Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: HB 5460 needs to be stopped.

  1. #1
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490

    HB 5460 needs to be stopped.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2ra...e=2012-HB-5460

    This will would allow those at least 18, who are in the military, to obtain a CPL. I think we should not allow this bill to pass. From what I can tell we would lose reciprocity with that state of Ohio and Washington. And looking at the fact getting a non-resident permit to be able to carry in Ohio is possible you'd need to get one from a state like FL, UT, AZ, ect. (look into the cost of getting any of those permits). I also don't like the fact we are only allowing a special class to be able to obtain a CPL, much like what you see with 28.425o. There are those of us who are non-military who are just as qualified and responsible as those in the military.

    While I am very pro gun and would support a system where those of us who are under 21 can obtain a permit I do not think this is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but personally I think this bill needs to be stopped. Please email your reps.

    (a) The applicant is 21 years of age or older, OR IS 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND IS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THIS STATE OR ANOTHER STATE. AS USED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, "ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES" MEANS THE UNITED STATES ARMY, AIR FORCE, NAVY, COAST GUARD, AND MARINE CORPS, INCLUDING THEIR RESERVE COMPONENTS.
    Last edited by xmanhockey7; 03-12-2012 at 10:26 AM.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  2. #2
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2ra...e=2012-HB-5460

    This will would allow those at least 18, who are in the military, to obtain a CPL. I think we should not allow this bill to pass. From what I can tell we would lose reciprocity with that state of Ohio and Washington. And looking at the fact getting a non-resident permit to be able to carry in Ohio is possible you'd need to get one from a state like FL, UT, AZ, ect. (look into the cost of getting any of those permits). I also don't like the fact we are only allowing a special class to be able to obtain a CPL, much like what you see with 28.425o. There are those of us who are non-military who are just as qualified and responsible as those in the military.

    While I am very pro gun and would support a system where those of us who are under 21 can obtain a permit I do not think this is the way to go. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but personally I think this bill needs to be stopped. Please email your reps.
    I sent this as part of an email to another member this morning (some points already mentioned)


    -- ONLY allows members of the "military" (those listed) to get a CPL early... excludes everyone else
    -- Michigan's CPL is more widely recognized than any other state's license. We may lose that status as many states (Washington, Maine, Nevada, etc) require the states they recognize to only issue to those 21+. By my quick estimation, we may lose about 10-15 states... with little to no expansion of the "right to carry" here in Michigan because...
    -- They are already exempt from licensure; they are already allowed to carry concealed at 18 in most instances. see MCL 28.432a


    This is, in my humble opinion, is another attempt by the legislature to APPEAR to be doing something "pro 2A" when, in fact, it is actually an "Anti 2A Bill". This bill would reduce the ability of Michigan's CPL holders to carry in many states who currently recognize our CPL. In fact, there can be no other explanation other than the legislature's attempt to further limit a CPL holder's right to carry out of state since, in most instances, the people who would benefit from this are already exempt from licensure under MCL 28.432a.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 03-12-2012 at 10:54 AM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    I sent this as part of an email to another member this morning (some points already mentioned)


    -- ONLY allows members of the "military" (those listed) to get a CPL early... excludes everyone else
    -- Michigan's CPL is more widely recognized than any other state's license. We may lose that status as many states (Washington, Maine, Nevada, etc) require the states they recognize to only issue to those 21+. By my quick estimation, we may lose about 10-15 states... with little to no expansion of the "right to carry" here in Michigan because...
    -- They are already exempt from licensure; they are already allowed to carry concealed at 18 in most instances. see MCL 28.432a


