your take on...

[bigbob]

This is kind of going to be me thinking out loud so forgive me if it sounds like rambling.

As responsible gun owners, we have the responsibility to train with our firearms and I would even go as far to say we are obligated to become experts with them. So that being said ,with all the crazy stuff going around, what would help further our cause and be REAL meaningful action? the gun grabbers trust LEO with guns. That stands to reason that there is a level of training that will satisfy them ( assuming logic can be used on a gun grabber) to be comfortable with people being armed. What if it were mediatory that you qualify (same qualification that our Michigan LEO have to do) with the pistol that you carry. Like every other gun regulation and restriction... those rights shall not be infringed... and yes this is infringement, but it would probably go a long way to get the anti's off our backs. at the end of the day, a man/women carrying a gun would have passed the same test the our police have to that proves you are proficient with the firearm. the next problem is, it would obviously cost money to do this. That again is a double edged sword. It would further the fees associated with our RIGHT to bear arms but hell, even if it cost me 20$ plus the ammo to qualify with a pistol, I would do it for fun. It is only 10$ more than your average lane rental at the range. and $20 X the approx. 350,000 MI CPL holders is a $7,000,000 stimulant to the economy. This is only taking into account CPL holders and only at one gun a piece.  It would also probably be a good thing to fall back on in a legal defense as well.  It is your responsibility to be proficient with the weapon anyways. This in my head would just make it more "official".

I guess in general I think the biggest thing we could do to make our country safer is to have a large population of properly trained and armed civilians. I would argue that it would be hard to keep "pistol free zones" if we all met the same standard as our LEO, even from the anti-gun point of view. perhaps this could all be a revision to the CPL process instead of having to take an additional day out of your life to complete. Or, maybe a once every 4 year type of deal you have to complete in the same manor we do with our driving license. Most of use have taken the CPL class and I am sure most of you had a large number of people in your class that had never fired a gun. It is not like you have to demonstrate any meaningful skill to obtain a CPL.  I was at the range just yesterday and looked down the line to see a long string of targets at the 7 yard mark. the majority of them looked like #8 bird hit the target at 50 yards. What are your thoughts on all this rambling? I am not 100% convinced myself that this is the right direction. I have just been mulling over it for a while now, and all these ridiculous gun laws that will have no effect whatsoever are being proposed/have been imposed pretty much as "feel good" laws.  Flame suit on... weather I get "gun owners are their own worst enemy" or "ya I would support that" let me know your thoughts!

[TheQ]

It was nice having you on the Forum, bob.

I hope you'll stay after the others rip you to shreds in this thread.


Now where's the popcorn?

[bigbob]

So you are saying I am going to see what the ammo dump is all about shortly? haha like i said I am not 100% convinced this is the right way to go I am just curious to know every ones opinions on this and see if I am a clown or not. Go lightly fellas and gals

[Ezerharden]

Unfortunately I believe you are identifying the wrong aspect of why the anti's have no issue with LEO's. It isn't so much the firearms training, it's the longer training of the academy and more importantly the badge. The badge confers magical abilities to it's wearer, placing them in a position far above mere mortal civilians. Now most police I know do not believe that, but the anti's sure do.

[bigbob]

I defiantly agree with you. I am not trying to say being able to shoot the target makes you equal in anyway to a guy who has been there or has to train on a regular basis I guess that came off wrong. I was trying to draw swiss laws comparison in a way. The overall  "we don't trust you with assault weapons" and we don't trust you in "Pistol free zones" attitude. Is there an way to overcome this nonsense?

[Ezerharden]

Well for myself I see the anti's in two groups. the die hards and the fence sitters. I hope that enough exposure to seeing everyday people open carry will sway the fence sitters. Maybe then the fence sitters will sway the die hards (doubtful but one can hope). But bottom line is education, desensitization, and combating the anti's with facts and logic to dispel their lies and twisted information. So as i see it there is no real single solution out there, but a combination of things that may win the day eventually.

[gryphon]

Is there an way to overcome this nonsense?

For most, no.

