CPL changes passed Michigan Senate (SB59)

There was a lot of talk about reforming some of Michigan's gun laws. Snyder (and Michigan State Police) was behind the scenes pushing back against a lot of it. He's not a real friend of gun owners, although he's not Gretchen Whitmer or Joe Schwarz on this issue either from what I hear.  Probably similar to Granholm or Engler who won't oppose it if it is politically expedient. Granholm was awful as AG on this issue (tied too much with Duggan), not bad on this issue as governor (thanks to Cherry), and now back to her AG views with her talk show (ie Stand your ground comments after she signed a similar bill in MI). I was hoping to get rid of registration/licensing completely. That didn't happen.

I was hoping this would go further than it did. It's still much more good than bad. The two bads are the OC loophole in CEZ's by CPL holders is officially closed, and hearing notices are now first class mail instead of certified. The rest are improvements, including exemptions for "special" CPLS (rather repeal completely), and sheriffs doing all the gun board work (rather be gone completely, but it's better). This reminds me a bit of the original CPL bill. Some good steps, but it isn't perfect.

A compromise bill, SB 59, passed the Michigan Senate that did I think more good than bad. Mlive gives a brief run down. 

LANSING, MI - County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated and sheriffs would take over their duties under a bill approved Thursday by the Michigan Senate.
The legislation – passed 27-11 in the Republican-led chamber – next goes to the Republican-led House for its consideration in the final weeks of the 2011-12 legislative session.
Some of the changes contained in the proposal, according to an analysis provided by Republicans:
• Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
• County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated, and county sheriffs would assume their duties. County clerks and state police would continue to have roles in the process. Sheriffs would continue to consult with prosecutors and police on applicants.
• A license decision would have to be made within 45 days of application – one of the provisions aimed at streamlining the permit process.

Some of it I like. Some of it I wish goes further. I like the boards being eliminated period with the police out out of the equation completely (sorry Murph), but I'd much rather have the sheriffs there than the prosecutors and especially MSP. MSP out of the equation is a huge win and reduces gamesmanship. They are no friends of freedom.

One of the best aspects of this bill is that an applicant may no longer be required to meet with the sheriff's rep (formerly board) unless the sheriff's dept believes the applicant may not be qualified for a CPL. That's eliminates a major inconvenience in some counties. 

The bill prohibited licensing authorities from requiring other documents (Doctor's notes were a problem in Kent County) and extra fees outside what is legislated.

Stalling by counties on fingerprints does not affect the 45 day window for temporary licenses.

An exemption is required allowing CPL holders to carry in some CEZ's (criminal empowerment zones). Exemption requests that are denied can be appealed.

The training now requires firing at least 98 rounds of ammo, not 30.

The new exemption covers this:

k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption

from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is

eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual

requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or

more of the following apply:

     (i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial

or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who

provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual

has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the

training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all

of the following conditions:

     (A) It includes both classroom and range time.

     (B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94

rounds.

     (C) It focuses on the training principles described in section

5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in

subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).

     (D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national

or state firearms training organization.

     (E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms

instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms

training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide

training under section 5b(7)(c).

     (F) The training is completed not more than 5 years

immediately preceding the date of application for an original or

renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.

     (ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by

this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training

under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the

individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if

the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor

issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

     (6) The licensing authority may delegate the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under subsection

(5)(k) to the clerk of the licensing authority for current

licensees only.

     (7) The licensing authority or the clerk under subsection (6),

as applicable, shall within 10 days after receiving an application

for an exemption, either issue or deny issuance of the exemption

and send by first-class mail in a sealed envelope a replacement

license to the applicant with the exemption indorsement or, if the

exemption is denied, a notice of denial. If the exemption is

denied, the notice of denial shall specifically state the statutory

authority for the denial. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the

licensing authority or the clerk, as applicable, from making a

determination regarding the exemption at the time the application

is submitted and immediately either issuing a replacement license

to the applicant that contains the exemption indorsement or denying

the exemption and immediately providing the written notice of the

denial, including the statement of the statutory authority for the

denial, to the applicant.

     (8) If the licensing authority delegates the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under section 5o to

the clerk of the licensing authority, the entire fee paid for the

exemption and the replacement license shall be deposited in the

concealed pistol licensing fund and credited to the account

established for the clerk of the licensing authority.

     (9) If the applicant is licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol at the time he or she is granted an exemption

under section 5o, the applicant shall surrender his or her license

to the licensing authority by mail or in person immediately upon

receiving his or her replacement license containing the exemption

indorsement.

     (10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section

12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol

on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the

individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is

employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control

over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of

the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is

otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the

individual is acting with the express written consent of the ownerof the premises or an agent of the owner of the premis

Why does this always have to be so convoluted? I need to give Mike Green's office a call and see what is defined as a "state or national firearms training organization." At first glance, my gut tells me likely NRA, as they are the usual standard, but I'd like to rely on more than that. What is going to piss off some people is the subtle open carry ban by cpl holders in those CEZ's. Depending on some technicalities, one is possibly allowed to open carry in some cez's if that individual is a cpl holder. This is no longer the case without the exemption. Violations of carrying in criminal empowerment zones are the same. Civil infraction and CPL suspension for 1st offense. Misdeamenor and revoke for 2nd offense. Felony for 3rd offense and CPL revoked.

