Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Substituted SB 59 being heard by the Senate Judiciary COmmitteee - Nov 1@14:30

  1. #1
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Substituted SB 59 being heard by the Senate Judiciary COmmitteee - Nov 1@14:30

    All,

    A substituted version of SB 59 (below) is being heard in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov .1 @ 14:30. I will be present on behalf of Michigan Open Carry and supporting the bill as currently written. I have heard representatives of MGO and MCRGo will also be present and offering supportive testimony.

    Below in order:

    1. The text of SB 59 as Substituted (Attached)
    2. Legislative Summary of the Bill
    3. A DRAFT of my prepared remarks


    Permit an applicant to apply for and receive an initial or renewal concealed pistol license at any county clerk's office in the State.
    • The applicant would then work through that county for the application process and any subsequent action pertaining to their license.


    Permit county gun boards to compel applicants to appear before them ONLY under the following circumstances:
    • “The concealed weapon licensing board may require the applicant to appear before the board {existing language removed} for a conference only if the concealed weapon licensing board has reason to believe that the applicant may not be qualified to receive a license to carry a concealed pistol. The notification to appear shall be in writing and shall be provided to the applicant in person or by mail sent to his or her address on record with the concealed weapon licensing board. The notification shall include a specific statutory citation to each disqualification to be addressed. The conference shall be held at a date and time that is mutually agreeable to the concealed weapon licensing board and the applicant.”


    Technical changes to references in the statute to other public acts.

    Add the name of the county in which a person files and the related application decision to the MSP-maintained CPL database.
    • Including this information reflects the fact that residents would now be able to apply in any county, not just their county of residence.
    • This change will help avoid ‘license-shopping’ by alerting the MSP and gun board that an individual who has been denied a license in one county subsequently applies in another county.
    Members of the committee:

    I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be heard this afternoon.

    I am the Assistant Director of Research of Michigan Open Carry. We are an organization, founded in the Spring of 2009, that promotes and educates the public about the lawful open carry of handguns. We currently have in excess of 250 dues paying members and hundreds of other supportive activists throughout the State.

    Let me start by asking each of you, “Who do you serve”? Do you serve the law abiding, tax paying citizens of Michigan or a lobbying coalition made up of county governments?

    Currently, some citizens are punished by poor processes in certain counties. They have a hard time getting a CPL or face long delays not because they aren't qualified or have questionable backgrounds but rather because they have the misfortune of living in a county where the County Clerk's Office and County Gun Board are in need of more efficient operations. Perhaps worse yet, they live in a County where the local government for whatever reason has an anti-gun mentality to the point that they belligerently disregard existing Michigan “Shall-Issue” Law relating to issuing CPLs. These respectable citizens of Michigan deserve other options.

    SB 59 will improve service to the law abiding, tax paying citizens of Michigan. During a time when local revenues are being cut and police forces are being reduced, SB 59 enables law abiding citizens efficient access to acquire a CPL so they may better protect themselves and their loved ones whether they are at home or out grocery shopping. It also rewards County Governments that have an efficient yet thorough operation for issuing CPLs while also providing incentives to those County governments that are lagging behind to improve their own operations. It enables efficient County Governments that are utilizing best practices to flourish.

    Michigan Open Carry is proud to offer it's support of SB 59 in its current form and we look forward to the day it is signed into law by the Governor.

    Again let me ask you, “who do you serve”?

    Thank you again for your time.
    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    Attachment here

    Here's the attachment (DOH!)SB 59 (S-1).pdf
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    While I believe that the CPL Issuing Process needs reform, I do not believe this bill will provide the needed reforms.

    1. There is no additional accountability contained within the bill for County Gun Boards to meet deadlines. County Gun Boards can simply slow-up processing so that they do not have to deal with the issue (applicants will go elsewhere).

    2. Nearby County Gun Boards of those County Gun Boards currently "missing the mark" would bear the burden instead and slow up processing for that county's residents. For example, Wayne County Residents would simply flock to Oakland and Macomb Counties' Gun Boards.

    3. Applicants would have to determine specific County Gun Boards' "efficiency rating" as the bill does not provide for such.

