Ingham County Gun Board violation

[gryphon]

I didn't even realize it at the time, but the Ingham County Gun Board apparently violated the law in my recent CPL renewal.  MOC's recent legislative alert linking an analysis of SB59 noted this about current law:

The notification to appear would have to be given to the applicant in person or in a sealed envelope delivered by first-class mail sent to his or her address on record with the licensing authority. The notification would have to include a specific statutory citation to each disqualification to be addressed. The conference would have to be held at a date and time that was mutually agreeable to the board and the applicant.

Both bolded parts above were violated in my case.  I received a post card telling me to appear before the gun board with a hand written note about a previous violation in Indiana.  Had I realized that I would have chastised the board when I appeared.

If SB59 is signed, then gun boards go away.  It is yet to be determined if the sheriff's office will handle CPLs any better or not.

[TheQ]

SB 59 hasn't gone into effect yet.  Are the provisions you highlighted a part of current law?

[gryphon]

I thought it was referring to existing law.  It says "concealed weapon licensing board."  The words "concealed weapon licensing board" are in the existing law.  However, I'm looking through the Michigan Firearms Laws, June 2011 and don't see those restrictions.

In rereading SB59 it is in the NEW LAW.  The analysis confused me because it calls it the concealed weapon licensing board.  SB59 actually states "the licensing authority" and that old language is stricken, as you know.  I blame Fiscal Analyst Bruce Baker for unclear writing.   

[onnie0047@gmail.com]

I don't believe under the old law they had to seal it...