I don't like at all the certified mail being replaced by first class mail for hearing notices. I don't trust first class mail very much unless it's certified.

There's added projection for the "village idiot" clause. If there is "clear and present" danger, an applicant or CPL holder is a danger to the public, the applicant is entitled to legal council at the hearing to help make sure this actually is the case and not gamesmanship.

Interestingly, the Michigan Senate on guns is probably more partisan now than ever. Part of that is probably 2010 election results by location.

Roll Call No. 791 Yeas—27

Booher Green Kowall Proos
Brandenburg Hansen Marleau Richardville
Casperson Hildenbrand Meekhof Robertson
Caswell Hune Moolenaar Rocca
Colbeck Jansen Nofs Schuitmaker
Emmons Jones Pappageorge Walker
Gleason Kahn Pavlov

Nays—11

Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
Gregory Hunter Warren

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Hansen

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

Anderson's vote surprised me a little. The rest did not. Gleason's the lone dem voting for this bill. Back in the original CPL days, about 1/3 of the dems supported it and 1/4 of the republicans opposed. Now no republicans opposed it, and only one dem supported it. It'll be interesting to see what the house does.  

 

House passes national reciprocity

HR 822 passed the house and will be going on its way to the Senate.

From Thomas

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

`(b) The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

`(c) In subsection (a), the term `identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. GAO AUDIT OF THE STATES' CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT OR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-RESIDENTS.

(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) the number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) the effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.

(b) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).

There were several votes on this, including amendments. Nine amendments. All of them failed, as did the "motion to recommit"

The Final Bill passed 272-154 with 7 not voting. This was a mostly party line vote. 43 Democrats voted yes and 7 Republicans voted no. The Republican no votes were Justin Amash, Robert Dold, Michael Grimm, Peter King, Dan Lungren, Bob Turner, and Rob Woodall. Interesting, three of the no votes were from metro New York City.

Among the Michigan Delegation on the final Bill
Yes - Huizenga, Camp, Rogers, McCotter, Benishek, Upton, Walberg, Huizenga, Miller, Dingell
No - Amash, Peters, Levin, Clarke, Conyers,

Not good, Amash. Not good at all.

Roll Call has the amendments listed

Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), to protect the right of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place to continue enforcing those pre-existing agreements. Failed 140-280

. 14 Republicans supported, 63 dems opposed.
Michigan Delegation's yes votes voted no and vice versa.

Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), to specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill. Failed 147-274.

That effectively kills the bill. 4 Republicans voted yes. 43 Democrats voted no. Republicans voting yes were Amash, Dold, Woodall, and King.

There's a few others amendments in the same mold. The Roll Calls are all here.

The Open Carry debate in Michigan

Barry County has had its share of 2a political battles over the years before CPL's were approved. Now things are heating up again. This is the latest one here. from the Free Press

HASTINGS -- Most of us probably don't know it, but Michigan is among the 44 states where it's legal to carry a gun in public without a permit.

To make that point, about 40 gun advocates walked out of Richie's Koffee Shop Inc. late Thursday afternoon with handguns holstered at their sides, part of a small but growing national movement to stand up for the constitutional right to bear arms. They strolled down this tidy west Michigan town's main street, barely causing a stir among passing motorists and pedestrians.

When they finished, the group -- mostly white men -- gathered around a fountain at the Barry County Courthouse and heard a red-meat, pro-Second Amendment speech by organizer Skip Coryell, 50, who wore his .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun openly for the first time and extolled the virtues of carrying a weapon.

"Look at all the people around you carrying guns and not a criminal in sight," said Coryell, a gun instructor and self-styled publisher who lives near Holland. "Quite frankly, I don't feel criminals would feel comfortable among us right now." He said educating people about their right to carry guns openly is the "next wave of the Second Amendment."

The event, tinged with local gun politics, was the latest statement from gun advocates around the country to promote and defend the open toting of handguns.

Personally, I'm not a fan of open carry. Do I think it should be illegal? No. Do I think it's smart? Depends on the circumstance. Will you see me do it in the middle of Brighton? Not going to happen. The reason I won't do it is that I don't want to draw attention to myself. I don't want to scare people, and have to deal with the police. Open carry is no longer an popular custom in this state.

I can see an originalist argument for the 2nd Amendment allowing OPEN carry (not concealed.) This is based on the old custom of the 1700's and 1800's that it was acceptable for a man to carry his firearm in public. Back then, it was also considered very unacceptable to carry concealed. Law abiding citizens then open carried, and the criminals carried concealed. Today, open carry is much more frowned upon these days, while concealed carry is much more accepted.

