Author Topic: Michigan Senate to move quickly on revised concealed gun bill after Snyder veto  (Read 11692 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ezerharden

  • Former Secretary
  • MOC Regional Coordinator, Deputy
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
  • I don't dial 911
  • First Name (Displayed): Mike
$10 fee increase isn't anti-gun?

Making a formerly discretionary penalty now mandatory isn't anti-gun?

My car registration sometimes goes up, does that make it anti-car? As to the duty to inform, it honestly needs to be removed all together, however left as a "discretionary" item, it is subject to abuse.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

Offline LD

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 144
My car registration sometimes goes up, does that make it anti-car? As to the duty to inform, it honestly needs to be removed all together, however left as a "discretionary" item, it is subject to abuse.

Mandatory dictated punishment subjects it to abuse.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip

My car registration sometimes goes up, does that make it anti-car? As to the duty to inform, it honestly needs to be removed all together, however left as a "discretionary" item, it is subject to abuse.

A $10 vehicle registration increase is CERTAINLY anti-taxpayer.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 473
My car registration sometimes goes up, does that make it anti-car? As to the duty to inform, it honestly needs to be removed all together, however left as a "discretionary" item, it is subject to abuse.

It needs to be removed but I think making it worse right now is better?
What?

Offline Ezerharden

  • Former Secretary
  • MOC Regional Coordinator, Deputy
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
  • I don't dial 911
  • First Name (Displayed): Mike
A $10 vehicle registration increase is CERTAINLY anti-taxpayer.

Anti-taxpayer? Really? Are you a Libertarian or an Anarchist? Not meaning to insult but seriously you sound almost like an anarchist at times. This bill ELIMINATES county gun boards that have abused their authority for over 13 years. And all some can do is whine about a $10 increase? How about the money lost by people having to take time off work to appear to answer questions that are already answered on the damn application? Or the counties that will take in excess of 6 months to process an application? County gun boards meet once a month and in some counties (Monroe being one of them) they set a limit on how many the review at each meeting. Lets see, 200 applicants a month but only 125 reviewed each month. Doesn't take long for backlog to appear, pretty simple math.

But Ingham County is 6 weeks and you can provide your own photo that is acceptable. But then again not every one is capable or producing the right quality photo.

Off topic here, I saw you were a speaker at the Cabela's NRA days in Dundee? How did the table do this year?  Just curious as this is the firs one I have missed in a few years.
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
A fee increase from the Government is another term for tax increase. Increased taxes are harder to pay which makes them unfriendly to taxpayers.

Does this mean the entire bill deserves to die? That is for everyone to decide on their own.

Offline Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 473
Anti-taxpayer? Really? Are you a Libertarian or an Anarchist? Not meaning to insult but seriously you sound almost like an anarchist at times. This bill ELIMINATES county gun boards that have abused their authority for over 13 years. And all some can do is whine about a $10 increase? How about the money lost by people having to take time off work to appear to answer questions that are already answered on the damn application? Or the counties that will take in excess of 6 months to process an application? County gun boards meet once a month and in some counties (Monroe being one of them) they set a limit on how many the review at each meeting. Lets see, 200 applicants a month but only 125 reviewed each month. Doesn't take long for backlog to appear, pretty simple math.

But Ingham County is 6 weeks and you can provide your own photo that is acceptable. But then again not every one is capable or producing the right quality photo.

Off topic here, I saw you were a speaker at the Cabela's NRA days in Dundee? How did the table do this year?  Just curious as this is the firs one I have missed in a few years.
How about when a cop deems that you notified in 4 seconds and he thinks 3 seconds is immediate?
Are you going to pay for that, it certainly will be more than 10.00?
This bill causes more problems than it solves.

Offline TucTom

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Why can't you just agree to disagree instead of bickering here? I love OCD.... oh yeah this is MOC.

Offline Jeff

  • Posts: 1166
This bill ELIMINATES county gun boards that have abused their authority for over 13 years. And all some can do is whine about a $10 increase? How about the money lost by people having to take time off work to appear to answer questions that are already answered on the damn application? Or the counties that will take in excess of 6 months to process an application? County gun boards meet once a month and in some counties (Monroe being one of them) they set a limit on how many the review at each meeting. Lets see, 200 applicants a month but only 125 reviewed each month. Doesn't take long for backlog to appear, pretty simple math.