[T3000]

IMHO, I don't think any amount of training will appease the "anit-gunners". I do think, however, that the requirements to obtain a CPL (and gun ownership in general) should be more stringent. The second amendment states "A well REGULATED malitia...". When you have a system which allows any gomer who wants to carry a gun (for whatever reason) but has no concept of responsible gun ownership, that can lead to problems. Sure, I would say a majority of people who go through the process are responsible and go a lifetime without incident. But every so often there are stories of legal gun owners doing something irresponsible or stupid with their firearms. Or you have gun owners who leave their firearms accessible and you end up with a mass shooting in the headlines. Some people just shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

[Super Trucker]

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Automobiles, prescription drugs, knives, where do you draw the line? People die everyday using everything I listed because people are irresponsible.




To the OP I see you think people would like "official". There is a nearly worthless paper that was signed by a few people in 1791 that they can look at.
With you even thinking about giving up your rights to appease the people who think you do not need rights, is you saying "I give up they win".

[Zeteo]

To the OP I see you think people would like "official". There is a nearly worthless paper that was signed by a few people in 1791 that they can look at.
With you even thinking about giving up your rights to appease the people who think you do not need rights, is you saying "I give up they win".
[/quote]

+100

[Mando21]

T3000.

In the Second Amendment, the word "well regulated" often lead people in the wrong direction.  You see, the meaning of words are always evolving and back when the Constitution was written the word regulated meant something closer to trained or disciplined, which could be an argument for government regulation now, I suppose, but I think it had/has more to do with your preparation and training as a unit than as giving the government permission to interfere.

And while your are somewhat right in that some people should not own guns, who should decide?  That is power, power which can and eventually will be used against you or other responsible gun owners.  Kindly remember, every human has the right to defend himself. 

[bigbob]

I am glad to see this have been civil thus far and hope to keep it this way. Super tucker i agree with what you said. But is that not what sb59 was to do? Trade an aditional class for the ability to carry in PFZ? Is that not what the cpl class does? Trade us going to a class for the right to carry? I am all for Arizona style "the 2nd ammendment is your carry permit". But we dont have that in MI. Every single law we have on guns is a violation of the bill or rights yet there are thousands of them. The Original Post was ment to open a discussion on streamlining it somewhat. Not nessasarily with te exact idea posted but a discussion on what could be done that would help us. Thank you for your thoughts! And i want to stress i am not trying to be argumentative. Just opening a discussion to see what everyone thinks.

[METL]

It's not about how much training you have or how much certification you do via background check or whatever...  for many, MANY anti's it's just YOUR GUN.  They want it.


They don't have to make sense.   They don't have to have reason.   They don't have to use logic or ration.  THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUN.  PERIOD.


I sound like a broken record, but:

1.) it's about sticking it to political rivals.
2.) it's about control.



THat's it.   They don't want you to have guns because they don't want you to have guns.   They have no reasoning or common sense to back that up.  NO statistics, facts, research, studies, NOTHING.  Just that they don't feel safe with YOU having a gun and they're willing to do anything including have you murdered by the govt. to get your gun from you so they can feel safe.


It's their mental illness and there is no reason for us to think they should be sane or make any sort of sense.

[bigbob]

METL that is very hard to argue with. You and i both agree that in light of that, we should not stop trying to fight for our rights. Im not even saying mandate the training. Training is on ur own time. U already have to shoot targets to get a cpl. The above suggestion is not furthering any prohibitions on our rights. It just makes it a bit more meaningful. I am also not suggesting we run to The capitol and beg them to make it harder to practice our rights. I am asking for advice on a hypothetical plan. Maybe something we could get a senator behind. Say we eliminate cpl's all together for instance. As long as you demonstrate u are proficient with your pistol you can carry it anywere however you like and with no further regulations and hoops to jump through.

[METL]

Bob, training after the fact is a great thing...    there are many VERY reputable training orgs in michigan...


Michigan Defensive FIrearms Institute (MDFI)

Liberty FIrearms Training

Many others...     


You are right, it's the reponsibility of people to get training, but it cannot be regulated or forced upon free men.  However, it's a great and valuable thing to do.   I am planning on all the courses I can afford this year.

