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

[stainless1911]

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?

 

[PDinDetroit]

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.

 

[TheQ]

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.

 

[TheQ]

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

 

[PDinDetroit]

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.

 

[PDinDetroit]

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

So much for Open-Mindedness. :banghead:

It could be provided by the MSP, just one example.

Methinks you have too much invested in this bill...

 

[TheQ]

So much for Open-Mindedness. :banghead:

It could be provided by the MSP, just one example.

Methinks you have too much invested in this bill...

The MSP also report to the Governor..

I think the "this way isn't what I think is the best way therefore I want no improvement" attitude isn't the right one.

The system isn't perfect now and won't be with this bill either. It never will be, it has imperfect people. The system WILL be better with this bill. That's evolution. As long as we can agree the change is positive, we should continue to evolve the system.

One thing's for sure, if the system never changes, it will never evolve.

 

[ElectricianLU58]

I would only want constitutional carry if we also had CPLs.

 

[Venator]

The MSP also report to the Governor..

I think the "this way isn't what I think is the best way therefore I want no improvement" attitude isn't the right one.

The system isn't perfect now and won't be with this bill either. It never will be, it has imperfect people. The system WILL be better with this bill. That's evolution. As long as we can agree the change is positive, we should continue to evolve the system.

One thing's for sure, if the system never changes, it will never evolve.

Oh god don't say evolution!

 

[TheQ]

Oh god don't say evolution!

You said "god"!

 

[Venator]

Personally I like the idea of choice. If residents of a county want to stay with their county they can. If they want to go to a faster, more efficient county they can.

This is competition, it works in the Market place and it should work here. Let's look at Wayne County, as it has the largest population and the worst record for a speedy process. From the 2010 MSP CCW report Wayne Co. received 16.994 applications. Of the $105 fee, $82 goes to the county, with the actual cost being $35. So doing the math that's almost $1.400.000 for that year. That is not a small bit of change regardless of how a sheriff may feel on the CPL law.

I think that a loss of a majority or even a portion of that revenue will have negative impacts on the county. Enough to perhaps put pressure on the county to improve their process to compete with nearby counties that would be more than happy to get a boost in income. Also it shames the county and may cause some action from the residents of the county to pressure the Clerks office to improve their service.

I don't see this as a hindrance to residents of a county that wishes to go to a nearby county to apply. I also see many people who have cottages up north from applying in those counties, during the summer months that they are up there.

While I understand some of the comments of the bill not going far enough, no bill is perfect, but we still have the same recourses in the current law if needed. The problem is that many people are not willing to engage those options.

One process that should be implemented is renewal by mail. This would lessen the impact on the applicant and reduces the lines at the clerks and sheriffs offices. They could also have a low level employee process renewals and relieve some of the duties of the Clerks.

In conclusion I like having the option of deciding where I want to renew or apply.

 

[TheQ]

MGO, MCRGO, and MOC were all present at today's hearing. All supported SB 59 S-2 (not yet published). S-2 contains some technical changes inserted by the MSP, Language that prevents "Gun Board Shopping" (wanted by the MSP), and language that "forces" any county to accept an application from any State Citizen (added at Tall Bear's request).

It was great to see TallBear at the meeting. We both expressed frustration to one another that the bill won't have any "teeth" to "truly force" county officials to act appropriately, but we agreed S-2 was a good step forward.

 

[Haman J.T.]

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.

I WANT CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY NOW! WWAAAAHH! I feel so much better now that I got that off my chest!

 

[Haman J.T.]

personally i like the idea of choice. If residents of a county want to stay with their county they can. If they want to go to a faster, more efficient county they can.

This is competition, it works in the market place and it should work here. Let's look at wayne county, as it has the largest population and the worst record for a speedy process. From the 2010 msp ccw report wayne co. Received 16.994 applications. Of the $105 fee, $82 goes to the county, with the actual cost being $35. So doing the math that's almost $1.400.000 for that year. That is not a small bit of change regardless of how a sheriff may feel on the cpl law.

I think that a loss of a majority or even a portion of that revenue will have negative impacts on the county. Enough to perhaps put pressure on the county to improve their process to compete with nearby counties that would be more than happy to get a boost in income. Also it shames the county and may cause some action from the residents of the county to pressure the clerks office to improve their service.

