supporting another special carve out was so they would have another revenue stream through their instructors course. My post was promptly deleted and I was summarily blocked. At least we now have an idea as to who's pushing the legislation and why.Quote:
Looking for an additional reason to become a CPL instructor? HB 4295 introduced yesterday would provide an exemption from many pistol free zones for CPL instructors who have been certified for at least two years and who have received additional weapons training from their county sheriff. See: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2019-HB-4295
Three organizations provide CPL training in Michigan: MCRGO, USCCA, and the NRA. MCRGO's program is the only one tailored specifically for Michigan law under MCL 28.425j, is focused on carry outside the home, and is developed by instructors for instructors. You can apply to become a MCRGO instructor here: https://mcrgo.org/mcrgo-instructor-application/
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhotoTom
The Marquette county sheriff has stated that he would prefer to have the old gun board system back, he thinks local authority can do a better job in vetting carriers.
Meaning; We know you passed the background check, but we don’t like you and don’t think you should have a CPL!Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcnav
HB 4295 needs to go bye-bye.
HB 4295 is the brain-child of MCRGO and their president. If you aren't aware, the president of MCRGO is currently a guy named Richard Martin, who happens to be the county sheriff for Lake County in northwest Michigan. If that doesn't start to make you feel a little uncomfortable, you should really read the bill to see the connection. Also, MCRGO advertises themselves as being one of three organizations recognized to certify CPL instructors in our state, with the other two being USCCA and the NRA. Why does this information matter in relationship to the bill? MCRGO stands to make a substantial amount of money if this bill is passed through their ability to teach CPL instructor classes, as well as the president of MCRGO stands to make some money for his sheriff's department by offering the additional training that would be necessary for the exemption. Basically, this bill is 100% a pay-to-play system to get an exemption.
One of the other issues is that one of our biggest advocates for the repeal of PFZs has historically been our CPL instructors. If they suddenly receive an exemption on their CPL, the incentive is no longer there for them to help us in advocating for the elimination of PFZs. MCRGO is publicly stating that they are pushing this because the bill will allow more individuals to carry throughout the state. I love the idea of having more people carrying, but not at the expense of slowly dwindling away the base of people who will help us advocate for the elimination of PFZ.