SB 59 passes the Senate with cost to Open Carriers :(

[detroit_fan]

If this is passed, and you take the class for PFZ exemptions, how much does it cost to get a new CPL with the exemption box checked? I thought I read somewhere $20, but I'm having trouble finding it now.

 

[TheQ]

If this is passed, and you take the class for PFZ exemptions, how much does it cost to get a new CPL with the exemption box checked? I thought I read somewhere $20, but I'm having trouble finding it now.

$20 is what I read. Happy reading

 

[Raggs]

So more money, 1st the new class, 2nd the ammo for the class and finally only 20 for the new license with the box checked, a bargain! not.

 

[detroit_fan]

$20 is what I read. Happy reading

reading the bill now, i feel like i'm trying to translate hieroglyphics. i did stumble upon this that really sucks-

(h) The names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of

2 individuals who are references for the applicant. References

under this subdivision shall not be related to the applicant or be

members of the same household as the applicant.


I don't see why we need references at all, and many do not want people other than family members knowing they have a CPL. Wonder why they changed it so relatives could not be references?

 

[detroit_fan]

Found it

no fee if you get the exemption when you are getting your first CPL or renewing, but a $20 fee if you are "upgrading" your current CPL before renewal-

(19) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption from section 5o at the time the individual applies for an original or renewal license under this section shall not be required to pay any additional fee. An individual who holds a valid license and who applies for an exemption from section 5o at a time other than at the time the individual applies for an original or renewal license under this section may be required to pay a fee of not more than $20.00 for both receiving and processing the application for the exemption and the issuance of a replacement license.

 

[Raggs]

To make it harder to get one?

reading the bill now, i feel like i'm trying to translate hieroglyphics. i did stumble upon this that really sucks-

(h) The names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of

2 individuals who are references for the applicant. References

under this subdivision shall not be related to the applicant or be

members of the same household as the applicant.


I don't see why we need references at all, and many do not want people other than family members knowing they have a CPL. Wonder why they changed it so relatives could not be references?

 

[kubel]

I believe this conversation has reached the point of no return.

The point of no return, or the return of no point?

 

[lapeer20m]

For once we disagree. I can't take a neutral stance here. As much as I hate to see people be incompetent, better it is to be that than to be forcibly disarmed.

No matter what arguments are made here, the fact remains that if this passes it will be removing from everyone a right, and be replacing it with a privilege, and to see people who have argued against past legislation for the exact same reason supporting this bill has me dismayed.

This compromise is simply not acceptable.

+1

Supporting this bill is "selling out"

Supporting a bill that requires more useless "training," more money, more time, and more wasted energy in order to exercise an "unalienable right" that the government is not allowed to infringe upon in the first place is unacceptable to me.

 

[kubel]

PMlapeer20m,

I understood it the same exact way as you, and wasn't very happy. But my thanks go to Big Gay Al for helping to clarify this for me. For everyone's benefits, I copied and pasted from one of the other threads that were locked:

The thing is, in order to OC in the places mentioned, you have to have a CPL in any event. So it's still not a right, since you can't OC in a PFZ without a CPL. All that's going on is the privilege is being changed from being allowed to OC, to being allowed to CC, after you take the additional training. Realistically, no rights are being lost, only privileges are being swapped around.

I can no longer argue against this bill from a libertarian perspective, only from an OC perspective- so it stings a little less. My disappointment with MOC aside (along with my fear that supporting this bill will be a step towards putting gun ownership back into the closet), I think this has many benefits for those of us who mostly conceal carry. But I still oppose the bill on the grounds that it's anti-OC.

After I cast my vote back in November, I walked out of a local school open carrying. As I hopped into my car and started driving to work, I actually teared up a little after realizing that I participated in an election with my fellow citizens while open carrying a gun- and no one interfered with my liberty to do so. If this law passes, I won't be so full of joy when I go to vote in the future. Sure, I'll be carrying concealed. But it's hard to be proud of our liberty when our right is something we are forced to hide.