I don't see this as a hindrance to residents of a county that wishes to go to a nearby county to apply. I also see many people who have cottages up north from applying in those counties, during the summer months that they are up there.

While i understand some of the comments of the bill not going far enough, no bill is perfect, but we still have the same recourses in the current law if needed. The problem is that many people are not willing to engage those options.

One process that should be implemented is renewal by mail. This would lessen the impact on the applicant and reduces the lines at the clerks and sheriffs offices. They could also have a low level employee process renewals and relieve some of the duties of the clerks.

In conclusion i like having the option of deciding where i want to renew or apply.

ditto man!

 

[detroit_fan]

1. The current SoS doesn't like this idea. If the SoS doesn't support such a move, the bill is dead on arrival.

Has there been a reason stated for her opposition? I was under the impression that Ruth Johnson voted mostly pro-2A while serving as State Rep.

 

[TheQ]

Has there been a reason stated for her opposition? I was under the impression that Ruth Johnson voted mostly pro-2A while serving as State Rep.

Mostly staffing level and logistic related concerns, I understand.

 

[TheQ]

This communication is from rmitchell@senate.michigan.gov. Please reply as appropriate.

Dear Friend,

Previously, you may written State Senator Mike Green’s office regarding firearms issues in Michigan. As you may know, Senator Green has sponsored fundamental reforms of the concealed pistol license (CPL) system in Michigan.

While certainly the “shall issue” law in effect since 2001 has made CPLs more accessible to law-abiding individuals, many letters, phone calls and emails to our office indicate that the CPL law is not being applied in a fair, consistent and uniform manner across the state. Problems include excessive delays, unnecessary gun board appearances by qualified applicants, extra mandated costs or fees, additional local training and eligibility requirements, and unpleasant treatment during board interviews.

If you have applied for or obtained a Michigan CPL, we are interested in hearing about your experiences – good and bad – in the application process and with your county gun board. You may remain anonymous if you wish.

Please feel free to email your story or send it to my attention at P.O. Box 30036, Lansing, MI 48909, at your earliest convenience. Thank you!

Ryan D. Mitchell
Communications Director
Office of State Senator Mike Green
517 373 1777

 

[DrTodd]

Something that my be worth considering is a receipt for the submission of a completed application which, if the board does not issue a CPL or deny a CPL within so many days becomes, with a Michigan driver's license, a temporary CPL until such time as the CPL is issued or denied. This would be much like the renewal. I think this would incentivize the issuance or denial in a proper time-frame. The time constraint would force them to approve or deny as quickly as possible; the counties do not want unqualified people carrying because they decided to hold time-consuming visits to the cpl board or decided that 1 board meeting a month is adequate. In a nutshell, apply the provisions of a renewal to the initial issuance. Then, no fines needed, no SOS needed, etc. As an example in one of the most egregious counties, I put my application in to Kent County on May 3, my cpl expired July 12, and I got the renewal CPL on September 9. I was still able to carry during the process because I had completed an application at least 60 days prior to expiration and this receipt was valid as a CPL for 180 days.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Something that my be worth considering is a receipt for the submission of a completed application which, if the board does not issue a CPL or deny a CPL within so many days becomes, with a Michigan driver's license, a temporary CPL until such time as the CPL is issued or denied. This would be much like the renewal. I think this would incentivize the issuance or denial in a proper time-frame. The time constraint would force them to approve or deny as quickly as possible; the counties do not want unqualified people carrying because they decided to hold time-consuming visits to the cpl board or decided that 1 board meeting a month is adequate. In a nutshell, apply the provisions of a renewal to the initial issuance. Then, no fines needed, no SOS needed, etc. As an example in one of the most egregious counties, I put my application in to Kent County on May 3, my cpl expired July 12, and I got the renewal CPL on September 9. I was still able to carry during the process because I had completed an application at least 60 days prior to expiration and this receipt was valid as a CPL for 180 days.

Now, that is a good idea to help bring some accountability into the equation.

 

[TheQ]

Major changes to the bill aren't likely at this point. The best shot to change it next will be when it hits the full floor. If you know someone in the majority, ask them to introduce an amendment then.

ETA: anything other than changing grammar is a major change.