Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
General Category => Latest News Stories => Topic started by: Xpiatio on January 27, 2015, 06:11:02 PM
-
http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/01/michigan_senate_to_move_quickl.html
A revised plan to speed up the process for obtaining a concealed pistol permit in Michigan could speed through the state Senate in coming weeks.
Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, said Tuesday that the chamber plans to “move pretty quickly” on revised legislation after Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a previous version earlier this month.
-
Seriously - it was a 15 minutes of slam, bam, thank you ma'am and SB 34 w/ amendment was reported out.
-
And this is still a bad bill for gun owners.
We give up far more then we gain.
Why do we need to raise the cost of a CPL?
Why do we need to make the training cert. unusable after you get your first cpl?
Why do we need mandatory fines & suspensions for not notifying "immediately?
Why do we still have that stupid non productive requirement?
And on & on & on.........
-
Seriously - it was a 15 minutes of slam, bam, thank you ma'am and SB 34 w/ amendment was reported out.
That's great. Fast action leaves plenty of time to stall it into the next lame duck session.
-
We give up far more then we gain.
Why do we need to raise the cost of a CPL?
Why do we need to make the training cert. unusable after you get your first cpl?
Why do we need mandatory fines & suspensions for not notifying "immediately?
Why do we still have that stupid non productive requirement?
And on & on & on.........
I'll pay $15 so the requirements to obtain a CPL is the same for me and the poor saps that are stuck in Macomb and Kent counties. Oh, and by the time I'm up for renewal, online renewal will be available. With HB5500 dying in committee, so many aspects of the current law is unenforceable at the county level.
You may believe ground is lost. I see what other gun owners are gaining.
-
And this is still a bad bill for gun owners.
We give up far more then we gain.
Why do we need to raise the cost of a CPL?
Why do we need to make the training cert. unusable after you get your first cpl?
Why do we need mandatory fines & suspensions for not notifying "immediately?
Why do we still have that stupid non productive requirement?
And on & on & on.........
- For most people, obtaining or renewing a CPL will be cheaper overall. That being said, yes the MSP will be getting more money than they did before.
- The Clerks wanted as little discretion as possible and asked for a statutory limit. Keep in mind, many County Clerks are applying their own arbitrary limit. The 5yr expiration combined with the added 1yr window to renew your CPL means it should be about 6+ years before you would need to get a new cert, and that would only need to happen if you let your CPL expire. Certs are not required for renewals.
- The mandatory fines made their way in when the suspension process was moved to the clerks in a version of the bill that was never made public. MOC is working on trying to get the mandated penalties removed.
- Non-productive requirement?
-
- For most people, obtaining or renewing a CPL will be cheaper overall. That being said, yes the MSP will be getting more money than they did before.
How can a raise in fee's be considered cheaper? How can requiring a new class before renewal because you were out of the state for a brief time when your CPL expired be cheaper? I really would like to see how you think this is cheaper and don't give me that MCRGO BS, we all know those numbers are made up.
- The Clerks wanted as little discretion as possible and asked for a statutory limit. Keep in mind, many County Clerks are applying their own arbitrary limit. We already have it in the LAW what the limits are and who can change them. If the counties are not obeying the law now, what makes you think they will in the future?The 5yr expiration combined with the added 1yr window to renew your CPL means it should be about 6+ years before you would need to get a new cert,No, your cert expires in 5 years. While it is true if you don't let your CPL expire, you never (until the next improvement in our CPL law) need it again. BUT make NO mistake, IT WILL EXPIRE IN 5 YEARS. and that would only need to happen if you let your CPL expire. Certs are not required for renewals.
- The mandatory fines made their way in when the suspension process was moved to the clerks in a version of the bill that was never made public. MOC is working on trying to get the mandated penalties removed.
- Non-productive requirement? The notify requirement is "non-productive". 44 other states get by without it & they don't have dead officers littering the streets. The only thing it does is give LEO's something else to charge you with. One more avenue to revoking your right to carry. It serves no purpose.
No matter how you look at it, ALL gun owners loose while some (very few) have a temporary one time gain.
