SB 59 clears MI Senate Judiciary Committee....


PDA






ezkl2230
March 22, 2012, 02:33 PM
The committee voted 5 to 1 to send the legislation, which will provide for concealed carry in pistol free zones (among other things), to the full Senate for a vote.

Under the legislation, permit holders would be allowed to carry guns in the so-called “pistol-free zones” if they undergo an extra nine hours of training beyond the current eight.
They also would have to fire an extra 94 rounds at the range beyond the 98 the legislation requires for a basic permit. Just 30 rounds are required now.

The committee voted 5 to 1 to approve the bill, which will now go to the full senate for a vote. I have been in regular contact with the office of Sen. Green, the author of the bill, and other legislators as well regarding this and other relevant legislation. Now that it has passed the committee, each of us needs to take the time to contact our Michigan State Senators to encourage them to vote for this bill. It is believed that we have the votes to pass it, but now is not the time to assume too much. Take a moment and let your Senator know that you expect them to support this legislation.

Gun on his hip, state Sen. Arlan Meekhof demonstrates his support for allowing concealed handguns in schools and other public places | MLive.com (http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/gun_on_his_hip_state_sen_arlan.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "SB 59 clears MI Senate Judiciary Committee...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
smalls
March 22, 2012, 04:22 PM
What type of class are they requiring for the extra 9 hours? Kind of ridiculous, but a small price to pay, I guess.

ezkl2230
March 22, 2012, 09:26 PM
What type of class are they requiring for the extra 9 hours? Kind of ridiculous, but a small price to pay, I guess.
They haven't said yet. Actually, I have been in regular communication with Sen. Green's office about this matter, and sent him the following letter:

I have contacted your offices several times regarding our Second Amendment right to carry firearms with reference to businesses and places of public accommodation, both for employees and customers/clients. While the recent federal ruling does not specifically address this issue, the judge's opinion includes statements that have direct bearing on it.

First, that this is a civil rights issue. To allow a business or place of public accommodation to prohibit the carry of firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is discrimination. The judge ruled that we do not need to provide justification for carry; "…the right's existence is all the reason [he] needs." Laws that permit such limitations "…impermissibly infringe[s] the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Second, that "…self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be." That right does not stop at the entrance of a business or place of public accommodation, and, as is true of the civil rights of religion, speech, due process, etc., cannot be abridged by anyone. The one exception that has survived legal challenges is the ability to openly practice these rights in a place of employment. Laws allow employers to limit open display of religious/political symbols or personal items such as jewelry in certain circumstances, but they cannot enact complete prohibition of these rights; the argument can therefore be made that such latitude would apply to employers with regard to open carry of a firearm by an employee, but, similarly, that it does not give them the latitude to completely prohibit the right to concealed carry.

This ruling, as it applies to this issue, provides for consistency and predictability with regard to our civil/legal right to carry firearms; our current system, under which any business and most places of public accommodation can arbitrarily impose their own limitations on the right to carry, has created a hodge-podge of gun-free zones that makes it nearly impossible for conscientious carriers to exercise their right.

As a final thought, I would suggest that, since the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution make no distinction between concealed and open carry, the judge's decision also applies to the need to apply for a CPL, as, to use the judge's reasoning, this amounts to a "rationing system" that requires a citizen "…to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights." The elimination of the CPL system therefore not only makes sense for Constitutional reasons, but for financial reasons as well, as this would do away with the costs associated with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of what is, in the light of this decision, arguably an unconstitutional system.

Sincerely,

smalls
March 23, 2012, 03:41 PM
Another curiosity I have is if will be just like getting a new CPL. By which I mean take the class, send paperwork in (along with whatever ridiculous fee they're going to charge), meet with the gun board again, etc. All just so they can mark an "X" where it says "Exempt from pistol free zones".
As I wrote that out it sounded absolutely stupid. My original CPL costs and time were absurd as it is.

2WheelsGood
March 23, 2012, 04:04 PM
Another curiosity I have is if will be just like getting a new CPL. By which I mean take the class, send paperwork in (along with whatever ridiculous fee they're going to charge), meet with the gun board again, etc.

You should actually read the article posted above. Especially the part about eliminating the gun boards.

smalls
March 23, 2012, 04:53 PM
Wow. Major brain fart. I saw it, and just thought it was an underlined sentence.

I guess my question is still this: if I'm a current CPL holder, and decide to take the 9 extra hours of class, will I have to go through the whole CPL process to have that X marked?

Does anyone have a link to the bill? I'm guessing that'll have the answers to my questions.

ezkl2230
March 23, 2012, 06:03 PM
Wow. Major brain fart. I saw it, and just thought it was an underlined sentence.

I guess my question is still this: if I'm a current CPL holder, and decide to take the 9 extra hours of class, will I have to go through the whole CPL process to have that X marked?