    4. Applicants may have additional travel expenses to avoid County Gun Boards currently "missing the mark".

    I still believe that having 83 different Gun Boards (one for each county) will still lead to inconsistencies in CPL Processing and should be centralized.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    While I believe that the CPL Issuing Process needs reform, I do not believe this bill will provide the needed reforms.

    1. There is no additional accountability contained within the bill for County Gun Boards to meet deadlines. County Gun Boards can simply slow-up processing so that they do not have to deal with the issue (applicants will go elsewhere).

    2. Nearby County Gun Boards of those County Gun Boards currently "missing the mark" would bear the burden instead and slow up processing for that county's residents. For example, Wayne County Residents would simply flock to Oakland and Macomb Counties' Gun Boards.

    3. Applicants would have to determine specific County Gun Boards' "efficiency rating" as the bill does not provide for such.

    4. Applicants may have additional travel expenses to avoid County Gun Boards currently "missing the mark".

    I still believe that having 83 different Gun Boards (one for each county) will still lead to inconsistencies in CPL Processing and should be centralized.
    1. Exactly, people will go elsewhere.
    2. Oakland County's Clerk knows this bill would make his office busy and embraces the new business as well as supports the bill as substituted.
    3. True, I think MGO has some excellent threads on processing time by County.
    4. Right now they have no option. They have to stick with their gun board or nothing. This gives the applicant free-market like options. Also, some people "reside" in one community and work (and stay overnight several nights a week) in another community. It's hard for these people to get back to their "home" communities during workdays.

    The problem with Centralization was:

    1. The SoS (Current) didn't support it.
    2. What happens when you get an anti-gun SoS in place? Individuals, MGO, MOC, and MCRGO need to start flooding the SoS office with dozens of Motions for writs of mandamus?

    Let the free(er) market sort it out, I say.
    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What about accountability?

  6. #6
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    What about accountability?
    Huh?

    Could you clarify your question?
    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.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What motivation would it give to any county, Wayne for example, to issue permits with due speed and diligence? It seems like it would let slacker counties off the hook, by letting people go elsewhere. I doubt the loss of the application fee would mean anything at all to an anti county.

  8. #8
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    1. Exactly, people will go elsewhere.
    2. Oakland County's Clerk knows this bill would make his office busy and embraces the new business as well as supports the bill as substituted.
    3. True, I think MGO has some excellent threads on processing time by County.
    4. Right now they have no option. They have to stick with their gun board or nothing. This gives the applicant free-market like options. Also, some people "reside" in one community and work (and stay overnight several nights a week) in another community. It's hard for these people to get back to their "home" communities during workdays.

    The problem with Centralization was:

    1. The SoS (Current) didn't support it.
    2. What happens when you get an anti-gun SoS in place? Individuals, MGO, MOC, and MCRGO need to start flooding the SoS office with dozens of Motions for writs of mandamus?

    Let the free(er) market sort it out, I say.
    This bill is flawed and will not pass.

    No new accountability means this is a "band-aid approach".

    People can already sue the County Gun Board if they go over the 45 day requirement (the concealed weapon licensing board shall issue or deny issuance of a license within 45 days after the concealed weapon licensing board receives the fingerprint comparison report).

    People should not have to go to any other county nor come to any web site, such as MGO, to determine the best county to apply in.

    While Oakland County may currently embrace the bill, that may change once the "flood of applicants" begins. How many other counties are currently prepared for this bill and embrace it?

    NOTE: I specifically left out SoS, the CPL Issuance could be provided by a State Gun Board instead.

    ETA: The current CPL Laws require a person to have a MI Driver's License or a State ID Card. Since I believe that a person's picture is saved during the issuance of that License or ID Card, the application process and possibly most of the "approval/denial" processing could be provided online which would save EVERYBODY $$$.
    Last edited by PDinDetroit; 10-31-2011 at 11:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    What motivation would it give to any county, Wayne for example, to issue permits with due speed and diligence? It seems like it would let slacker counties off the hook, by letting people go elsewhere. I doubt the loss of the application fee would mean anything at all to an anti county.
    +1

  10. #10
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I doubt the loss of the application fee would mean anything at all to an anti county.
    It may or it may not. Either way, our end is being served (people are getting their license in a more timely manner)..