[bigbob]

We meet at the same page again METL. Like you said it can not be imposed on free men. My issue is that regulation currently is imposed. I think you would be hard pressed to find a gun owner who does not agree training is good. The principal behind making it manditory is the issue. Im not even sugesting the training be mandated, just a qualification that u are proficient. But we already have a lot of regulations that we not only disagree are not favorable, but also the princapal of being regulated at all. We are not going to get a bill through office that says "the second ammendment is good enough" so why not take the same approach the antis do. Take and inch at a time untill u have the whole mile. People will get used to regulation on guns more and more and it is exponentially easier to take them completly down the road. I would rather offer up the regulation we can live with, that will satisfy them enought to have a shot at passsing, in echange for crap we deal with now.

[T3000]

Automobiles, prescription drugs, knives, where do you draw the line? People die everyday using everything I listed because people are irresponsible.

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

[WilDChilD]

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

Ok but we all have heard of shady doctors that give pills to people that don't need them. And the drivers Ed teacher in my home town was convicted of touching the girls in class, bet they got any easy pass. There are cpl teachers that just sign people paper. Who's gonna watch the watch men?

[TheQ]

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

Actually, there is no education requirement to drive. Once you are 18 you can get a license with no education.

[gryphon]

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms?

What if firearms owners had to take the equivalent of MDFI's Handgun 1, or perhaps Handgun 1 and 2?  With approximately 100 million firearms owners in the United States, how long do you think it would take to train them all?

Let's just look at Michigan's 350,000 CPL holders.  *If* an instructor/company can teach 3,000 people a year (that would require teaching M-F also, and good weather most of the year--and really in MI you can't), that would take 117 instructor years.  How many companies in MI are qualified to teach this, three?  How would you like to be put on a waiting list for 39 years before being licensed to carry?

[scot623]

Introduce me to one anti who "trusts" firearm/CPL class/advanced training instructors to carry. These guys get way more training than anyone...even LEO's. imop, to an anti, they still just see a guy with a gun, a gun that should be taken away.

[13mile9]

I am fond of this idea, but continually move away from it.  At what point is someone considered qualified?  In regard to conceal carry, shouldn't our current MI system of training "qaulify" someone to conceal carry?   If not, there should be a more in depth course.  Where do you draw the line?  One would also have to prove that higher levels of training and ownership qualifications would prevent a nut case from "sailing through the course."   In our most recent mass gun murder incidents, were these individuals untrained/unqualified/unproficient with a weapon?  A brilliant phsyco will not be stopped, and probably could pass any type of gun regulation/ownership qualification course.  (unless we start profiling and integrate mental health aspects into the quaulification system...and whose job will it be to deem someone to crazy to own a gun....)  We're back to "heart" issues, a regard for human life, and acknowledging that "evil" exists... when it raises it's ugly head, you shoot it off!  And make sure there are enough gun owners around to do so.    To add, I am pro training and qualifications--where the line is drawn (and who draws the line) is what concerns me.   

[bigbob]

Q, you dont have to take the written test if you are 18? you still have to take the road test though correct?

gryphon 3,000 people a year? that is 58 people a week. I think you are a bit on the conservative side of what could be done. The easy way around it is to make it effective when an individuals cpl is up for renew. in the case of non cpl holders put some other dead line on it. and I an not suggesting to a training course I am suggesting a qualification. I know you were replying to someone else I just want to keep that point clear. So you appoint someone to run the qualification. Say it takes an hour  and you do it 10 at a time.  with a 10 hour business day at the range you can do 100 qualifications. 350,000 \ 52 weeks is 6,730.  if you do 100 people a day every Saturday , at 60 locations, you would have it completely done in less than a year.

It looks like we are all only complaining about the logistics of it, and the principal of keep your laws off my guns. And these are both serious problems. But can I get anyone to agree it could be worth pursuing? Instead of making our current gun laws just suck a little bit less. and keep fighting for bill after bill. would you be behind reforming the system like this?  what would YOU like to see if the MI carry laws were reformed? keep it realistic, we are not going to get AZ laws just yet.

[gryphon]

What does a qualification consist of?  Standing still, aiming carefully, and shooting at a piece of paper at a distance of seven meters?

Strong hand shooting, weak hand shooting, shooting while moving, shooting behind concealment or cover, type 1, 2, and 3 failure drills, multiple threats with mandatory reloads, up close or contact shooting, gun retention, gun retention during a hand-to-hand defense gun grab, good guy/bad guy shooting...

