SB 59: Call YOUR State Senator

[detroit_fan]

He also opposes the bill because it doesn't increase the amount of $$$ the Sheriffs office gets...even though when asked they have no rational answer how the bill increases their cost. They only say the amount they currently get is not enough. They want $60. It's pretty much impossible to get $45 more without increasing the cost of the CPL.

I believe a New Hampshire resident permit costs $10, maybe we should look into how their process works and see if we can come up with something similar that could save money for everyone.

 

[TheQ]

Saving money for everyone, now there's an idea. It's too bad that wouldn't make anti-gun people happy -- making it more economical to get a permit (or no permit at all)

 

[NHCGRPR45]

He also opposes the bill because it doesn't increase the amount of $$$ the Sheriffs office gets...even though when asked they have no rational answer how the bill increases their cost. They only say the amount they currently get is not enough. They want $60. It's pretty much impossible to get $45 more without increasing the cost of the CPL.

And when I suggested that they could charge a small fee for the signature requirement of the form 4 the under sheriff said that they don't charge for something like that. When I lived in LA the sheriff there charged 10 dollars for the sign off. Granted the Baton Rouge sheriff had a stack of form 4's and I doubt the Macomb county sheriff will see that many in his term as sheriff, but when it picks up it could easily make some funds for them.

 

[TheQ]

And when I suggested that they could charge a small fee for the signature requirement of the form 4 the under sheriff said that they don't charge for something like that. When I lived in LA the sheriff there charged 10 dollars for the sign off. Granted the Baton Rouge sheriff had a stack of form 4's and I doubt the Macomb county sheriff will see that many in his term as sheriff, but when it picks up it could easily make some funds for them.

They are prohibited from charging additional fees for anything.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

That I believe applies to the Cpl process, it doesn't say they can't charge for a NFA transfer signature.

 

[michaelm_ski]

Sb 59

Does anyone know the status on the SB 59 ? did they pass it or water it down ? I know I called my rep and told how I felt as a lawfully open carrier and a veteran and he agreed with me that the bill should pass with no other provisions .

 

[TheQ]

The bill's sponsor is regrouping and developing a new strategy.

 

[DrTodd]

The bill's sponsor is regrouping and developing a new strategy.

I know I've mentioned this before, but perhaps by keeping the areas but making the "punishment" so inconsequential that it becomes meaningless is better?? For example, Missouri's law, definitely not perfect by any means, has places "off limits" to concealed carry BUT the only way to be charged is to be asked to leave and subsequently refusing to do so. I am not advocating that the fines and suspensions be the same, but rather that the violation only occurs when refusing to leave when so directed.

Missouri Revised Statutes, 571.107, (2)
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000107.HTM:

Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this
section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to
571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years.

 

[G22]

He also opposes the bill because it doesn't increase the amount of $$$ the Sheriffs office gets...even though when asked they have no rational answer how the bill increases their cost. They only say the amount they currently get is not enough. They want $60. It's pretty much impossible to get $45 more without increasing the cost of the CPL.

Senate Fiscal Analysis explains how this is paid for: (the .pdf is located on the same page as the bill)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...SFA-0059-S.pdf Quote: According to the Michigan Sheriff's Association, each application under the bill would require a minimum of one hour of a sheriff's deputy's time, which has been estimated by the Sheriff's Association to cost between $25 and $45, depending upon the department, an amount that could be well above the $15 provided to them from an application fee under the bill. This cost would be offset by the removal of the requirement that the sheriff's department participate in county concealed weapon licensing boards and review panels. It is also unclear what the financial burden might be on the counties if they were responsible for payments required by successful court actions against licensing decisions made under the bill. Fiscal Analyst: Bruce Baker

 

[DrTodd]

Senate Fiscal Analysis explains how this is paid for: (the .pdf is located on the same page as the bill)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...SFA-0059-S.pdf Quote: According to the Michigan Sheriff's Association, each application under the bill would require a minimum of one hour of a sheriff's deputy's time, which has been estimated by the Sheriff's Association to cost between $25 and $45, depending upon the department, an amount that could be well above the $15 provided to them from an application fee under the bill. This cost would be offset by the removal of the requirement that the sheriff's department participate in county concealed weapon licensing boards and review panels. It is also unclear what the financial burden might be on the counties if they were responsible for payments required by successful court actions against licensing decisions made under the bill. Fiscal Analyst: Bruce Baker

I think the idea that each application under the bill would require a minimum of one hour of a sheriff's deputy's time is a bit far-fetched... unless I'm missing something in the process.