Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

General Category => Legislative Lighthouse => Topic started by: bigt8261 on January 28, 2015, 08:23:33 AM

Title: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on January 28, 2015, 08:23:33 AM
SB 789 has been reintroduced as SB 34. The bill is almost exactly the same, minus the two lines about PPOs.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0034
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2015-SB-0035

Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: gryphon on February 02, 2015, 09:07:45 PM
Senate vote tomorrow?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 03, 2015, 09:07:07 AM
Yep, it will be voted on today. I think today is the first day of voting, which is why the bill sat for a week on the floor of the Senate.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: jgillmanjr on February 03, 2015, 01:02:47 PM
Passed the Senate.

PASSED ROLL CALL # 5 YEAS 28 NAYS 9 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 10, 2015, 06:32:52 AM
So when are they planning on voting on it again?


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 10, 2015, 07:36:04 AM
It will be in the House Judiciary Committee today at noon.
Title: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 10, 2015, 03:19:53 PM
Ok thanks going to check on it now. It doesn't show any change.


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: TheQ on February 10, 2015, 06:48:18 PM
It was held over to next week when it is expected to be voted on.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 17, 2015, 08:06:38 PM
And it looks delayed again


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 17, 2015, 08:47:10 PM
Delayed? It was recommended out of committee today.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 17, 2015, 10:23:53 PM
I didn't see that oops


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 on February 18, 2015, 09:10:28 AM
Is there an easy way to see the differences between the introduced bill, S-1 and H-1?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 18, 2015, 10:35:51 AM
In short no. You need an application that can show the difference between two PDFs.

So far, we have been unable to find a quality free application to do this.

From what I've been told, the only difference is that H-1 moves the effective date from Oct. 1 to Dec. 1.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: jgillmanjr on February 18, 2015, 11:04:45 AM
Even then, trying to diff PDF's almost results in failure - and thats mostly a product of how the legislative documents are formatted. I'm not sure how much better a paid product would be able to do.

One thing that I've been tossing around is pushing for legislation that would require legislative documents to be more machine readable. I've also been thinking about doing up a proof of concept XML schema to demonstrate what I'm thinking.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: m.marino on February 20, 2015, 06:25:43 AM
Are a few programs out there that do an okay job of comparing two pdf documents. problem is most of the ones that do it well are not free (though many have a 30 day trail period to see if it meets the needed use). Costs vary and as the saying goes you get what you pay for, though that does not always hold true in the software world.

If someone wants i can looks up the differences and get them compared.

Michael
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: gryphon on February 26, 2015, 08:30:50 AM
I keep hearing stories on Michigan Public Radio stating there are rural Republicans who are against this bill and want to keep the gun boards because the gun boards "know" if people in their counties should be issued CPLs or not.  I find this somewhat ludicrous.  I don't think people sitting on gun boards know everyone who is applying for a new or renewed CPL.  I know Ingham County certainly doesn't.  And why would Republicans be against this bill?  Anyone know the background on this?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 26, 2015, 08:43:38 AM
MCRGO posted the Republicans that voted no. I'll see if I can yank the pic.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: bigt8261 on February 26, 2015, 08:44:36 AM
Nevermind. No pic, just text.

From MCRGO on Facebook:

Quote
9 House Democrats joined with most of the House Republicans today in passing SB 34 (CPL Reform). The Democrats voting for the bill listed geographically by the district they represent with county indicated include:

Frank Liberati (Wayne)
Paul Clemente (Wayne)
George Darany (Wayne)
Robert Kosowski (Wayne)
Bill LaVoy (Monroe & Wayne)
John Chirkun (Macomb)
Henry Yanez (Macomb)
Derek Miller (Macomb)
Tim Greimel (Oakland)
Marilyn Lane (Macomb)
Phil Phelps (Genesee)
Charles Smiley (Genesee)
Gretchen Driskell (Washtenaw)
David Rutledge (Washtenaw)
Tom Cochran (Ingham)
Brandon Dillon (Kent)
Charles Brunner (Bay)
John Kivela (Alger, Luce, Marquette, Schoolcraft)
Scott Dianda (Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Marquette, Ontonagon)

Only 6 Republicans ended up voting against the bill. Listed geographically by the district they represent with county indicated they include:

Lauwyers (St. Clair)
Bizon (Calhoun)
Kelly (Saginaw)
Franz (Benzie, Leelanau, Manistee, Mason)
Inman (Grand Traverse)
Potvin (Mecosta, Osceola, Wexford)

*Apologies in advance for errors/omissions on this list. I took it off a photo taken of the voting board at the time of the vote. Credit to Dakota Moore of the NRA-ILA for taking the photo.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: LD on February 26, 2015, 11:47:05 AM
MCRGO posted the Republicans that voted no. I'll see if I can yank the pic.

Good info to have, I'll do whatever I can to SUPPORT  those that voted NO.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 26, 2015, 12:20:28 PM

I keep hearing stories on Michigan Public Radio stating there are rural Republicans who are against this bill and want to keep the gun boards because the gun boards "know" if people in their counties should be issued CPLs or not.  I find this somewhat ludicrous.  I don't think people sitting on gun boards know everyone who is applying for a new or renewed CPL.  I know Ingham County certainly doesn't.  And why would Republicans be against this bill?  Anyone know the background on this?
I have heard of county's refusing licenses for all type of stuff that doesn't make sense like guys that grew up in messed up situations yet but are held up to what their family was yet they have moved on and don't associate with those people. I think it sucks for those guys that try move on and make a good life yet they get kick down all the time.


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 26, 2015, 05:05:20 PM

Good info to have, I'll do whatever I can to SUPPORT  those that voted NO.
Why are you against this bill


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Ezerharden on February 27, 2015, 06:07:05 AM
Why are you against this bill


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

1) He is against the extra $10. I can afford the current price every 5 years but $10 more every five years cuts too deeply into my Starbucks Coffee fund.
2) He objects to training certificates having a defined expiration date as opposed to the current trend of county clerks setting their own arbitrary dates, i.e one year.  (Not that those limits are legal now and only harass applicants, anyone should be able to take the course and then apply 20 years later).
3) Immediate disclosure provision scares him, if he does not disclose within one nanosecond he may be charged, because of course that is what the officer expects. (personally I agree this requirement needs to find it's way into the closest legislative garbage can)

Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 27, 2015, 08:49:43 AM

1) He is against the extra $10. I can afford the current price every 5 years but $10 more every five years cuts too deeply into my Starbucks Coffee fund.
2) He objects to training certificates having a defined expiration date as opposed to the current trend of county clerks setting their own arbitrary dates, i.e one year.  (Not that those limits are legal now and only harass applicants, anyone should be able to take the course and then apply 20 years later).
3) Immediate disclosure provision scares him, if he does not disclose within one nanosecond he may be charged, because of course that is what the officer expects. (personally I agree this requirement needs to find it's way into the closest legislative garbage can)
1 wow $10 is to much I spend about that much when me and my wife go to Starbucks together. I figure it is a little more but how many people will be able to get permits now that live in those communist counties
2 it makes it easier if they have a set expectation date. And makes it so if we want later we can make them last longer
3 the immediate disclosure does suck but with this passed we can go back and file a bill to change that. Isn't that what the government does to us all the time. Just play the game of well you accepted this much can we get another foot out of you


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 on February 27, 2015, 08:42:38 PM
Why are you against this bill


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

2) He objects to training certificates having a defined expiration date as opposed to the current trend of county clerks setting their own arbitrary dates, i.e one year.  (Not that those limits are legal now and only harass applicants, anyone should be able to take the course and then apply 20 years later).

I think he would be still be upset if training expired after 10 years...

11 years from CPL class to getting the license, her carrying the way *I* think is right.... Who cares?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Jeff on February 28, 2015, 01:22:55 AM
Wait 6 months for your mandatory gun board waste of time...., take a day off work to be sure you get there or else you get denied.  And did I mention waiting up to 6 months....  That happens to you, you won't be against it.

Also Is there an unresolved court case from 15 years ago that you had no idea about because you thought it was resolved but someone never closed it properly?.....SURPRISE, you find that out today after almost 6 months and now we reschedule you for 2 months down the road while you get that sorted out.  Could they have called you 3 months ago to let you know because they had all the information they needed then to give you time to sort it out....they COULD have, but NOPE.  SURPRISE!  (saw this happen several times when I had to go to my gun board redundant questioning)

Sure, maybe other places would have you come in to talk about that, but at least they will do it in  1/8th the time.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins on February 28, 2015, 04:40:03 AM

Wait 6 months for your mandatory gun board waste of time...., take a day off work to be sure you get there or else you get denied.  And did I mention waiting up to 6 months....  That happens to you, you won't be against it.

Also Is there an unresolved court case from 15 years ago that you had no idea about because you thought it was resolved but someone never closed it properly?.....SURPRISE, you find that out today after almost 6 months and now we reschedule you for 2 months down the road while you get that sorted out.  Could they have called you 3 months ago to let you know because they had all the information they needed then to give you time to sort it out....they COULD have, but NOPE.  SURPRISE!  (saw this happen several times when I had to go to my gun board redundant questioning)

Sure, maybe other places would have you come in to talk about that, but at least they will do it in  1/8th the time.
Exactly Jeff if you go though that or know somebody who has you probably support this bill


Spelling destroyed by tapatalk.
"Live free or die: death is not the worst of evils" General John Stark
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker on March 01, 2015, 06:39:06 PM
Wait 6 months for your mandatory gun board waste of time...., take a day off work to be sure you get there or else you get denied.  And did I mention waiting up to 6 months....  That happens to you, you won't be against it.