These are all things--just some of the things--you might have to deal with while carrying in public.

[bigbob]

No i was thinking more of bench rested pistol shooting . I dont know the exact details but i would suggest we start with the standards that MI LEO has to hit to carry their weapons.

[Ezerharden]

State police qualifications, as I recall from shooting them, were a combination of shooting standing and kneeling, and from behind cover or in the open, and traverse shooting. No shooting on the move. That is the pistol only, as to hand to hand, weapons retention, etc those are different courses that to the best of my knowledge don't have a practical exam, just course material presented and practiced, but no qualification test.

[bigbob]

Ezerharden Thank you for that information! Do you feel It is something that would be an excessive burden on the average person to pass? If for instance a guide was available with what would be expected. Could your average citizen pass the qualification by their own practice at a range, and possibly a few books or instructional videos with tips to help you practice? I think hitting that standard would be what would make this worth the time. Much like the Swiss with their trained militia approach to national security. I don't know that any amount of training and clean underwear would prepare you fully If the worst should happen. In my mind though, If we would meet this criteria it would be very hard to impose a lot of the tedious laws we have to abide by. Were we can carry our pistols, how we have to store and transport them, waiting a few months to receive your card if you chose to go the CPL route. The argument that crowded areas would be a nightmare with citizens shooting wildly, and all that type of stuff would be pretty hard to impose restriction on. Registration and background checks would be a different argument completely, but if we could get a plan on the stuff relevant to this thread it might be a start. I know this seems far fetched to have us author a plan and get a sponsor for a bill. I write my elected officials often and it is usually just my opinion on bills and or their stance on the bill. I have not given and suggestions as to what I feel would help. That is what brought me to start this thread. I don't want to start suggesting things that are not in our best interest or have consequences I did not for see. I certainly do not want to step on the toes of all of my 2A supporting brothers and sisters by not giving serious thought to this and spouting off my mouth. Thank you all for contributing and keeping everything civil thus far!

EDIT TO ADD: I am NOT for registration or background checks. I did not mean " a different argument with your fine people". I meant "a different argument with the gun control advocates".

[bigbob]

13mile9 I share your concerns. The cpl course is a qualification as you said. I am suggesting raising the bar of that qualification to something that would hopefully be more meaningful and possibly allow us more freedoms with our gun rights. I do not think this will have any effect whatsoever on stopping criminals from getting guns. That is not the angle I am playing. You said it perfectly, there is evil in the world, and this will not stop criminals from qualifying the class at all. A criminal by virtue of being a criminal is not going to care what the law says about the guns no matter what so this will have no effect. and if we 100% eliminated them getting firearms through magic powers, they would switch to another tool. so how can we enhance our populations ability to protect against such evil? That is the angle I am coming from.

[gryphon]

I am NOT for registration or background checks.

These are two things the anti-freedom people will be pushing hard.  What this means is no more private sales.  All sales must go through an FFL.  It also means there will be more scrutiny to psychological checks.  Right now all that info is kept private for many reasons, including the fact that if it weren't, fewer people who need help will seek it out knowing that the fact they once sought help will be held against them in the future (jobs, purchase of firearms, etc.)  The anti-freedom people would like nothing better than to prevent ex-military from owning firearms (they are the ones highly trained in firearms and tactics), and using PTSD against them is one option.

[Ezerharden]

I would have reservations on imposing that level of training. It would not take into account someone who may have a physical disability, say in a wheel chair perhaps. They have just as much a right to carry as anyone without and physical disabilities, yet that level of training would exclude them. I think it is up to each person who chooses to carry to continue to train as a matter of personal responsibility given the responsibility of possibly using a fire arm.

[ken243]

Bob, you may want to research the firearms training that area LEO's receive/complete. Yearly qualifications, most of which are a joke compared to what many of us do every time we hit the range. Almost any IDPA stage I have run is much more challenging than all the police departments I have looked into other than MSP.

It is just an illusion that LEO's are experts with a gun. Take a look into some major officer involved shootings. 50% hit ratio is about average.

[T3000]

Ok but we all have heard of shady doctors that give pills to people that don't need them. And the drivers Ed teacher in my home town was convicted of touching the girls in class, bet they got any easy pass. There are cpl teachers that just sign people paper. Who's gonna watch the watch men?