We have Nothing to Hide, remember?

 

[SpringerXDacp]

reading the bill now, i feel like i'm trying to translate hieroglyphics. i did stumble upon this that really sucks-

(h) The names, residential addresses, and telephone numbers of

2 individuals who are references for the applicant. References

under this subdivision shall not be related to the applicant or be

members of the same household as the applicant.


I don't see why we need references at all, and many do not want people other than family members knowing they have a CPL. Wonder why they changed it so relatives could not be references?

Hell, even squid love their young. :lol:

 

[Big Gay Al]

The point of no return, or the return of no point?

Frankly, I don't think there's much of a difference.

 

[kubel]

Is MOC seriously censoring facebook comments under the SB59 posts on their wall? I noticed a few others that were expressing their concerns about SB59 that have also suddenly disappeared. That's rather unfortunate that open discussion is being discouraged and censored by MOC, assuming this isn't just some crazy facebook bug. Does anyone want to comment on that?

 

[Big Gay Al]

Is MOC seriously censoring facebook comments under the SB59 posts on their wall? I noticed a few others that were expressing their concerns about SB59 that have also suddenly disappeared. That's rather unfortunate that open discussion is being discouraged and censored by MOC, assuming this isn't just some crazy facebook bug. Does anyone want to comment on that?

Well, I wouldn't know. I don't go on FB very often. The only reason I could see for censoring any comments would be if they're either profane, or personal attacks. Beyond that, I would like to think that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would assume that, if the bill passes, that some mommy will complain that she saw someone with a gun in one of the zones now OK for permit holder with extra training. Then the legislature removes this provision.

Then what would the bill get you? hmmmm

And I would not think its a matter of if but when.

One has to think ahead ... I have seen this type of behavior before ... the legislature will put in a phrase or provision just to get a bill passed and 3 months later, after its law, change it to remove the provision.

 

[autosurgeon]

I would assume that, if the bill passes, that some mommy will complain that she saw someone with a gun in one of the zones now OK for permit holder with extra training. Then the legislature removes this provision.

Then what would the bill get you? hmmmm

And I would not think its a matter of if but when.

One has to think ahead ... I have seen this type of behavior before ... the legislature will put in a phrase or provision just to get a bill passed and 3 months later, after its law, change it to remove the provision.

Unlikely since many CPL holders already can cc in these zones if they fit the current criteria.

Nice job with the what if scenarios.... we could come up with these till the cows come home.

 

[Xanaseyr]

Q - Some People for many reasons choose not to use MOC's chat. In my case it comes from a conscious choice not to use MicroSoft products. I have found the linux distro I like to have issues with the teamspeak server of MOC.

I actively choose to not use TeamSpeak for largely the same reasons I actively choose to not use Skype. It's been my experience that both are unstable and more resource-intensive than alternatives and neither is helped by license terms.

That said, I'm not disinterested in the issues and would listen to an audio stream or recording of the meeting and participate in discussion on the forums during or afterward.

 

[Raggs]

Is MOC seriously censoring facebook comments under the SB59 posts on their wall? I noticed a few others that were expressing their concerns about SB59 that have also suddenly disappeared. That's rather unfortunate that open discussion is being discouraged and censored by MOC, assuming this isn't just some crazy facebook bug. Does anyone want to comment on that?

I know that posts can be edited or deleted, I would not be shocked if someone at MOC would and has deleted post that go against their decided course.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Position is up for election this summer. Glad to hear you'll be running so I don't win by "default"

Best of luck with your run.

I'd run but I don't think anyone likes me.

 

[autosurgeon]

I know that posts can be edited or deleted, I would not be shocked if someone at MOC would and has deleted post that go against their decided course.

As with many things Personal Attacks will not be tolerated and since people seem to have a problem debating the issue without attacking the person or persons that made the decision..... such posts have been removed.

 

[Raggs]

I'd run but I don't think anyone likes me.

Run to make it entertaining at least.