Author Topic: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)  (Read 6050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2015, 07:17:39 AM »

I will ask a 3rd time if you are willing to allow somebody (which could be you or dad with the wrong cop) to get the new penalty so you can renew online?

Yes, standardize the penalty for non-disclosure.

But that is a loaded question phrased in the worst possible way.  You know it and I know it. Online renewal is not the only reason I support the bill. Short of constitutional carry, it fixes problems with CPL issuance.
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 linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2015, 08:45:31 AM »
Let me give some perspective...

There are over 450,000 CPL holders in Michigan.

In the ten year period between 2003-2013, 231 people were charged with failure to disclose.  142 were convicted. 

In the same period, 2427 CPLs were denied by "board decision."  No statutory reason.

(In some years, MSP combined the failure to show ID on demand with failure to disclose.  The actual number is/may be lower.)
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 paracordkydexcummins

  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2015, 12:07:32 PM »
Well said


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark

Offline Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +18/-2
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2015, 01:25:40 PM »
Let me give some perspective...

There are over 450,000 CPL holders in Michigan.

In the ten year period between 2003-2013, 231 people were charged with failure to disclose.  142 were convicted. 

In the same period, 2427 CPLs were denied by "board decision."  No statutory reason.

(In some years, MSP combined the failure to show ID on demand with failure to disclose.  The actual number is/may be lower.)
So the people that were not convicted (probably because they did nothing wrong) will now be convicted? I am sure they woukd thank you for thst wonderful decision. Hopefully you don't run into one of those cops.
Most counties already mail a hard copy, so who cares on those 2 things. 2 or 3 boards are a pita out of how many counties?
Sorry but I don't see the gain other than 450k people  giving an extra 10.00 to the wrong people every 5 years.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2015, 01:38:34 PM »

So the people that were not convicted (probably because they did nothing wrong) will now be convicted.

What?!?  Are we reading the same bill?  The language of disclosure hasn't changed. The penalty is changing from may to shall. If you are convicted, this is the penalty.  I don't have the time or motivation to determine the penalties handed down to the 142 people convicted. Those who received less than $500 and six month suspension would be "screwed" by this bill. Everyone else is status quo. 

I fail to see your (flawed) logic.  A change in penalty has no bearing on the conviction rate.

Yes, there are some things that I don't like in the bill. Some things were added/removed to get the MSP onboard with the bill.  Does it mean we should oppose the whole thing?

Should 2,500 people be denied a CPL so that you "may" be given a lighter penalty AFTER committing a civil infraction?
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 Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +18/-2
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2015, 08:39:37 PM »
What?!?  Are we reading the same bill?  The language of disclosure hasn't changed. The penalty is changing from may to shall. If you are convicted, this is the penalty.  I don't have the time or motivation to determine the penalties handed down to the 142 people convicted. Those who received less than $500 and six month suspension would be "screwed" by this bill. Everyone else is status quo. 

I fail to see your (flawed) logic.  A change in penalty has no bearing on the conviction rate.

Yes, there are some things that I don't like in the bill. Some things were added/removed to get the MSP onboard with the bill.  Does it mean we should oppose the whole thing?

Should 2,500 people be denied a CPL so that you "may" be given a lighter penalty AFTER committing a civil infraction?
WTF is flawed.
If somebody has a possibility of not be convicted because an over zealous cop thinks immediate is something different vs YOU WILL BE convicted.  Are you serious in saying you can not tell the difference is MAY and SHALL?
The person I worked with did not get penalty/convicted because the board agreed with him and not the cop, under the new law he would automatically have the max penalty/convicted even thought he cop was wrong.
You need to rethink what you call flawed, because you want to eff over even one person so you can renew online is what is FLAWED.


May be convicted vs Shall be convicted.

Even if you don't do anything wrong you are screwed, there is no board to determine who is correct.

BTW from your story you FIL would be guilty of the civil infraction you are not worried about because he didn't immediately notify. The wrong cop can and will make this happen.

Offline Jeff

  • Posts: 1166
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2015, 09:16:15 PM »
So everyone in my county should continue to suffer because you can't afford $10 or interrupt the cop to tell him about your CPL.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2015, 09:16:53 PM »
WTF is flawed.
If somebody has a possibility of not be convicted because an over zealous cop thinks immediate is something different vs YOU WILL BE convicted.  Are you serious in saying you can not tell the difference is MAY and SHALL?
The person I worked with did not get penalty/convicted because the board agreed with him and not the cop, under the new law he would automatically have the max penalty/convicted even thought he cop was wrong.
You need to rethink what you call flawed, because you want to eff over even one person so you can renew online is what is FLAWED.


May be convicted vs Shall be convicted.

Even if you don't do anything wrong you are screwed, there is no board to determine who is correct.

BTW from your story you FIL would be guilty of the civil infraction you are not worried about because he didn't immediately notify. The wrong cop can and will make this happen.

The law doesn't change due process.  That is why you sound absurd.  I don't know if you need to read SB34 or need a civics lesson...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0034

Quote
(3) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.

Quote
(5) An individual who violates subsection (3) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may shall be fined as follows:     

(a) For a first offense, by a fine of not more than $500.00 or and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended for 6 months. , or both.
(b) For a subsequent offense within 3 years of a prior offense, by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 and by the individual's license to carry a concealed pistol being revoked.