There are already regulating bodies that deal with doctors who violate the laws concerning prescription drugs. Sure, you can't stop them all but there is at least some effort to stop them. As far as I know there is no regulating system set up for CPL instructors (save maybe the NRA who certifies the instructors, but I really doubt they monitor the many many people who become certified). Which validates my point. Sure there are instructors who take a good amount of time to teach the class well but there are a lot out there that just sign the paper and send the person on their way. That is an issue.

[T3000]

What if firearms owners had to take the equivalent of MDFI's Handgun 1, or perhaps Handgun 1 and 2?  With approximately 100 million firearms owners in the United States, how long do you think it would take to train them all?

Let's just look at Michigan's 350,000 CPL holders.  *If* an instructor/company can teach 3,000 people a year (that would require teaching M-F also, and good weather most of the year--and really in MI you can't), that would take 117 instructor years.  How many companies in MI are qualified to teach this, three?  How would you like to be put on a waiting list for 39 years before being licensed to carry?

Well if the requirements were increased, I'm sure there would be more instructors qualified to teach it. It's simple supply and demand. If there is a market for it, then the instructors will be there.Why would that be a bad thing? It would also help to eliminate the unqualified instructors who don't teach the basic requirements (as they are set now) and end up just signing your certificate and sending you on your way. Sounds like a win win to me.

When my father decided to get his CPL he had never shot a gun in his life. He went to a local shop a few times to talk to someone about what gun to purchase and ended up taking home a pistol. He shot it a few times in our backyard (we live on a farm) and then signed up for his course. Now it turned out that he has handled gun ownership fairly responsibly and understands the power and danger that comes along with firearms. But he could have just as easily purchased his gun, paid his $100, daydreamed through his class, passed the pathetically easy qualification shooting and went on his way carrying a deadly weapon with little to no training and complete ignorance of the law. Which, whether you would like to admit it or not, would potentially put not only himself but everyone he comes into contact with in danger. 

I understand that most people who go through the process of obtaining a CPL are generally responsible, knowledgeable, and practice somewhat regularly. I guess I just don't trust people in general. I would rather have fewer, well trained people carrying a concealed pistol than a bunch of under trained individuals running around. 

[gryphon]

Well if the requirements were increased, I'm sure there would be more instructors qualified to teach it.

I don't think half the CPL instructors are qualified to teach the CPL class.

[T3000]

I don't think half the CPL instructors are qualified to teach the CPL class.

I think you missed my next point "It would also help to eliminate the unqualified instructors who don't teach the basic requirements (as they are set now) and end up just signing your certificate and sending you on your way."

[bigbob]

very good point about disabled people. I did not take that into consideration. Maybe there could be a way to accommodate them and eliminate some of the qualification tasks or offer a special needs version or something. I really don't have a good response for that. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Thank you

Ken, I am by no means saying that the LEO is the top their of skilled marksmen. I don't know exactly what the qualification entails. I do know that it is yearly. Have you shot a police qualification? you say they are a joke next to what most of us do anyways. would this not be more of a reason to change the standard to which we qualify? If a person with a moderate skill level can pass it and it would allow us to say we have passed the same test the LEO do, I don't see the downside (at least not until the disabled persons argument was brought up). You could argue that the LEO has a longer time of training, but that can be refuted by a rookie on the force. It comes to an "end justifies the means" type of deal. you might have to train for weeks, you might have to just show up with your current level of skill. What is the difference if you pass it? as far as the ability to carry the pistol goes...not the ability to purchase, that is for another debate... if we meet the same level, there is no reason not to have the same freedoms. I understand that the anti's don't understand reasoning and logic, but that is not an acceptable excuse not to put us in the position to be able to use the logic of this hypothetical revision to the law.

as far as instructors go, people would line up to judge it. you would have no need for extensive training or teaching ability. Its a qualification not a class. you have to have the ability to look at the targets and make sure they were shot to a passing standard. You would have to watch for anything that would disqualify the shooter as well, and possibly run a stop watch. If CPL classes were tossed for a yearly qualification, those instructors are not going to take up knitting.  and now that we are talking about yearly qualification to be more accurately in line with LEO standards. take the original math at $7,000,000 a year for the 350,000 CPl holders. That is at 20$ a person times 100 students a day. so $2,000 gross, then take out rental of the range for the day (most ranges already do this for the 8 hour CPL class. and I am sure The range, "instructor" and state can agree on a way to split that up. not to mention the ammo/target sales. 7,000,000$ a year is nothing to scoff at. if there is money to be made people will come. maybe the proceeds on the states end could go towards education on firearm safety. Or maybe mental health research as that seems to be a hot topic.