    It would be next to impossible to get lawmakers to impose personal criminal (or civil) sanctions on County Officials not following the shall-issue law. Even if lawmakers did (by some strange miracle) pass this, good luck getting the District Attorney (a County official on the gun-board himself) to prosecute these cases....


    ....which then takes you to the AG, who may be anti-gun also (or not up to prosecuting a DA/county official over missed/faulty CPL duty).

    The licensee's best interest is served by being able to go elsewhere. CPL Instructors in a geographical area will know the good places (counties) to apply and send their class students there.
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    People can already sue the County Gun Board if they go over the 45 day requirement (the concealed weapon licensing board shall issue or deny issuance of a license within 45 days after the concealed weapon licensing board receives the fingerprint comparison report).
    How is anyone to know when the 45 days are up? How are they to know when the Gun Board received the information from the FBI?

    Since the Legal Process is a mystery to most people and there is no handy "appeals" form to fill out form your CPL that I know of, this option is expensive and beyond the means of many people. Simpler to go someplace else that is more friendly. Having options is almost always better than not having options. That is the case here: getting more options.

    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    People should not have to go to any other county nor come to any web site, such as MGO, to determine the best county to apply in.
    As I said before, I'm sure their CPL Instructor will also be glad to give them tips.
    Last edited by TheQ; 10-31-2011 at 11:39 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.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I love the idea that people will get a CPL (or perhaps an LTP?) when otherwise it would be difficult. On the other hand, it ierks me to know end, that we have all this accountability, and the prosecutors have no problem with, or enjoy, holding our feet to the fire, while the .gov gets, well, immunity. Take preemption for example.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I love the idea that people will get a CPL ... when otherwise it would be difficult.

    That's the key we need to focus on, it gives people choices that may make getting their CPL a process that involves less wait and hassle. Should the gun boards (every one of them) do what they ought to? ABSOLUTELY! Short of filing a lawsuit, is there any way to make them? NO

    Giving individuals options where none currently exist is a good start.
    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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Im with you. Having a CPL can mean the difference between living and dying.

  15. #15
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    How is anyone to know when the 45 days are up? How are they to know when the Gun Board received the information from the FBI?

    Since the Legal Process is a mystery to most people and there is no handy "appeals" form to fill out form your CPL that I know of, this option is expensive and beyond the means of many people. Simpler to go someplace else that is more friendly. Having options is almost always better than not having options. That is the case here: getting more options.


    As I said before, I'm sure their CPL Instructor will also be glad to give them tips.
    Yes, we know how this goes. Just think of all the fine examples of CPL Instructors giving information out about Open Carry (notwithstanding all the other nonsense we have heard about over time).

    /sarcasm off

    You want to reform the CPL Laws? Fine and Dandy! This bill is not it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    You want to reform the CPL Laws? Fine and Dandy! This bill is not it.

    I'd put forth it's a good start.

    Have any other ideas? Ones that will pass (this excludes laws that impose criminal sanctions or fines on government officials, sadly).
    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.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    If MOC is going to speak, then that point about being afraid to even ask for a law that holds the .gov accountable, should be brought up.

    If there can be mandatory reporting programs, then there should be mandatory prosecution written into any new law for .gov that will not comply.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 10-31-2011 at 11:50 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    ...so what to offer? Make it a Felony for every member of the Gun Board who fails to act or wrongfully votes "no"?

    I'm sure lots of people will want to serve on Gun Boards then.... (or the positions that are mandated to be on the board)

    Move the whole process to the SoS?

    1. The current SoS doesn't like this idea. If the SoS doesn't support such a move, the bill is dead on arrival.
    2. What happens when you get a bad/unfriendly SoS? Then rather than having 83 different boards (some who don't like guns, others who support 2A) decide things (by the way, the applicant can pick which board they want to use!) you have one all powerful queen who will deny everyone?



