• 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.

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

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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:

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.

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:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
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.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
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:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
...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?

[video=youtube;CX3px_Ivs44#t=2m0s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX3px_Ivs44#t=2m0s[/video]

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:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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).



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.
 
Top