• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun on his hip, state Sen. Arlan Meekhof demonstrates his support for allowing CC

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
:question: I don't understand.
It looks to me like the restrictions on lawful carry will become greater, or at the very least more complicated & expensive than they already are.

Making fewer (or no) criminal empowerment zones would be progress,
or making a carry license easier &/or less expensive to obtain.

Also, how would these new laws affect what non-MI licenses are accepted in MI?
Would other states' licenses only be accepted if their training requirements matched MI?
If not, why?
Would other states' licenses only be accepted for the lower level of MI permit, or for complete reciprocity?
Again, why?
If someone with, say, a PA license [background check only] is allowed to carry in MI, why should residents be held to a (much!) higher standard?

And before I get ignored as being a non-resident, I'm right next door in WI.
At least the non-resident parts affect me.

Michigan accepts all out of state permits, they have for decades. This bill does not change that. BUT since 2001 you will not be allowed to conceal carry in the places listed in the MI CC statute. The bill will allow MICHIGAN residents the ability to carry in those GFZs with additional training as described in the new bill.
 

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of this bill?

Are they talking about 2 separate licenses, or just exempting the current ones?

What is the new proposed training standard?, just more rounds fired in the existing 8 hour class?, or just the existing class with an extra day, and more rounds?, or are they talking about an entirely new class in addition to still needing the old one?, if so what's the approved course?

I currently teach the class, and I already require extra rounds, and put in extra material (all at the same cost), it would suck if I had to go out, and get extra certification just to teach the new class.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of this bill?

Are they talking about 2 separate licenses, or just exempting the current ones?

What is the new proposed training standard?, just more rounds fired in the existing 8 hour class?, or just the existing class with an extra day, and more rounds?, or are they talking about an entirely new class in addition to still needing the old one?, if so what's the approved course?

I currently teach the class, and I already require extra rounds, and put in extra material (all at the same cost), it would suck if I had to go out, and get extra certification just to teach the new class.


See this grassroots email...the text of the bill is referenced there-in.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
:question: I don't understand.
It looks to me like the restrictions on lawful carry will become greater, or at the very least more complicated & expensive than they already are.

Making fewer (or no) criminal empowerment zones would be progress,
or making a carry license easier &/or less expensive to obtain.

Also, how would these new laws affect what non-MI licenses are accepted in MI?
Would other states' licenses only be accepted if their training requirements matched MI?
If not, why?
Would other states' licenses only be accepted for the lower level of MI permit, or for complete reciprocity?
Again, why?
If someone with, say, a PA license [background check only] is allowed to carry in MI, why should residents be held to a (much!) higher standard?

And before I get ignored as being a non-resident, I'm right next door in WI.
At least the non-resident parts affect me.

Most here are not aware but, as it stands right now, a person carrying in Mich under the terms of an out-of-state license to conceal is exempt from the PFZs and could cc in those areas...at least as written in Mich law. (Not exempt from fed. law in regards to schools, though) How is that fair? Define "fair".

IMHO I think all restrictions where or how one may carry in any way are equally onerous... differing opinions of degrees of good and bad regarding these restrictions is pointless. Furthermore, with the inclusion of exceptions and potential "punishments"...any such nuanced scale would have to be applied to one particular person's circumstance.
Examples:
-in some states, carrying in the fewer PFZs are a misdemeanor or even felonies; in Michigan 1st offense is a civil infraction. But....some states don't even provide punishment for the violation unless you are asked to leave (MO)
-- some states don't differentiate OC from CC in regards to those with a license to conceal; Michigan does... which plays to an advantage.
But... Who Cares? Any and all restrictions are equally "bad"; arguing "how bad" is like arguing is it better to be killed with a .45 or a .40... dead is dead.

This change is a small step in the right direction... much like Wisc. going to shall issue from years of "no issue". Yep, could be better but....
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Most here are not aware but, as it stands right now, a person carrying in Mich under the terms of an out-of-state license to conceal is exempt from the PFZs and could cc in those areas...at least as written in Mich law. (Not exempt from fed. law in regards to schools, though) How is that fair? Define "fair".

IMHO I think all restrictions where or how one may carry in any way are equally onerous... differing opinions of degrees of good and bad regarding these restrictions is pointless. Furthermore, with the inclusion of exceptions and potential "punishments"...any such nuanced scale would have to be applied to one particular person's circumstance.
Examples:
-in some states, carrying in the fewer PFZs are a misdemeanor or even felonies; in Michigan 1st offense is a civil infraction. But....some states don't even provide punishment for the violation unless you are asked to leave (MO)
-- some states don't differentiate OC from CC in regards to those with a license to conceal; Michigan does... which plays to an advantage.
But... Who Cares? Any and all restrictions are equally "bad"; arguing "how bad" is like arguing is it better to be killed with a .45 or a .40... dead is dead.

This change is a small step in the right direction... much like Wisc. going to shall issue from years of "no issue". Yep, could be better but....

explain bold. cite.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
explain bold. cite.

I moved this response here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ut-of-state-licensees-can-CC-in-Michigan-PFZs and made a new thread.