Now I'm not 100% sure open carry is legal. That's based on a couple of pro-2a lawyers I know who drilled a few of us against open carry. Sometimed it translates to "Brandishing" (state law) and/or "Disturbing the peace." (usually a city/township ordinance) That goes along with another saying among many gun owners - "Concealed means concealed."

Now I need to wait about a month to get my full Westlaw access back to see any case law history on this, but these are current laws.

It's a midemeanor to brandish a firearm in public. I couldn't find in the two minutes I took to look it what the definition of "brandish" is by statute (outside of being defined as brandishing) The Free Press's Chris Christoff said "defined as waving or pointing menacingly." That's the dictionary definition. I don't know if legalese is the same or not.

FEDERAL LAW defines Brandishing (during a drug offense) as

(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``brandish'' means,
with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or
otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in
order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is
directly visible to that person.

Is open carry "Brandishing?" That depends if it is menacing or intimidating. In this Barry County case, these were activists out to make a point. Cops knew what was going on. They aren't going to arrest them. Too much paperwork, and too much of a headache. Many of them there probably wanted to be an open carry test case. My concern is that some well intentioned but uninformed pro-gun individual now going out and open carrying based on this article. If I open carried out in most parts of this state, I would not be shocked if at some point I would be stopped by the police. Someone unfamiliar with guns, gun laws, and some gun subcultures would be scared and call the cops. Even if you did nothing wrong, you may still be charged with something like brandishing or disturbing the peace, and be shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars to lawyers trying to defend yourself in court - a headache most people want to avoid.

All in all, be very careful with this and be prepared if you want to go through with this.

Why is this controversial?

The Grand Rapids Press had a story about concealed pistols in national parks.

Most of the old rules on guns in national parks and federal lands are due to fears of poaching. Concealed pistol holders aren't poachers. Many are not even hunters. Poaching is already illegal, should be illegal, and if I ever see a poacher, I'm turning him in as they give hunters a bad name.

However, if there is anyplace in Michigan I would want my pistol, it is in these areas in the middle of nowhere. I'd rather be carrying on Isle Royale than I would on Gratiot Avenue in Detroit. I consider myself a fairly tough guy, but I am no match for a bear, a deer in rutting season, a moose, a cougar that supposedly isn't in Michigan or a pack of wolves. I'd rather not go up against coyotes or raccoons and their rabies either. Now, trouble with those critters is rare, mostly because they do not have much contact with humans. That's a good thing as they associate humans with trouble....and not food. However, many critters are losing their fear of humans associating them with food. Many a campsite has been invaded by a hungry black bear wanting to ransack thier garbage, coolers, and food they sense with their noses. Many others do not respect nature and feed them. This leads to familiarity, less fear of people, and more possible trouble down the road. Encounters happen, and preparation is a good thing.

A few years back, I saw two bears when I was deer hunting. I'm glad I was armed. They were a good distance away, about 250 yards or so away. They weren't a major threat, but it was good to be aware of them. I did not have any plans to shoot them, and did not do so. It wasn't bear season, and I was not in imminent danger of being harmed by them. These wern't camp ransackers and had a healthy fear of people. No one was hurt. No property destroyed. No bears were hurt.

Concealed carry does not lead to poaching. It hasn't here in the state, and it won't elsewhere.

Guns in Schools?

If you want to get big media all PO'ed, mention guns and schools in the same sentence. Rep. David Agema introduced HB 5162 which incurred the wrath of the chattering classes everywhere by (gasp!) allowing administrators to allow school employees with current Concealed Pistol Licenses (CPL, often known as CCW) to carry a firearm.

From ABC 12

Guns in the classroom could soon be a reality if one Michigan lawmaker has his way.

Republican State Rep. David Agema from the Grand Rapids area has introduced legislation that would allow teachers and other school administrators to carry a concealed weapon on school grounds.

Agema says he understands this is a controversial piece of legislation. But he says kids need to be kept safe on school grounds.

All schools in Michigan are weapon-free zones. There are no guns allowed for students, teachers or anyone on school grounds.

In recent years there have been a number of deadly school shootings at schools across the country.

At least one Michigan lawmaker says if teachers and administrators were armed or had access to a concealed weapon at school the incidents of school shootings will decline.

The bill allows for a teacher, administrator or other employee of a school to carry a concealed weapon.

I do have a problem with this bill for one reason. It doesn't go far enough.

First, there should not be ANY gun free - or what I call "Criminal Empowerment Zones" unless they are enacted by private owners of their property. The only ones who obey laws creating criminal empowerment zones, are law abiding CPL holders. Criminals and school shooters would carry their guns anyway in places they are not allowed to since they don't follow the law to begin with.

Secondly, why limit this to school employees? Why not all CPL holders? CPL holders are the most law abiding class of folks in the entire country. It's worked in 40 other states. You aren't going to have Columbine repeat due to CPL holders. By keeping CPL holders unarmed, you may however be enabling the next Columbine.