-
How can a raise in fee's be considered cheaper? How can requiring a new class before renewal because you were out of the state for a brief time when your CPL expired be cheaper? I really would like to see how you think this is cheaper and don't give me that MCRGO BS, we all know those numbers are made up.
The reduced fee of $100 + the now (will be) mandatory fee for fingerprints will equal an increase of $10. However, photos will no longer be required as well as the Clerk will be mandated to mail you your license, saving you time and gas to do those things. All other extraneous fees will be eliminated as well. I understand this won't reduce the overall cost for everyone, but it should for most. Especially once the online stuff kicks in.
We already have it in the LAW what the limits are and who can change them. If the counties are not obeying the law now, what makes you think they will in the future?
There is nothing currently in statute about when certs expire. For better or worse, the 5yr expiration leaves no leeway for interpretation which is what the Clerks wanted.
No, your cert expires in 5 years. While it is true if you don't let your CPL expire, you never (until the next improvement in our CPL law) need it again. BUT make NO mistake, IT WILL EXPIRE IN 5 YEARS
I said it would be about 6+ years before you would need a new cert. This is true. I also said nothing to the contrary in terms of when the cert would expire.
The notify requirement is "non-productive". 44 other states get by without it & they don't have dead officers littering the streets. The only thing it does is give LEO's something else to charge you with. One more avenue to revoking your right to carry. It serves no purpose.
That's fine, and I agree immediate notification needs to be done away with, but that is outside of the scope of this bill. In fact, the original SB 789 eliminated immediate notification, but that was taken out because the MSP argued it was outside of "process reform". The MSP also had to give up something they were asking for, for the same reason.
Look, I'm not trying to sell the bill to you, I'm trying to clear up what the bill does and why it's doing it. You asked a bunch of why and what questions and I answered them.
-
What were the MSP asking for?
-
No matter how you look at it, ALL gun owners loose while some (very few) have a temporary one time gain.
I think the number of gun owners that will encounter the certificate expiration is very low.
Between 7/1/2012 and 6/30/2013 (2013-2014 isn't posted), 8,541 people appeared before the Macomb county gun board. A gun board that sees failure to appear as grounds for denial. In Kent county, 3,511 people had to deal with intentional delays and made up requirements. Gun boards should have been 100% irrelevant in 2001, but some tried to cling to the power.
To the person who waits 11 years between the CPL class and the CPL application, I say "What did you expect?" To the Macomb and Kent county gun boards, I say "Go pound sand."
-
The reduced fee of $100 + the now (will be) mandatory fee for fingerprints will equal an increase of $10. However, photos will no longer be required as well as the Clerk will be mandated to mail you your license, saving you time and gas to do those things. All other extraneous fees will be eliminated as well. I understand this won't reduce the overall cost for everyone, but it should for most. Especially once the online stuff kicks in.
If clerks are charging illegal fees then they should be prosecuted. Isn't that the job of our county prosecutors?
There is nothing currently in statute about when certs expire. For better or worse, the 5yr expiration leaves no leeway for interpretation which is what the Clerks wanted.
There is nothing about cert expiration because they don't currently expire. Add to that that we have preemption and ONLY the STATE can make gun laws & I don't see a problem. When I was confronted with the gun board & clerk telling me I needed another class, I just had them read the law. Problem solved.
I said it would be about 6+ years before you would need a new cert. This is true. I also said nothing to the contrary in terms of when the cert would expire.
It expires in 5 years if it isn't used for some reason. I don't have to retake drivers training if I let my drivers license lapse.
That's fine, and I agree immediate notification needs to be done away with, but that is outside of the scope of this bill. In fact, the original SB 789 eliminated immediate notification, but that was taken out because the MSP argued it was outside of "process reform". The MSP also had to give up something they were asking for, for the same reason.
I would also be interested in what the MSP had to "give up".
Look, I'm not trying to sell the bill to you, I'm trying to clear up what the bill does and why it's doing it. You asked a bunch of why and what questions and I answered them.
And I appreciate you answering. I just don't view it as a win when we give up more then we gain with every "pro gun" bill that goes to the governors desk.
-
Well, LD, it's possible Snyder will find a reason to veto it even with the PPO stuff gone.