(6) If an individual is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this section, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that subsection (5), the peace officer shall notify the department of state police of that civil infraction. The department of state police shall notify the county clerk who issued the license, of that determination.who shall suspend or revoke that license. The county clerk shall send notice by first-class mail of that suspension or revocation to the individual's last known address as indicated in the records of the county clerk. The department of state police shall immediately enter that suspension or revocation into the law enforcement information network.

http://courts.mi.gov/self-help/center/casetype/pages/infraction.aspx

Quote
Most traffic and nontraffic civil infraction violations are heard by district judges or magistrates in the district court located closest to where the incident occurred.

If you have received a civil infraction ticket, you must respond in one of several ways:
    You can admit responsibility for the violation and pay the amount indicated.
    You can admit responsibility for the violation with an explanation and pay the amount indicated.
    You can deny responsibility and ask the court for an informal hearing where you and the officer can explain to the judge or magistrate what happened. Attorneys are not allowed at informal hearings.
    You can deny responsiblity and ask for a formal hearing where the prosecutor will have to show that a law or ordinance was violated. You may hire an attorney to represent you at a formal hearing.

If you opt for the 3rd or 4th option and prevail, there is ZERO fines or penalty (and subsection 6 is not triggered).  If you admit responsibility or are found responsible by a judge or magistrate, the penalties are predetermined under SB34.  There used to be discretion in "sentencing" but the due process came first.

It's just like a speeding ticket.  You are not responsible as soon as the officer issues the civil infraction.  You do know that you can fight a speeding ticket, right?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 09:25:42 PM by linux203 »
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 Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +18/-2
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2015, 05:35:03 AM »
Walk in any court room and tell a judge I didn't speed,  the cop is wrong and let me know how that works for you.

I'll try to contact him but i am certain my former co worker never saw a judge only the gun board.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2015, 07:29:52 AM »

Walk in any court room and tell a judge I didn't speed,  the cop is wrong and let me know how that works for you.

I'll try to contact him but i am certain my former co worker never saw a judge only the gun board.

If you claim SB34 creates a your word against the cop's situation, you are an idiot. THAT IS PRESENT UNDER EXISTING LAW.  THAT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU TODAY!!!  Notice the previously posted MSP statistics shows charged vs convicted?  Yeah, not everyone charged is convicted. Imagine that for a moment.

So, what you are really opposed to is SB34 doesn't remove disclosure entirely.  If you oppose it because it doesn't go far enough, great. But don't oppose it on an incorrect premise.  Properly articulating a position is key to debate.

As for the co-worker, he either admitted responsibility or admitted responsibility with explanation to bypass a judge/magistrate.  If your co-worker admitted responsibility when he felt he disclosed immediately, I won't loose sleep over $500 and 6 months suspension. He just rolled over and took it.
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 Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +18/-2
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2015, 09:33:05 AM »
I guess I am an idiot, because not everybody charged is convicted sounds better than you get the max penalty for doing what your FIL did.


Offline gryphon

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3893
  • Karma: +129/-128
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2015, 02:50:12 PM »
Snyder signed 34/35.

Offline Super Trucker

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +18/-2
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2015, 05:09:11 PM »
I gueds it doesn't matter what I think. Snyder signed it so it must be not very good.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • Karma: +21/-16
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2015, 05:26:29 PM »

Snyder signed 34/35.

I'll believe it when it is filed with the Secretary of State.
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 Ezerharden

  • Former Secretary
  • MOC Regional Coordinator, Deputy
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
  • Karma: +4/-4
  • I don't dial 911
  • First Name (Displayed): Mike
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2015, 04:14:24 AM »
If you claim SB34 creates a your word against the cop's situation, you are an idiot. THAT IS PRESENT UNDER EXISTING LAW.  THAT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU TODAY!!!  Notice the previously posted MSP statistics shows charged vs convicted?  Yeah, not everyone charged is convicted. Imagine that for a moment.

So, what you are really opposed to is SB34 doesn't remove disclosure entirely.  If you oppose it because it doesn't go far enough, great. But don't oppose it on an incorrect premise.  Properly articulating a position is key to debate.

As for the co-worker, he either admitted responsibility or admitted responsibility with explanation to bypass a judge/magistrate.  If your co-worker admitted responsibility when he felt he disclosed immediately, I won't loose sleep over $500 and 6 months suspension. He just rolled over and took it.

Ouch. using facts isn't fair.

For myself, personal experiences, is this. Hands on steering wheel, dome lights on (if dark), window cracked, radio off, and as the officer comes near my window (I can watch in the side view mirror) I state loudly that I have a CPL and I am carrying a weapon. As soon as they get to the window I ask before (or one time as they were preparing to ) say anything "Did you understand what I just said". If they say no, I reiterate, if they say yes, I confirm with "so you heard me say I had a CPL and had a weapon". All of this is recorded. Never had an issue. See i will interrupt an officer to disclose just to avoid this situation. If however someone waits 10 minutes to disclose, that is hardly "immediate".
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 Jeff

  • Posts: 1166
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2015, 03:21:40 PM »
Snyder signed it so it must be not very good.

Fair bit of truth to that statement.