SB 59 clears MI Senate Judiciary Committee....

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.

Click to expand...

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

smalls said:

What type of class are they requiring for the extra 9 hours? Kind of ridiculous, but a small price to pay, I guess.

Click to expand...

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 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,

Click to expand...

smalls said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here is a link to the actual bill, as well as applicable summaries:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3k...g.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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

2WheelsGood said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Maryland...am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

"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

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."

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

I'll have to check with the senator's office and see where they stand on this.

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

Click to expand...

.

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.