-
Didn't last year's version report out of committee swiftly, with committee recommendation for immediate passage?
I''d just like to see one pass swiftly enough that there's still time to override any veto before the legislative session closes.
-
Again, I'm not trying to sell the bill to you.
I honestly don't remember what the MSP gave up. There was a lot of back 'n forth between bill versions.
-
Didn't last year's version report out of committee swiftly, with committee recommendation for immediate passage?
I''d just like to see one pass swiftly enough that there's still time to override any veto before the legislative session closes.
That ain't ever going to happen with the sitting clown being the head of the ruling jester party.
-
That ain't ever going to happen with the sitting clown being the head of the ruling jester party.
How do you really feel?
I'm mixed on this bill. I want constitutional carry as most carriers do. I see this is a incremental (slight) improvement, which is better than nothing. It has some negatives, but most people will not be impacted by the negatives.
-
How do you really feel?
I'm mixed on this bill. I want constitutional carry as most carriers do. I see this is a incremental (slight) improvement, which is better than nothing. It has some negatives, but most people will not be impacted by the negatives.
How will most ppl NOT be impacted by a mandatory $10 fee increase?
-
When the online renewal takes affect, I for one will probably be saving money. No more round trip from South Haven to Paw Paw, plus I wont have to spend time screwing around in the courthouse's GFV.
-
When the online renewal takes affect, I for one will probably be saving money. No more round trip from South Haven to Paw Paw, plus I wont have to spend time screwing around in the courthouse's GFV.
That last part is the major one for me. Getting herded through cattle chutes makes me feel like I'm standing in line for luxury boxcar seating to Treblinka. I haven't voted to re-elect a judge at any level since the Supremes came up with that incredibly expensive solution to a nonexistent problem and all the local and appeals judges gleefully jumped on the bandwagon. If the black robed douchebags think that lowly of me, why would I want my tax dollars going towards their paychecks?
-
How will most ppl NOT be impacted by a mandatory $10 fee increase?
$10 increase impacts everybody...
However, avoided long lines for renewal in Wayne county is worth it. Avoiding gun board in Macomb county will be worth to those residents.
Everybody will benefit from not needing to get a separate photograph.
-
$10 increase impacts everybody...
However, avoided long lines for renewal in Wayne county is worth it. Avoiding gun board in Macomb county will be worth to those residents.
Everybody will benefit from not needing to get a separate photograph.
In 2006 I got a passport. I took the photo myself. It cost about $1 to make.
My original CPL came from Ingham County -- took 3 weeks. My renewal (which I applied for 5.5 months in advance) took 6 weeks.
HOW WILL PEOPLE LIKE ME BENEFIT FROM THIS BILL?!?!
-
There are people outside of Oakland/Macomb/Wayne county?
-
In 2006 I got a passport. I took the photo myself. It cost about $1 to make.
My original CPL came from Ingham County -- took 3 weeks. My renewal (which I applied for 5.5 months in advance) took 6 weeks.
HOW WILL PEOPLE LIKE ME BENEFIT FROM THIS BILL?!?!
Prior to "shall issue" I got my CPL in Monroe County, unrestricted. Here comes "shall issue with it's many restrictions that I currently didn't suffer from. Now if I used your logic, I should have opposed the "shall issue" law because it didn't benefit me, and actually in the end hurt me. I could get my CPL in my county, so what did I care that others couldn't in other counties? Problem is I did care. I supported the "shall issue" law because I knew it would benefit more people in this state. But then I don't base my support of something solely on how it affects me personally, but rather what is best for the greatest number of people. But hey, that's just me, and I am obviously insane for not thinking of only me.
On another note, I am glad that Ingham County is on the ball, however there are 82 other counties that may not be.
-
Ezerharden, I agree with you. This bill might actually cause me more grief (yet to be determined), but I see it as a win for most other people. Heck, it gets rid of gun boards which we should have never had.
-
$10 increase impacts everybody...
However, avoided long lines for renewal in Wayne county is worth it. Avoiding gun board in Macomb county will be worth to those residents.
Everybody will benefit from not needing to get a separate photograph.