Does anyone have a link to the bill? I'm guessing that'll have the answers to my questions.
Here is a link to the actual bill, as well as applicable summaries:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3kow5g5545t1tj55kxkewu55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-SB-0059

As I said, I have been frequent (OK, so I said, "regular" the first time - that was an understatement) communication with Sen. Green's office. I sent his office the following letter essentially asking the same question:

If this passes, CPL applicants will be able "to designate…..whether he or she seeks an exemption from the prohibition against carrying a concealed pistol on the premises described in section 5o."

Will those of us who already possess a CPL have to wait until we renew to make this designation, will a mechanism to add this exemption to a current CPL be available, or will current holders be grandfathered into the exemption? Perhaps a better question would be this: why should a CPL holder have to seek such a designation in the first place? Since CPL holders are already held to a higher standard, why is this exemption simply not included in the license to carry concealed in the first place? This makes very little sense to me.

This is the response I received:

A provision is already built into our proposal to allow you as a currently licensee to go in and apply for an exemption at a cost not to exceed 10 dollars to cover the replacement card.

we originally proposed an outright repeal of the no concealed carry zones. That's what my boss would perfer but it has no chance in hell of passing for the next several years.

we feel that the proposal offers a reasonable option and avenue for all qualified michigan citizens to get an exemption to the zones, while also contributing to the age old concept of a well regulated, meaning trained, militia.

It would appear from this response that, if you already possess a CPL, you will not be required at this time to take the additional 9 hours and fire the additional rounds prior to obtaining an updated license; these remarks would seem to indicate that this requirement will only apply to NEW CPL applicants. But I have contacted Sen. Green's office to clarify that question. I am also continuing to push legislators to consider the ramifications of the recent federal court ruling declaring Maryland's CCW law unconstitutional. There is still a chance that this could all be rendered moot.

creitzel
March 23, 2012, 08:31 PM
Thanks for posting this. Email sent to my senator. :)

smalls
March 24, 2012, 12:59 AM
His response makes me feel a lot better, haha. Thanks!

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 24, 2012, 01:37 AM
I am also continuing to push legislators to consider the ramifications of the recent federal court ruling declaring Maryland's CCW law unconstitutional.

Maryland...am I missing something here?

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 24, 2012, 01:40 AM
I like this a lot...but c'mon SBR/SBS!! That's the last step. MI has made a ton of progress though. Machine guns, shall issue, supressors, and now maybe getting rid of school/theater/bar/etc bans. All great steps. And honestly this one will have the most impact on everyday life for gun owners.

But I really want a 7.5" AR...

2WheelsGood
March 24, 2012, 09:33 AM
And honestly this one will have the most impact on everyday life for gun owners.

Though it won't change your life much in Ann Arbor. Even if the law is changed, it won't affect U-M property, which is half of Ann Arbor.

ezkl2230
March 24, 2012, 05:53 PM
Though it won't change your life much in Ann Arbor. Even if the law is changed, it won't affect U-M property, which is half of Ann Arbor.
Actually, it will. There are exemptions built into the federal gun free school zones act that allow for carry on school properties for CPL holders whose home states require background checks as a condition of being licensed. We just went through this in Michigan, and it was determined that a CPL holder cannot be prohibited from carrying on school property.

ezkl2230
March 24, 2012, 05:56 PM
Maryland...am I missing something here?
"In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment's protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and 'self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,' [Judge] Legg wrote...'A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,' Legg wrote. 'The right's existence is all the reason he needs.'"

http://www.guns.com/federal-judge-maryland-concealed-carry-unconstitutional-why-it-matters.html

ezkl2230
March 24, 2012, 06:03 PM
Followup regarding the class required to apply for an exemption from carry free zones in Michigan if SB 59 is finally passed:

"It's still a requirement applying to current licensees, but past training you've taken could qualify. We'll likely reduce the number of hours etc when this gets to the floor.

We tried grandfathering folks in but it went nowhere.

We'd easily support CC...outright repeal of zones...you name it, but all the philosophical pontificating means nothing unless the legislature or the courts take action. And the legislature won't act on my boss's original proposals.

The approach we're taking is a means to an end...pushing the debate more in favor gun owners in a way the anti's can't win the debate.

What we envision is CC with your training card as your license."

Since many legislators are dragging their feet, I am looking into beginning an initiative to get the complete elimination of CPL and carry free zones onto a ballot. Greater access to CPLs was achieved this way in Michigan in 2001; THAT passed by a 3 to 1 margin. I believe we can accomplish the complete elimination of the CPL AND carry free zones this way as well.

2WheelsGood
March 24, 2012, 07:01 PM
Actually, it will. There are exemptions built into the federal gun free school zones act that allow for carry on school properties for CPL holders whose home states require background checks as a condition of being licensed. We just went through this in Michigan, and it was determined that a CPL holder cannot be prohibited from carrying on school property.