OK, I'll do it yet again...:lol: I know I mentioned this a few years ago, and never received any responses to my statement... I guess someone noticed...

Michigan law requires anyone who wishes to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan to either a) get a Michigan concealed pistol license or b), be covered under an exception. The exceptions are listed in MCL 28.432a

MCL 28.432a Persons to whom requirements inapplicable; "local corrections officer" defined.Sec. 12a.
(1) The requirements of this act for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol do not apply to any of the following:

(a) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States or of this state or a political subdivision of this state, who is regularly employed and paid by the United States or this state or a subdivision of this state, except a township constable.

(b) A constable who is trained and certified under the commission on law enforcement standards act, 1965 PA 203, MCL 28.601 to 28.616, while engaged in his or her official duties or going to or coming from his or her official duties, and who is regularly employed and paid by a political subdivision of this state.

(c) A person regularly employed by the department of corrections and authorized in writing by the director of the department of corrections to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties or while going to or returning from his or her duties.

(d) A person regularly employed as a local corrections officer by a county sheriff, who is trained in the use of force and is authorized in writing by the county sheriff to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties.

(e) A person regularly employed in a city jail or lockup who has custody of persons detained or incarcerated in the jail or lockup, is trained in the use of force, and is authorized in writing by the chief of police or the county sheriff to carry a concealed pistol during the performance of his or her duties.

(f) A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty.

(g) A member of the national guard, armed forces reserves, or other duly authorized military organization while on duty or drill or while going to or returning from his or her place of assembly or practice or while carrying a concealed pistol for purposes of that military organization.

(h) A resident of another state who is licensed by that state to carry a concealed pistol.



Notice that exemption, 12a(1)(h), is the one which concerns out-of-state residents.

Now, we go to the statute which prohibits concealed carry on certain premises

MCL 28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited; “premises” defined;
exceptions to subsection (1); violation; penalties.
Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:....

Notice which people are covered... those who have been issued a license (residents) and those carrying under exemption 12a(1)(f) ie A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty.

Since the only "exempt" individuals who are subject to the MCL 28.425o restrictions are those who are carrying under 12a(1)(f) A member of the United States army, air force, navy, or marine corps while carrying a concealed pistol in the line of duty
,people from other states carrying under a 12a(1)(h) exemption are free to cc in the pfz's, and are also exempt from many other restrictions to a cpl holder. I'd look those up and cite them too, but I think you are as equally able.

BTW SB59 does change the 12a(1)(f) to 12a(1)(h)... thereby requiring that out-of-state residents carrying under the 12a(1)(h) exemption would also come under all of the restrictions in the same manner as a person who is licensed by Michigan, but as it stands right now, they may cc in the 28.425o restricted areas.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I was thinking about something today regarding this. I believe the state of Missouri has a similar law in that if you take extra training you are exempt from PFZs. What if more states start doing this? I wonder if we and other states will start granting not only reciprocity/recognition of the permit but also being exempt from PFZs.


Just to set the record straight: the state which gives training exemptions to their "No Carry" zones is Mississippi. Also, Mississippi only has 1 level of training; the basic "License to Conceal" does not require any training. The training is for the "Enhanced" exemption only, as indicated by a. So, Michigan's CPL training right now is at the same level as that required for the "Enhanced" MS license. By adding the additional training in the bill, if passed, MI requirements would be much more than required in MS.

97-37-7 Wording from Mississipi House Bill 506 Signed by the Governor.

(2) ……. A person licensed under Section 45-9-101 to carry a concealed pistol, who has voluntarily
completed an instructional course in the safe handling and use of firearms offered by an instructor certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or by any other
organization approved by the Department of Public Safety, shall also be authorized to carry weapons in
courthouses except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding, and any location listed in subsection (13) of Section 45-9-101, except any place of nuisance as defined in Section 95-3-1, any police, sheriff or highway patrol station or any detention facility, prison or jail. The department shall promulgate rules and regulations allowing concealed pistol permit holders to obtain an endorsement on their permit indicating that they have completed the aforementioned course and have the authority to carry in these locations. This section shall in no way interfere with the right of a trial judge to restrict the carrying of firearms in the courtroom.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
The most liberty oriented CPLs too. Show me another state that has a concealment license where the only place you couldn't carry is state-overseen casinos and courts. Even the so-called "Constitutional Carry" states have restrictions.

Oregon
New Hampshire
Utah
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
All these exceptions noted. I also noted none of them are so-called Con Carry states.

The biggest problem with Michigan law is that it has more disqualifiers for a carry license than any other state or political subdivision of the United States. I counted 47 disqualifiers in MCL 28.422

There are so many state specific disqualifiers and many of them are so petty that ANYBODY on here is at risk of losing his or her CPL on any given day.

Have a concealed knife in Southgate or Dearborn= no CPL for 8 years.
Talk back to an overzealous cop and get a disorderly conduct ticket = no CPL for either 3 or 8 years.
Pass a Sunday driver or forget to slow down from 75 MPH (in a 70) to 55 MPH in Detroit on I-75 = Reckless driving and no CPL for 8 years.