    This is, in my humble opinion, is another attempt by the legislature to APPEAR to be doing something "pro 2A" when, in fact, it is actually an "Anti 2A Bill". This bill would reduce the ability of Michigan's CPL holders to carry in many states who currently recognize our CPL. In fact, there can be no other explanation other than the legislature's attempt to further limit a CPL holder's right to carry out of state since, in most instances, the people who would benefit from this are already exempt from licensure under MCL 28.432a.
    BTW Maine does not require one the holder to be 21. I don't think we'll lose 10-15 based on Texas's reciprocity and the fact they have the same law already in place. Still I think we'd lose Ohio which would really suck since they're a border state.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  4. #4
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    BTW Maine does not require one the holder to be 21. I don't think we'll lose 10-15 based on Texas's reciprocity and the fact they have the same law already in place. Still I think we'd lose Ohio which would really suck since they're a border state.
    You are correct regarding Maine... the source I used was in error. In regards to the loss of states, the operative word was "By my quick estimation, we may lose about 10-15 states. " Taking a quick look at the only state i could think of that provided for issuance of a license under age 21: SD, I thought we may lose the following states (the difference between Michigan's reciprocity status with other states and South Dakota's)

    AR, DE, KS, MN, NE, NM, NV, OH, SC, WA, WI (11 states)



    I had forgotten about Texas; Texas also provides for the issuance of a license under age 21 in certain circumstances (much like the proposed bill). The following states represent the difference between TX and MI (with SD factored in):

    NV, OH, WA, (3 states)

    However, this is pure conjecture on both of our parts... and why I used "quick estimation" and "may" in my statement... we really don't know. Logically, yes the loss could be as low as 3, but it could be any number. The reason is that most states reciprocate based on criteria that may be known.. or not... because reciprocation is often predicated on having "substantially similar laws". What does this mean? States decide that for themselves, and any decision is fluid. Any changes may well tip the balance. If we are going to have possible loss in reciprocity, it better be a huge gain in the right to carry in order to offset that. The main point is, yes, there may be a loss of 3, there may be a loss of 0, there may be a loss of 20. Who knows?

    For instance, NM no longer honors MN, WI, and UT... though they once did. Policies change and what is used to determine the "substantially similar" aspect of most recognition/reciprocity laws is a huge unknown.

    However, the most important point is that the addition of 18 year-olds to the CPL law won't do anything very positive in regards to the right to carry, and may be the "tipping point" for many states to decide that Michigan's laws are no longer "substantially similar". Is that possibility worth adding the ability to get a CPL, especially when CC by these individuals is, in many instances, already exempt?

    Huge loss and little to no gain, no matter how one looks at it.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 03-12-2012 at 12:02 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    You are correct regarding Maine... the source I used was in error. In regards to the loss of states, the operative word was "By my quick estimation, we may lose about 10-15 states. " Taking a quick look at the only state i could think of that provided for issuance of a license under age 21: SD, I thought we may lose the following states (the difference between Michigan's reciprocity status with other states and South Dakota's)

    AR, DE, KS, MN, NE, NM, NV, OH, SC, WA, WI (11 states)



    I had forgotten about Texas; Texas also provides for the issuance of a license under age 21 in certain circumstances (much like the proposed bill). The following states represent the difference between TX and MI (with SD factored in):

    NV, OH, WA, (3 states)

    However, this is pure conjecture on both of our parts... and why I used "quick estimation" and "may" in my statement... we really don't know. Logically, yes the loss could be as low as 3, but it could be any number. The reason is that most states reciprocate based on criteria that may be known.. or not... because reciprocation is often predicated on having "substantially similar laws". What does this mean? States decide that for themselves, and any decision is fluid. Any changes may well tip the balance. If we are going to have possible loss in reciprocity, it better be a huge gain in the right to carry in order to offset that. The main point is, yes, there may be a loss of 3, there may be a loss of 0, there may be a loss of 20. Who knows?

    For instance, NM no longer honors MN, WI, and UT... though they once did. Policies change and what is used to determine the "substantially similar" aspect of most recognition/reciprocity laws is a huge unknown.

    However, the most important point is that the addition of 18 year-olds to the CPL law won't do anything very positive in regards to the right to carry, and may be the "tipping point" for many states to decide that Michigan's laws are no longer "substantially similar". Is that possibility worth adding the ability to get a CPL, especially when CC by these individuals is, in many instances, already exempt?