Nope. Study up on U-M and MSU. They make their own laws.

ezkl2230
March 24, 2012, 07:25 PM
Nope. Study up on U-M and MSU. They make their own laws.
I'll have to check with the senator's office and see where they stand on this.

Unistat
March 24, 2012, 08:40 PM
Nope. Study up on U-M and MSU. They make their own laws.

Wayne State too.

Owen Sparks
March 25, 2012, 11:07 AM
My state has a version of this called the "Enhanced permit" which allows carry in a few previously forbidden places like bars, banks and court houses and it also extends reciprocity to a number of other states that require training. A buddy recently took the allday 8 hour course (he is a former IDPA state champ) and he learned a lot of really important things that he did not know like the difference between a semi-auto and a revolver.

ezkl2230
March 25, 2012, 04:23 PM
Yeah -- covering these MI universities will require a separate bill.

2WheelsGood
March 25, 2012, 05:27 PM
Yeah -- covering these MI universities will require a separate bill.

Which absolutely should happen. These are public schools paid for by public funds. They shouldn't be able to make their own laws.

ezkl2230
March 26, 2012, 08:32 AM
Which absolutely should happen. These are public schools paid for by public funds. They shouldn't be able to make their own laws.

Agreed. Unfortunately, the Michigan Constitution gives them special status. Other states have passed the necessary legislation to allow carry on university campuses, so Michigan should be able to accomplish this as well.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 26, 2012, 01:18 PM
Anyone know exactly why the MI constitution gives 3 schools the ability to make their own laws? That seems like an odd thing to put in an actual constitution. I can see a bill or a special law passed by the legislature that might do that, but a constitution is a foundation document for the entire government. Special laws for three particular colleges seems pretty out of place.

2WheelsGood
March 26, 2012, 03:24 PM
Anyone know exactly why the MI constitution gives 3 schools the ability to make their own laws? That seems like an odd thing to put in an actual constitution.

From handgunlaw.us: "MSU, UM and WSU have special status in the MI Constitution and elect their Board of Regents. Since they
are elected the state preemption law does not apply to Michigan State University, University of Michigan
and Wayne State University. They can pass Ordinances that ban the carry of firearms anywhere on their
campus."

Unistat
March 26, 2012, 07:42 PM
From handgunlaw.us: "MSU, UM and WSU have special status in the MI Constitution and elect their Board of Regents. Since they
are elected the state preemption law does not apply to Michigan State University, University of Michigan
and Wayne State University. They can pass Ordinances that ban the carry of firearms anywhere on their
campus."
For which U of M and Wayne State do. MSU just has the classroom and dorm room PFZ like other colleges and universities in Michigan.

mac66
March 27, 2012, 01:19 PM
ezkl2230,

Thank you for your work on this. It would be really nice if we could get the CPL process out of the hands of the police, counties etc put it into the SOS's hand. Have it as simply an endorsement on our driver's license or state ID. Take a class, take the test, get the endorsement, like a motorcycle endorsement. Renew it when you renew your DL. System is already in place for documentation, IDs etc instead of the convoluted and costly system used currently. Eventually just have it as an endorsement without the expense and BS of the class and other hoops to jump through. Then just eliminate it all together. I shouldn't have to ask permission to exercise by constitutional rights.

supham
March 27, 2012, 01:38 PM
I would like to remove the PFZ restrictions. A few friends of mine have obtained their PI licence just to remove it.

JustSomeDude
March 27, 2012, 02:54 PM
ezkl2230,

Thank you for your work on this. It would be really nice if we could get the CPL process out of the hands of the police, counties etc put it into the SOS's hand. Have it as simply an endorsement on our driver's license or state ID. Take a class, take the test, get the endorsement, like a motorcycle endorsement. Renew it when you renew your DL. System is already in place for documentation, IDs etc instead of the convoluted and costly system used currently. Eventually just have it as an endorsement without the expense and BS of the class and other hoops to jump through. Then just eliminate it all together. I shouldn't have to ask permission to exercise by constitutional rights.
My only issue with this idea is that I want to be able to control who knows I have a CCW license, particularly employers. My current employer knows I have it, but I don't think I want future employers to know.

smalls
March 27, 2012, 04:34 PM
JustSomeDude, I was thinking the same thing. If we need a license to carry, I like seperating it from my DL.
Supham, I never even thought of that. If this doesn't pass, I may look into that.

2WheelsGood
March 27, 2012, 09:14 PM
Supham, I never even thought of that. If this doesn't pass, I may look into that.

It's not that easy to get a PI license in Michigan.

If you enjoyed reading about "SB 59 clears MI Senate Judiciary Committee...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!