Also Is there an unresolved court case from 15 years ago that you had no idea about because you thought it was resolved but someone never closed it properly?.....SURPRISE, you find that out today after almost 6 months and now we reschedule you for 2 months down the road while you get that sorted out.  Could they have called you 3 months ago to let you know because they had all the information they needed then to give you time to sort it out....they COULD have, but NOPE.  SURPRISE!  (saw this happen several times when I had to go to my gun board redundant questioning)

Sure, maybe other places would have you come in to talk about that, but at least they will do it in  1/8th the time.
If that is what your county is doing, then get off your ass and change it, at your county level, don't screw over the rest of the state?
This like Greene's other bills leave me and thousands of others in the loss column, we lose more than we gain yet again, where does it stop? I would wager less than 30% of CPL holders will benefit from this turd, so that would leave a few people that get a loss again.
Seems to me that the biggest county in the state had all the above problems years ago, people got sick of it and guess what, yeah the largest county in the state has most of the issues now resolved.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: jfmi87 on March 01, 2015, 08:43:18 PM
What exactly are you losing? Cough up some specifics. I'll read the concurred bill again in the meantime maybe I can figure it out.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: TheQ on March 01, 2015, 08:47:25 PM

What exactly are you losing? Cough up some specifics. I'll read the concurred bill again in the meantime maybe I can figure it out.

$10 fee increase, negative changes to MCL 28.425f (disclosure).
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Jeff on March 02, 2015, 03:23:08 PM
$10..... Let me just wiggle my wrist at my pelvis a few times.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: TheQ on March 02, 2015, 04:01:42 PM

$10..... Let me just wiggle my wrist at my pelvis a few times.

Social Media headline: MOC Supports CPL fee increase

How does that play for you? As president and Legislative director, it worries me.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 on March 02, 2015, 06:00:53 PM

I would wager less than 30% of CPL holders will benefit from this turd, so that would leave a few people that get a loss again.

I think more than 30% will jump on the online renewal.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker on March 02, 2015, 08:41:59 PM
$10..... Let me just wiggle my wrist at my pelvis a few times.
While you are doing what comes natural, why not stop to think where that $10.00 times how many cpl holders are the now is going.
If you can think maybe somebody like the sos who is rumored to have secret powers to make a hard copy license already might do a better job than say a county clerk that makes up there own rules.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker on March 02, 2015, 08:44:08 PM
I think more than 30% will jump on the online renewal.
I bet somebody gets screwed by the failure to notify crap way before the online renewal is even available.
Are you good with that?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 on March 02, 2015, 08:51:27 PM
I bet somebody gets screwed by the failure to notify crap way before the online renewal is even available.
Are you good with that?

Notification is already in the law.  If people were going to be screwed over by notification, it would already have happened.  In context of SB34, the argument of getting screwed is moot.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker on March 02, 2015, 09:18:41 PM
Notification is already in the law.  If people were going to be screwed over by notification, it would already have happened.  In context of SB34, the argument of getting screwed is moot.
Right now it is not a mandatory penalty. So if you don't notify in the 10 seconds that some cops feel is "immediate" the board can say it was close enough and you get no trouble (happened to a former co-worker of mine, the dash cam showed it took him 17 seconds to notify, because he waited for the cop to shut up first).
With the new deal it is mandatory that you get a penalty, so actually yes you can get "screwed" by this new deal.

Again I'll ask are you willing to let this happen to somebody, so you can renew online?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: gryphon on March 02, 2015, 09:21:37 PM
Penalties for failure to inform were (somewhat) increased.

OLD LAW

MAY be fined not more than $500.00 or have CPL suspended for 6 months or both.

NEW LAW

SHALL be fined $500.00 AND have CPL suspended for 6 months.

So penalties went to the max automatically whereas before you could get a smaller fine or suspension alone (or neither).
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 on March 02, 2015, 09:55:50 PM
My father-in-law didn't disclose until after the other driver was given a ticket for failure to yield. When he did disclose, the cop said, "I already knew". Repercussions... Zero.

I have personally had to disclose twice and had two pistols on me both times. Zero issues. (Once was by JPD and we know how gun friendly they are.)

So was your co-worker cited for failure to disclose or contempt of cop?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: gryphon on March 02, 2015, 11:12:05 PM
the cop said, "I already knew"

a. the law changed last year and cops no longer see CPL info come up when they run a tag
b. I wouldn't expect every cop to be that way, and I had one who I bet would not have been.  He acted as though he thought he caught me not disclosing (running my plate he knew I had a CPL), but I was just leaving work and since my employer doesn't allow firearms I wasn't armed.  ;)
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker on March 03, 2015, 05:50:01 AM
My father-in-law didn't disclose until after the other driver was given a ticket for failure to yield. When he did disclose, the cop said, "I already knew". Repercussions... Zero.

I have personally had to disclose twice and had two pistols on me both times. Zero issues. (Once was by JPD and we know how gun friendly they are.)

So was your co-worker cited for failure to disclose or contempt of cop?
Failure to disclose immediately,  but does it really matter because he would automatically be guilty under the new law?

I am glad you and dad had no issues, just like the majority of people. Do you think all cops are pro gun,  happy that non cops can carry?
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?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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.)
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: paracordkydexcummins 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
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Jeff 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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?
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker 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.

Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: gryphon on March 04, 2015, 02:50:12 PM
Snyder signed 34/35.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Super Trucker 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: linux203 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.
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Ezerharden 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".
Title: Re: SB 34/35 - CPL Reform (new SB 789/790)
Post by: Jeff 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.