Michigan HB4593

[USAF_Vet]

For those in Michigan, or elsewhere, who want to help veterans, I urge you to contact the sponsors of this bill, and your local representatives in other districts.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Michigan-Gun-Law-HB4593/State-Law/30592

First of all, this is a pro gun bill. If passed, it will exempt veterans from the administrative and filing fees for CPL application in this state. However, the state is using a limited definition of who they consider a Veteran.

According to section 35.61 Uniformity of service dates for veterans; definitions, dates, and terms:

In order to provide for the uniformity of service dates for veterans, the following dates and terms shall be applicable to all acts of the state relative to veterans:

(a) “Veteran” means a person, who served in the active military forces, during a period of war or who received the armed forces expeditionary or other campaign service medal during an emergency condition and who was discharged or released therefrom under honorable conditions. “Veteran” also includes a person who died in active military forces.

(b) “Spanish-American war” means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 4, 1902, includes the Philippine insurrection and the Boxer rebellion, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces engaged in hostilities in the Moro province, means the period beginning on April 21, 1898, and ending on July 15, 1903.

(c) “World War I” means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on November 11, 1918, and in the case of a veteran who served with the United States military forces in Russia, means the period beginning on April 6, 1917, and ending on April 1, 1920.

(d) “World War II” means the period beginning December 7, 1941, and ending December 31, 1946, both dates inclusive.

(e) “Korean conflict” means the period between June 27, 1950, to January 31, 1955.

(f) Civil war and confederate veterans who served between April 12, 1861, and May 26, 1865.

(g) Indian wars. Since the Indian wars were fought intermittently over a period of years, the determination as to whether a person shall be considered as having rendered military service during these wars will be carefully considered by the state veterans' trust fund. January 1, 1817, through December 31, 1898, is considered Indian war period.

(h) Mexican wars. Since there were several skirmishes involving the Mexican border, such as Mexican border troubles 1911-1916; Veracruz expedition April 21, 1914, to November 26, 1914; punitive expedition into Mexico, March 15, 1916, to February 5, 1917; therefore the persons rendering military service in any of these skirmishes shall be considered veterans of the Mexican wars between 1911 and February 5, 1917.

(i) Future dates. The period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the congress or the beginning of an emergency condition recognized by the issuance of a presidential proclamation or a presidential executive order and in which the armed forces expeditionary medal or other campaign service medals are awarded according to presidential executive order and ending on a date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the congress.

(j) Veterans of the Korean conflict and veterans having served after January 31, 1955, in an area of hazardous duty for which an armed forces expeditionary or Vietnam service medal was received or veterans having served in the Vietnam era, which is that period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending on May 7, 1975.

In a nutshell, only veterans of war or police action who received an expeditionary or campaign medal qualify as veterans, for the states purposes.

This definition does not recognize peace time service, or stateside service during time of conflict. Thus, veterans who served during peace, or in a non conflict area, are not eligible for the fee exemption.

I've contacted by e-mail the five sponsors of the bill, and have heard back from two of them so far.

One was obviously a staff member who replied, and I'm assuming the other is as well. Both came from the offices of sponsors, but neither acknowledged they were a sponsor.
From one:

I understand that you are concerned about including all veterans. I will keep your thoughts in mind if this issue comes before me on the House floor.

From another:

I appreciate the information you provided about the fee exemption limitation according to the definition of the term “Veteran”. Our office contacted the bill’s sponsor and passed along this concern.

Both of these came from cosponsors. Now I understand not all staff members know each and every bill their representative has sponsored, although they should.

I'm asking for others to jump on board with me and urge the sponsors to alter the bill to include any veteran who served with honor, as well as active duty, guard and reserve members serving in the state.

Special thanks to member Kaeto for providing the definition of Veteran, according to the state.

Mods, if this would be better in the Activism forum, please move.