I had to wait almost 6 months, I had to go take time to go answer questions in a room of 100 other people that had to answer the same questions that were already answered on the application.  To waste hours getting there and back to have a 10 second meeting is absurd.  After already taking around 6 months it is a huge slap in the face to people in my county MACOMB.  Also knowing that everyone in the room went through the same as I did and SOME OF them rejected because they wanted more information and having to reschedule.  Something that could have been cleared up in a day if they had only bothered to call the person.  Now, those people need to get their things cleared up, schedule another appointment and wait another month, or two OR THREE.  These power hungry counties are a menace to the people that have to deal with them.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Why do we need mandatory fines & suspensions for not notifying "immediately?  Why do we still have that stupid non productive requirement?

I was reading Mike Green's website today and saw this about SB 34:

Eliminates verbal officer notification responsibility when carrying concealed;

http://www.statesenatormikegreen.com/sb34-summary/

I don't see the elimination of disclosure even in the version that was introduced.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
I don't see the elimination of disclosure even in the version that was introduced.

It was in SB59 when it was introduced, it was removed in a committee substitute.  SB34 was the substitute with the PPO language removed.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Yeah, but Green listed that as one of the things contained in SB 34 (S-1).  That's the one that passed.  See link.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
I was reading Mike Green's website today and saw this about SB 34:

Eliminates verbal officer notification responsibility when carrying concealed;

http://www.statesenatormikegreen.com/sb34-summary/

I don't see the elimination of disclosure even in the version that was introduced.

The original SB 789 changed disclosure to on request. That was done away with before the penalties for failing to disclose were increased.

Senator Green has supported officer notification to me personally on multiple occasions. He even told me it was for our own good so officers don't hurt us. I replied that it didn't seem to be a problem in the vast majority of other states in the nation that don't require notification. He had no reply to that.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
It was in SB59 when it was introduced, it was removed in a committee substitute.  SB34 was the substitute with the PPO language removed.

SB 59 was from the '11-'12 session. Then SB 789 in the '13-'14 session. Now we have SB 34 in the '15-'16 session.

SB 34 was introduced. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended substitute S-1, which the Senate passed. The House Judiciary Committee has adopted H-1 and will vote on recommending it next week.

Offline LD

  • Legal Musings
  • *
  • Posts: 144
The original SB 789 changed disclosure to on request. That was done away with before the penalties for failing to disclose were increased.

Senator Green has supported officer notification to me personally on multiple occasions. He even told me it was for our own good so officers don't hurt us. I replied that it didn't seem to be a problem in the vast majority of other states in the nation that don't require notification. He had no reply to that.

If he believes police "hurting us"  (shooting us) is a problem, why not correct THAT problem rather then further punish the general public?
Maybe he needs a bill making it against the law for police to shoot people for just suspecting they might have a gun. (If that's what he thinks happens)
Maybe he could form a committee to study why MI cops do this when it doesn't happen in ANY other state.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1010
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Maybe he could form a committee to study why MI cops do this when it doesn't happen in ANY other state.

Unfortunately, "Officer Safety" is the prime directive in many departments across the country.
And I can't remember the last time a LEO went to prison for shooting somebody who might be a threat, under circumstances that would have gotten one of us serfs a conviction for at least murder two.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip

SB 59 was from the '11-'12 session. Then SB 789 in the '13-'14 session. Now we have SB 34 in the '15-'16 session.

SB 34 was introduced. The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended substitute S-1, which the Senate passed. The House Judiciary Committee has adopted H-1 and will vote on recommending it next week.

Each time Sen. green allowed the bill to be watered down -- a lot -- somehow before final passage. I have a reasonable fears that the same will happen here. that is one reason why I voted for the organization to be neutral.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline Langenc

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
What ever happened to SoS issue??

It seems that the county clerks are more of the problem than the solution.. Kent, Wayne etc

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
The Kent County Clerk supported (not neutral) SB 789 and is doing the same for SB 34.

This is not to say they are not a problem, I just wanted to add perspective.