There are so many disqualifiers that there are a bunch of police officers in the state as well as some Federal Agents who would not qualify for a CPL.

Heck, you can roll your car down a hill with children on the roof and lose your CPL.... sorry, I couldn't resist :)

Some states have a few disqualifiers, and Conneticut comes close with about 11 disqualifiers. A handful of states strictly go by if you are prohibited by Federal Law from owning a firearm.
 
Last edited:

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Non-residents are zero concern of mine. If you want our gun laws, move here.

Keep in mind that eventually that Michigan will be forced to issue non-resident licenses as long as they license a right. The Supreme Court has address this in Saenz v Roe and State of New Hampshire v Piper. And if they do by lawsuit, the state (AKA taxpayer) will have to foot the bill as Chicago and D.C. had to cut a big check to Alan Gura.

I agree that the bill should not be changed right now because non-resident issues can be fixed later; however, if something is a right it shouldn't matter where you live. My dad lives in Vermont and when he comes here, he has no means to carry a gun even though he has a UT and PA license. Moving isn't the answer, why would my dad want to move to a state with record high unemployment, polluted air (at least SE Michigan), highest insurance rates in the country, and a state who's major cities are worse than Beirut.

I do agree that Michigan resources should not be spent to fix non-resident issues as long as we have issues here like registration and other nonsense but keep in mind that if we don't support each other then it would be divide and conquer. I've called my senator and I called Mike Green's Office to ask him if there is anything else I can do.

I did so even though this bill does nothing for me and it has zero impact on me as I can already carry in Pistol Free Zones or in any place in the United States and on commercial aircraft unless the pilot says no (almost never happens).

I guess it's kind of like a cop saying "If you want to carry a gun become a cop." I support all RKBA advances and have for a long time and one of the reasons is that other states have done the same for Michigan Permit holders. That's why a CPL is valid in 38 states, Imagine if it wasn't good anywhere outside of Michigan, that would suck, right?
 

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
This is the only person in this thread who asked about non-resident permits. Because of that fact, my post was directed at THIS statement. Sorry maninblack...I wasn't talking to you.

Well, I think simply because you don't live here isn't a reason not to be able to carry in MI. Many states have a Non-resident license, and I think they are a good idea. For instance what if I had to leave and move to Vermont? They have no license system, and even though I could carry in that state when I come back to MI I loose my right to self defense? I believe your statement was a bit short sighted. Also when I traveled to Florida I got myself a non-resident license. I knew my MI CPL was accepted there but to deter any confusion on law enforcement should I be stopped I could show them something already familiar to them since the only way the Non resident and a normal resident Florida CWL is the address.

Huh? How would where our state allows its own residents to carry have any effect on another state? You keep coming up with niggling little arguments that don't make sense. Who are you and what have you done with NCHEDOIINVLSJO47859374H3OH?

Bronson

Just trying to promote discussion which I see has worked!.......Ok, so the truth, yep I messed up poor arguement my mistake:rolleyes:. But if you keep having finger seizures when you type my screen name you should see a doctor:shocker:! In the future you could substitute my screen name with my real name "Shaun"

rofl128589139170898009.jpg

Not helping, you only adding to Bronsons fire! But I do like your above pic!
 

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
No way. Now it's a tradition :D

Bronson

Ah, so it is sir (spelled with a "c" and a "u"), so it is! And in hind sight I agree! Please do keep it up! And thank you for calling me out and keeping me honest, your my personal forum cop! Now, if Only I could rig some type of holster to carry you around,,,,,,
:banana:
 
Last edited:

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Keep in mind that eventually that Michigan will be forced to issue non-resident licenses as long as they license a right. The Supreme Court has address this in Saenz v Roe and State of New Hampshire v Piper. And if they do by lawsuit, the state (AKA taxpayer) will have to foot the bill as Chicago and D.C. had to cut a big check to Alan Gura.

I agree that the bill should not be changed right now because non-resident issues can be fixed later; however, if something is a right it shouldn't matter where you live. My dad lives in Vermont and when he comes here, he has no means to carry a gun even though he has a UT and PA license. Moving isn't the answer, why would my dad want to move to a state with record high unemployment, polluted air (at least SE Michigan), highest insurance rates in the country, and a state who's major cities are worse than Beirut.

I do agree that Michigan resources should not be spent to fix non-resident issues as long as we have issues here like registration and other nonsense but keep in mind that if we don't support each other then it would be divide and conquer. I've called my senator and I called Mike Green's Office to ask him if there is anything else I can do.

I did so even though this bill does nothing for me and it has zero impact on me as I can already carry in Pistol Free Zones or in any place in the United States and on commercial aircraft unless the pilot says no (almost never happens).

I guess it's kind of like a cop saying "If you want to carry a gun become a cop." I support all RKBA advances and have for a long time and one of the reasons is that other states have done the same for Michigan Permit holders. That's why a CPL is valid in 38 states, Imagine if it wasn't good anywhere outside of Michigan, that would suck, right?

I think we should just go back to the same law we had as may issue which was to recognize all out of state permits but they should put in a clause that says Michigan residents must obtain a CPL so there would be no dispute there.
 
Top