I am in wayne county, last year my renewal took about 6 weeks. I took my own photo with me which cost very little, the line at the Henery Ruff office was 4 people.
-
Prior to "shall issue" I got my CPL in Monroe County, unrestricted. Here comes "shall issue with it's many restrictions that I currently didn't suffer from. Now if I used your logic, I should have opposed the "shall issue" law because it didn't benefit me, and actually in the end hurt me. I could get my CPL in my county, so what did I care that others couldn't in other counties? Problem is I did care. I supported the "shall issue" law because I knew it would benefit more people in this state. But then I don't base my support of something solely on how it affects me personally, but rather what is best for the greatest number of people. But hey, that's just me, and I am obviously insane for not thinking of only me.
On another note, I am glad that Ingham County is on the ball, however there are 82 other counties that may not be.
You were for doing away with MI pistols for the benefit of the greater population. How did that work out?
A few weeks after you got what you wanted they changed the permit process so the bills killing the MI pistols did nobody any good yet screwed many.
Just an example of how your thinking of others REALLY works.
-
Ezerharden, I agree with you. This bill might actually cause me more grief (yet to be determined), but I see it as a win for most other people. Heck, it gets rid of gun boards which we should have never had.
Many counties the problem is the clerk not the board. I think 3 counties have real problematic gun boards. Not even close to a majority, why not fix the problem rather than causing new problems?
-
It's hopefully easy to see why we opted to remain neutral as an organization. "Michigan Open Carry supports CPL Fee increase" plays REAL well in social media.
SB 59 taught us a lesson: don't support bills that have anti-gun components. Many of you can be thanked for teaching us that lesson.
-
It's hopefully easy to see why we opted to remain neutral as an organization. "Michigan Open Carry supports CPL Fee increase" plays REAL well in social media.
SB 59 taught us a lesson: don't support bills that have anti-gun components. Many of you can be thanked for teaching us that lesson.
The problem seems to be that we have to give up 4 or 5 things to get 1 small gain.
I'll say it again, try sending a bill with just ONE issue to the governor & see what happens.
Today, eliminate gun boards & have SoS issue CPL's.
Tomorrow, eliminate PFZ's
Next day, eliminate duty to inform.
Etc. etc......
-
I don't like the format of one, 100+ page bill. You have no idea how many drafts there are to read and tracking the differences between drafts is nearly impossible. Should we just "trust" the staffer and Legislative Services giving us the bill? I think not!
-
I don't like the format of one, 100+ page bill. You have no idea how many drafts there are to read and tracking the differences between drafts is nearly impossible. Should we just "trust" the staffer and Legislative Services giving us the bill? I think not!
Why would it take 100 pages to eliminate gun boards & have SoS issue CPL's?
Don't do ANYTHING else in that bill.
Anything else you want done, have it in a different bill.
Want to raise the fee's? Write a bill.
Make punishment for not informing quickly enough mandatory & harsher? Write a bill.
Want to make training cert's no good after 1 yr? Write a bill.
Shouldn't take 100 pages to only make one change at a time.
-
Why would it take 100 pages to eliminate gun boards & have SoS issue CPL's?
Don't do ANYTHING else in that bill.
Anything else you want done, have it in a different bill.
Want to raise the fee's? Write a bill.
Make punishment for not informing quickly enough mandatory & harsher? Write a bill.
Want to make training cert's no good after 1 yr? Write a bill.
Shouldn't take 100 pages to only make one change at a time.
The word "Gun Board" exists in multiple sections. It needs to be struck out and replace with "licensing authority".
To do this, you either need one big bill or two dozen smaller bills (one for each section).
-
The word "Gun Board" exists in multiple sections. It needs to be struck out and replace with "licensing authority".
To do this, you either need one big bill or two dozen smaller bills (one for each section).
So..... It takes less pages to change 37 things at once? Well I will admit it makes it easier to cover up what you are doing.
-
You were for doing away with MI pistols for the benefit of the greater population. How did that work out?
A few weeks after you got what you wanted they changed the permit process so the bills killing the MI pistols did nobody any good yet screwed many.
Just an example of how your thinking of others REALLY works.
Well I can say what I supported was with the best of intentions for all, and not some self centered desire to keep the status quo that some enjoyed. (translation, I looked at the overall good that was presented, not at how it affected me personally)
-
Well I can say what I supported was with the best of intentions for all, and not some self centered desire to keep the status quo that some enjoyed. (translation, I looked at the overall good that was presented, not at how it affected me personally)
You mean the staus quo that all CPL holders enjoyed but few used?
BTW: If more than 1 person used it, it could not be self centered.
-
You mean the staus quo that all CPL holders enjoyed but few used?
BTW: If more than 1 person used it, it could not be self centered.
Yes, you are right of course. I can get my CPl renewed in about 2 months in my county with the gun board not playing dirty, so why do I care if this bill helps others in counties that have less integrity? Maybe because it does help those other people in those counties.
As to the MI pistol thing, sorry you lost your technicality, but it is really of no relevance here. This bill is about making MI a true Shall Issue state, as it should have been done back in 2001.
"Gee, my certificate expires after 5 years." Well damn, if I am going to take the class I am not going to wait 5 years to file for one. Plus a one year grace period to renew, as opposed to a 0 day grace period now.
They raised the fees by $10. If you can afford the gun, the class costs, the continual training, etc, then you can afford the $10 increase, especially when you don't have to pay $5-$10 for the photo someplace else and still run the risk of it being rejected. With them taking the photo's that is on them, not you. P.S. if the $10 is that much of a burden, just don't get your Starbuck's coffee for 3 days that year, no problem, there is your $10.
People need to realize that the Legislature is NOT Burger King, It's not always "Your way" all the time. These things take time and effort on many peoples parts to pull together and get passed. Instead of only complaining about what you think is bad, look at the good as well. Sorry to say, but you will never get everything you want (hint, Constitutional Carry) over night. There are many years of fighting to go to get there.
-
Where does one draw the line though, Ezerharden?
The BoD (those of us left) carefully deliberated this issue and elected not to support a bill that is gradually (session by session, 59, 789) anti-gun. If we agree to support the bill, it'll only signal to the Governor we are willing to "give" even more yet. Well, we are willing to give no more.
-
Ezerharden
The reason i btought up the mi pistol thing was to politely say you were wrong then as you are now(ie: sit down quietly before you cause more burdon for more people). 2 counties have a problematic gun boards, lets just go ahead and f@@@ it up for everybody rather then getting it away from the clerks all together.
If it passes I really jope that the first person that gets in trouble with the new inform penalties, that you are right there with thousands of dollars for the attorney fees. I mean you are all for making it better right?
-
Where does one draw the line though, Ezerharden?
The BoD (those of us left) carefully deliberated this issue and elected not to support a bill that is gradually (session by session, 59, 789) anti-gun. If we agree to support the bill, it'll only signal to the Governor we are willing to "give" even more yet. Well, we are willing to give no more.
Well first off, I don't see anything "anti-gun" here, unlike SB59 which had anti-gun language. A secondly, I am not commenting whether or not MOC should support the bill or not. I am commenting on my views on the bill as an individual,
-
Well first off, I don't see anything "anti-gun" here, unlike SB59 which had anti-gun language. A secondly, I am not commenting whether or not MOC should support the bill or not. I am commenting on my views on the bill as an individual,
$10 fee increase isn't anti-gun?
Making a formerly discretionary penalty now mandatory isn't anti-gun?
-
$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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why can't you just agree to disagree instead of bickering here? I love OCD.... oh yeah this is MOC.
-
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.
-
Well, MDA is still against this bill, even though the PPO stuff has been removed. Anyone surprised?
http://everytown.org/press/michigan-moms-oppose-s-b-34-bill-that-strips-law-enforcement-authority-to-deny-concealed-pistol-licenses-to-dangerous-people/
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, but Green listed that as one of the things contained in SB 34 (S-1). That's the one that passed. See link.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What ever happened to SoS issue??
It seems that the county clerks are more of the problem than the solution.. Kent, Wayne etc
-
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.
-
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.
If the clerks like it, why should gun owners?