    3. Leave the system as it is now?
    With places like WaCo, Macomb, and Kent that abuse people as they see fit? Don't like it? Sue us! hahaha!


    What is the solution?
    Last edited by TheQ; 11-01-2011 at 12:18 AM.
    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.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Felony, no. A civil infraction perhaps, or a fine for the board, or a school district, or library, authority, what have you.

    I dont have all the answers, but we certainly know the problems.

  20. #20
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Felony, no. A civil infraction perhaps, or a fine for the board, or a school district, or library, authority, what have you.
    A fine to the gun board?

    Go ahead, it's not their money. They don't care. Take money away from the board and they'll take even more time to process CPLs (less resources, slower speed).



    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I dont have all the answers, but we certainly know the problems.
    Sounds like you have something in common with the Occupy Wallstreet Group. They can tell you all about the problems but don't have a clue what they want to change.

    The substituted bill is the best we've seen so far.
    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.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    A fine to the gun board?

    Go ahead, it's not their money. They don't care. Take money away from the board and they'll take even more time to process CPLs (less resources, slower speed).





    Sounds like you have something in common with the Occupy Wallstreet Group. They can tell you all about the problems but don't have a clue what they want to change.

    The substituted bill is the best we've seen so far.
    Ok so a fine for the board isnt the best idea, so thats one idea, now we should explore another.

    As far as the Wallstreet comparison, I wasnt talking about myself here, but us as a whole. We know the problems, therefore its incumbent on us to try to come up with the solutions. Who else is going to tackle this?

  22. #22
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    I'd put forth it's a good start.

    Have any other ideas? Ones that will pass (this excludes laws that impose criminal sanctions or fines on government officials, sadly).
    The problem is that this bill is a band-aid approach allows Legislators to say they addressed the issue without truly addressing it. We both want reform, I am just not willing to support "half-measures".

    I like the idea of the following (completely DRAFT):

    A. Centralized CPL Processing (Possibly a State Gun Board, Minimally Staffed to handle certain "Manual Checks" and Exceptions/Denials/Revocations/Appeals).

    B. Online System to provide CPL Application Processing via a Web Browser. A person logs in just like they do for E-License for Hunting/Fishing Licenses and inputs the necessary information (http://www.mdnr-elicense.com/Welcome/Default.aspx). A Person's Picture and Residency Data should be able to be obtained via an Interface to SoS Systems. A Person's Conviction Records should be able to be obtained via an Interface to MI LEIN Systems. The only item that would need to be provided by a county would be the Fingerprint/Handprint Records for New Applicants as Renewals would already be in the system (although the requirement for Fingerprint/Handprint Records could be dropped, but unlikely to happen). The only other items that I can think of that may require "manual intervention" by a "Gun Board" would be the Medical/Mental Health Records Check and the Local Police Department Information Check. The person would still need to send in a copy of their CPL Training Certificate (although CPL Instructors could be made to enter this information online as well).

    C. Online CPL System that can send updates to email address or phone, asking the person to login to check CPL Processing Status. Interfaces with SoS and LEIN Systems can provide denials due to these checks within a day (along with a CPL Class Certification Check if CPL Instructors entered information online). Other updates would be provided as items to be checked are completed. Once approved, an update would be provided with an estimated CPL arrival date.

    D. Standardized CPL Licenses the same shape/size/materials as the MI Driver's License.

    E. Persons would only appear before the Gun Board for cases of Exceptions/Denials/Revocations/Appeals.

    I am completely open to suggestions on the above, by no means have I spent much time on it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    The answer, obviously, is Constitutional Carry.

    1. We aren't there yet.
    2. We'd still like to have a CPL process for reciprocity. So the CPL system still needs to be fixed. The proposed bill seems the best suggestion to-date.
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    This new board would be appointed by and controlled by? A governor? (who could be anti-gun) more new "dark lords/queens"...

    Options are good
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    The answer, obviously, is Constitutional Carry.

    1. We aren't there yet.
    2. We'd still like to have a CPL process for reciprocity. So the CPL system still needs to be fixed. The proposed bill seems the best suggestion to-date.
    +1 for the Bolded Part Above.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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