[TheQ]

If you're going to have physical shooting requirement, why would you exempt disabled? Will their disability help them become better shooters in a life/death situation?

[Ezerharden]

Should a person who is in a wheel chair not be allowed to carry because they couldn't kneel and shoot as part of the test?

[bigbob]

The chance of a person in a wheel chair shooting  from behind cover, or kneeling is extremely unlikely. I don think it would be out of line to have a test slightly modified to fit their needs. As Ezerharden said, they have just as much a right to protection as anybody else.

[TheQ]

I think we can all agree that training is a good idea. That being said I would hope we can mostly agree that state training requirements are a bad idea.

[Ezerharden]

That I can agree with

[bigbob]

Q, why were you so strongly behind SB59? Did that not mandate more training?

[TheQ]

Q, why were you so strongly behind SB59? Did that not mandate more training?

1. That was a decision made by the leadership team, not just me.  My "job" is to execute the will of the leadership team.
2. SB 59, which would have enhanced requirements OPTIONALLY for those who wish to get the enhanced license (which would allow conceal carry in now MCL 28.425o zones).  Those who didn't wish to get the extra training could still conceal carry everywhere they did before.

Give me a bill that simply requires people to take more training and I guarantee we'll shoot it down.

[bigbob]

Q, that is a good point about it being optional. It does not change the fact that it is required if you want to have the freedoms attached to the bill.
I think some of the confusion, Is i am not suggesting we just change the requirement because it will make us feel safer. I am pretty much suggesting Arizona style law. No CPL needed. You buy and gun and go about your business free to practice your rights to self defense. But we are not going to get that through If we could not get SB59 through. Ya know what I mean? Maybe the next governor will be more friendly to our rights, but it is not going to happen right now. I understand their are revisions to SB59 and we are trying again on the bill. This is still just making the current laws suck a little bit less. And there is a tremendous amount of homework that needs to be done if you want to carry a gun in MI. Especially with open carry. It is so complicated. I did not want the original post to be 4 years long so In an attempt to stay brief I left out a lot of my thoughts in attempt to just coach the discussion as we went on. If we could trade a higher level of qualification, to do away with pistol free zones, as we have supported with sb59, and add the rest of the tedious laws that we are held to, would MOC members support it. pretty much Arizona law with the added requirement to qualify, so it has a chance at passing. show up and shoot the class with your pistol, leave with a card saying you are good to go. I absolutely agree with 99% of the discussion in this thread. I am not trying to take a fair weather 2A rights stance. I am trying to get find something that is passable though.  Thanks for everyones thoughts and input! And Q thank you for your ongoing dedication to our cause and all the time you have spent fighting for us.

[METL]

If they actually wanted people to take additional training, they would come out with legislation that would encourage, not require, but encourage training via some sort of incentive...  be it CPL fees waived...  some sort of $100 off a gun coupon...   etc...   present training cert. and get SOMETHING to offset your expenditure.

It's not about training though.   As Scot623 said, they wouldn't even want a TRAINER to carry...   or like that City Counsel meeting where the guy stormed out because the Iraq-Vet was carrying... we're talking about a guy who's been trained by the military and ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN WAR WITH HIS GUN...   it doesn't matter, there are anti's out there that just want EVERYONE's gun, no matter what (except for their body guards).

There are fence sitters that don't mind people with guns if they are trained...   so I suppose we could win people over, but it's got to be an incentive program, not a requirement.  I mean, if they want to "clean up the environment" they can offer "cash for clunkers" but they can't offer some sort of firearms training rewards?

[gryphon]

It's not about training though...they wouldn't even want a TRAINER to carry...or like that City Counsel meeting where the guy stormed out because the Iraq-Vet was carrying...it doesn't matter, there are anti's out there that just want EVERYONE's gun, no matter what (except for their body guards).

Exactly.