    Huge loss and little to no gain, no matter how one looks at it.
    I agree. And Ohio seems to be a stickler about the 21 thing so I very much think we would lose them. If you go onto WA's website they say the reason they don't recognize TX's is because they issue to those under 21. To me losing a boarder state like OH is a big deal. Especially for me because I travel there for work fairly frequently.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  6. #6
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Losing OH would be really bad for me, I carry there several times a month being so close to the border. Our reciprocity needs to be preserved, but at the same time I have a hard time saying someone in the Military should not be able to get a CPL.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  7. #7
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Losing OH would be really bad for me, I carry there several times a month being so close to the border. Our reciprocity needs to be preserved, but at the same time I have a hard time saying someone in the Military should not be able to get a CPL.
    If we're going to change the requirements like age, training, disqualifications, ect. I think we should just create a new "class" of license. Take any license already issued and have it automatically become a class 1. Then, the new class 2, be the license that is easier to obtain as far as age, training, disqualifications, etc. That way those that already have the license lose nothing and those who wanted to get it but couldn't because of age, expensive cost, or some silly disqualification can.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Would that cause loss of reciprocity for ALL MI CPL holders, or just the people who were 18 and older in military service?

  9. #9
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Would that cause loss of reciprocity for ALL MI CPL holders, or just the people who were 18 and older in military service?
    Well those 18 and in the military wouldn't be able to carry in as many states as those 21 or older. Wisconsin for example recognizes some states permits where the person only has to be 18 but to carry there you must be 21. A state like Ohio or Washington will just not recognize your state's permit.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Screw that. I wont support legislation that removes the privileges of some, for the gain in privileges of another.

  11. #11
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Screw that. I wont support legislation that removes the privileges of some, for the gain in privileges of another.
    Exactly. It looks like FL may be doing this same thing. I posted that I'm against it on another forum which obviously means I hate and have no respect for those who serve.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I dont know if its worth contacting the legislature anymore, they don't do what we elected them to do, and they don't acknowledge the constitution, or the oath they swore to us for it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wayne County, MI.
    Posts
    271
    I'll be damned, 2 people that are ready to throw gun rights under the bus when it doesn't involve them, suddenly do not like a bill that might cause them lose something.

    ANY bill that causes many to lose something so a few can gain is a BAD idea. Hopefully these 2 people will open their eyes and see this someday.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    I spoke to the Ohio AG's office this week on this topic. While they wouldn't commit to not changing their mind...they told me they didn't anticipate the passing of this bill would change their reciprocity with Michigan.
    Last edited by TheQ; 03-17-2012 at 08:44 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  15. #15
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - An Army National Guard solider, born and raised in Grand Rapids, has raised questions about the law banning anyone under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed weapon.
    http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/michi...ed-CCW-license
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    The comments are interesting. Here's mine.

    This bill needs to be stopped. It would just allow another sheltered group of people a privilege that should be a right for everyone. If they are going to pass a law, then let them pass one that applies to everyone. The right is supposed to belong to everyone. Our current legislature is inept, gun owners gave them the majority this term, and we get nothing in return but lip service, and maybe, maybe changes in the law like this one.

    Give this honorable soldier his rights back, but give those rights back to everyone at the same time. We are watching you Lansing, we will remember your incompetence this term when we vote text term.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667
    Thank you Xman and Dr.T for watch dogging this and bringing it to our attention.springerdave.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Angry

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...io-Personality

    Yet another topic we may want to bring to this radio host's attention.
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This is going to be a hard sell to the general public. They hear 5 seconds out of a minutes long explanation, and make up their minds. Then its about impossible to change it. Its all assumptions jumping to conclusions and feelings after that.


    All they hear, is that they will let soldiers carry with a CPL, so they think its a good idea. They never go deeper than that.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 03-21-2012 at 12:53 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    My friend who is currently in the Army facebook status:

    wow the army is full of prossenals that know how to use there weapon... had a guy discharge his weapon inside one of the living areas. f****** dumb a$$e$.
    I censored some of it.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  21. #21
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Speaking of dumb asses, WTH is a "prossenals"?

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  22. #22
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Speaking of dumb asses, WTH is a "prossenals"?

    Bronson
    I'd take a dumb ass who can't spell over one that NDs
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •