LAW IS SIGNED BY GOVERNOR
Good link to each bill provided by umc

www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4086

Here is my effort to summarize after all is said and done.  
If your organization supported these bills, they are invited to offer their own summary or corrections.

Under the new law to take effect in 180 days:
1. CPL and Non CPL holders need a four copy permit to purchase a pistol; Non-CPLs get the form from thier PD after background check; CPL holders download from MSP website.  Now called a pistol sales record.  www.michigan.gov/documents/ri-060_6454_7.pdf (CPL holders are exempt from the sect 2 requirement only, i.e., don't have to go to local PD and get background check).  Must return if not used in ten days (like old requirement).
2.  You then purchase or obtain the pistol.  The seller fills out the forms, keeps one if he wants, you get three, you keep one, you either mail or hand deliver the remaining two to your local PD in 10 days.  Send certified maill Return Receipt Requested if you are wise.  You do not  take the pistol to your PD as "safety inspection" is eliminated.  Now its real registration of the pistol.  Both seller and purchaser must sign the form!  Pay attention.
3. If the purchaser fails to send in the form in ten days, it is a civil infraction (old law made this the seller's responsibility, now its the purchacers's responsibility, old law was also a misdemeanor).  If found responsible for a civil infraction by a court, the Court tells the MSP and the MSP tells your licensing Board if CPL.  Board takes some action on your CPL.  Don't get into this situation.  
4.  Now you want to carry your new pistol and you have a CPL.  You must also carry the form you kept for 30 days.  Or you have no CPL and want to transport pistol in trunk to range?  You must carry the form you kept, for 30 days.  It is implied non-CPL must show to police if stopped.  CPL must show.
5.  When local PD gets your two forms, it enters info in e-databse in 48 hours and sends one copy to MSP.  Now law enforcement has e-record of pistols.  Anyone with LIEN access gets info.  Lots of confusion here.  At a minimun, under new law, police do the same thing as under old law except physically look at pistol and confirm SN on pistol is as reported on form.  That is sellers/purchasers responsibility.
6.  Uh Oh . . . You better get ALL the information right on the form before your send to PD.  Failue to send in form is a $100 civil infraction, but sending in form with wrong info is worse.  How so?  A material false statement on a sales record is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.  No time to be clever mailing in a form with wrong information on it.  Better check what seller wrote too.  Under old law he was the only one exposed because he was the only one that signed form.  Guess what?  New law now makes purchaser sign.  So make sure it it accurate.  PD won't try to figure out if it was the seller or the buyer that wrote down wrong info--Prosecutor will just charge both seller AND purchaser with a felony and let thier lawyers sort it out.  Prosecutor will argue that EVERYTHING ON FORM is material.  Got wrong BBL lenght?  Ah ha, you are trying to deceive the police.  Transposed SN?  That four years for you.  You sell pistol to pay legal fees.
7.   Local PD must keep its physical form for at least six years, MSP keeps forever.
8.  You must show forms and CPL to a "peace officer" if stopped.  Peace officer now incudes a motor carrier officers and certain state security personnel.
9.  A licensee has the right to obtain a copy of the information placed in the pistol
entry database to verify the accuracy of the information.  A licensing authority can
charge up to one dollar for a copy of this information.
10.  C&R SBR/SBS holders must treat C&R SBR/SBS as pistols under state law as noted above.
11. OK to loan a lawfully possessed pistol to another as long as the other is a CCP holder.

I might add editorially that none of this has anything to do with safety or fighting crime--but rather, governmental control over our own lawful activity.


UPDATE AS OF 7-7-08
HB 4491 is the third and final bill that covers SBRs.
www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billenrolled/House/pdf/2007-HNB-4491.pdf

UPDATE OF 7-3-08
If you are not a CCP holder then read 4490 to see how it applies to you.
www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billenrolled/House/pdf/2007-HNB-4490.pdfwww.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billenrolled/House/pdf/2007-HNB-4490.pdf

UPDATE of 7-2-200
if you are a CCP holder read 370 to figure out what appies to you.
www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billenrolled/Senate/pdf/2007-SNB-0370.pdf

Bumping to the top as it applies to the SBR SBS topic.

Maybe we really don't want to support this so-called handgun registration reform issue especially since we're not getting anything out of it anymore!

Legislators do not pay any attention to letters or calls.
We should have a pro-2nd rights rally near Lansing capitol.
Our gun rights should not be abridged.
This would get their attention and possibly media coverage.
Got to start somewhere.
Martin Luther King did it, why can't we.

Here is what the House did yesterday to your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0370-5.pdf

It has to go back to Sen. Randy Richardville in the Senate.

Here is his press release and list of supporting organizations.  The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, National Rifle Association, Shooters Alliance for Firearm Rights and Great Lakes Shooting Sports Association support the legislation.  

www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/readarticle.asp?id=1564&District=17

Consider writing to him and the supporting gun orginazations and saying that the burdens imposed by the revised bill are worse than those imposed under the current law.  The bill is essentially a proposal to adopt computerized registration of all pistols, accessible by the police in the LIEN network at any time.  The FBI NCIS law is not even this pervasive.  NICS is simply a background check, this bill is full blown registration. NCIS destroys the records, here the State Police keep it forever.

Here is a short list of the new items:
--state police computerized database of all pistols you obtain (state police "red file")
--you must document your purchase or face state civil infraction with possible loss of CCP
--you must carry your purchase permit for 30 days
--expands power of state police to seize weapon if you did not report purchase
--Expands purchase permit requirement to pistols on loan belonging to someone
--Requires 4 purchase permits not three and requires you to send two to the local or state police.

I called this bad legislation from the beginning. Lots of people supported it, now it's got legs.
When contacting your legislators, be sure to point out the racist roots of this whole scheme.

As the legislation stands now I no longer support it.

And as usual - my reply to those in question both emailed and faxed;

Pro-Gun Opposition To So-Called Pistol Registration Reform!

 The Honorable Senator,

 The House of Representatives has co-opted your pistol registration reform bill and contaminated it with poison pills. The burdens imposed by the revised bill are worse than those imposed under the current law. The legislation as currently offered can now be properly classified as “Anti-Gun” and filed under the “Police State” category!  

 As the founding Chairman of the Gun Owners of MAcomb County, organizer of the Freedom Hill Gun Stock Rally’s, fighter of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban and Online general Pro Gun and Republican activist and National Firearms Act Activist and Enthusiast I concur with my associate Kerry Morgan's assessment of what this legislation has become - full blown centralized computerized hand gun registration. We all know or should beware of registration because with registration comes the potential for confiscation. It's happened.

 It was my wish that the bill sponsors include National Firearms Act reforms to SB 371 and amend MCL 750.224 b to allow Michigan citizens the opportunity to exercise their federal gun rights by acknowledging the federal registration and transfer process thereby making it legal to own short barreled rifles and shotguns with the addition of a few words to the existing statute. Apparently
this was too much to ask and as I understand it the Michigan State Police would not go along with it.

 It is my opinion and position that the substitute bill is no longer in the best interests of freedom loving gun owners and I object to it and hereby oppose it for the following reasons:

· Entry of purchased pistols into the LEIN database, which is generally reserved for criminal background. I don't want this information in LEIN where any average John Q. Law can inquire about it. We all know inquiries are run on the LEIN system for other than lawful purposes by people who want information on people. This has happened and I don't want people accessing how many guns I own short of a court order - and I don't want it to be an easy process. Looking up green cards manually as the result of a criminal investigation suits me fine.
· State Police computerized database of all pistols you obtain (the House seeks a return to the State Police "red file" days)
· Document your purchase or face state civil infraction with possible loss of CPL.
· Carry your purchase permit for 30 days after purchase.
· Expands power of state police to seize weapon if you forgot or delayed report of purchase.
· Expands purchase permit requirement to pistols on loan belonging to someone else.
· Requires 4 purchase permits not three and requires you to send two to the local or state police.

I don't want these new intrusions and I reject this legislation as substituted and as currently written.

Respectfully,
Michael P. Sessa

All free men should be aghast, bewildered and enraged at any American with the gall to propose such a bill containing this many foul words.

Require licenses and sales records
pistol entry database
Require persons
penalty
violating
infraction
Require license for possession of pistol. (permission slip to own a gun)
Issuance of licenses by police or sheriff departments. (If they want to , if not, too bad! )
licensing authority.
Civil infraction and fine
pistol entry database
possession of license (make sure you keep your permission slip with you)
Maintenance of sales records and entry of information into pistol entry database.
show a peace officer his or her concealed weapon license and driver license (Your papers please! )
Comply (or what?)

All that bad and only the following, a single good, encompasses this bill.
"Repeal safety inspection certificate requirement."

It saddens me to think any true American could be in support of a bill like this one.

Thank you Michael.  I have also sent a letter to my Senator.

sent to Richardville and my senator.  Should I hit my reps on the house side as well?

Actually we should advise State Reps on the House Judiciary Committee as they have Cropsey's SB371 the one we wanted the SBR SBS language amended on. ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=39&t=306927 You might ask your statement be accepted as your testimony to the committee. You may also ask them to amend the bill as we originally asked the Senate bill sponsors to legalize SBR SBS as in the Ar15 link.

www.house.mi.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=judiciary&submit=Go#CommitteeMinutes
Members House Judiciary Committee

Republican Members of the House Judiciary Committee - State Representatives
I didn't post Democrat members who hold the majority and control the committee. Click the link above if you want their info.

Tonya Schuitmaker (R)
N1099 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-5940
Phone: 517-373-0839

David Law (R)
S0888 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-8361
Phone: 517-373-1799

Kevin Elsenheimer (R)
S1389 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-1841
Phone: 517-373-0829

John Stakoe (R)
N0893 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-5843
Phone: 517-373-2616

Rick Jones (R)
N1090 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-6589
Phone: 517-373-0853

Tory Rocca (R)
N0794 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
[email protected]
Fax: 517-373-5903
Phone: 517-373-7768

Quoted: Actually we should hit Reps on the House Judiciary Committee too as they have Cropsey's SB371 the one we wanted the SBR SBS language amended on. Looking this info up and will edit post when I have the data.

Does the SBR/SBS version have the BS registration stuff too?

Quoted: Recall that the state police set up an illegal "red files" database years ago.

do you have any information about ths?

You may recall Cropseys original bill SB 371 was the one containing the SBR SBS statute. This Cropsey bill was not perfect but was the bill we wanted to use as the vehicle to make SBR and SBS legal if approved by the federal government.

Here's a link to an analysis of SB 371

www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2007-SFA-0370-F.pdf

SB 371 is tie barred with SB 370 and both must pass or the bills are not enacted. At first Cropsey would require the destruction of the existing green cards after one year. The bills are getting worse because the House of Representatives versions really suck and what's going on now is COMPROMISE to hash out the differences between the Senate and House versions. This is how things are getting worse.

Would it be better at this point for a complete abandonment of SB370 and SB371?  And hope that the safety inspection and SBR/SBS get addressed in future legislation?

yes

Here are a few links to the Detroit and State Police Red Squad files history.

The ILEIO Act (MCLA § 752.01) was enacted in 1980 after it was learned that the Michigan police had compiled "Red Squad files" on thousands of Michigan residents. The law was meant to prevent unsupervised and uncontrolled access to information about individuals.  The police also engaged in political intelligence and collected information on non-criminal activity of U.S. citizens.  

Now, 28 years later, the House version of SB 370 actually gives the state police the power to compel gun purchasers to help the police collect information on constitutionally protected activities--simply possessing a pistol.  See

www.totse.com/en/privacy/squad.html

books.google.com/books?id=8O1d_hujMMMC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=michigan+state+police+red+squad+files&source=web&ots=ekVPCkVfaE&sig=n6c8nW6etOJBFLnv4x6uQfohC3s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA297,M1

And the Senate is simply adding fuel to the privacy fire sale and creating a “Total Surveillance Society” along the way.

Dear Mr. Holloway:

Thank you for your recent communication regarding Senate Bill 370 and 371.  I
appreciate your comments.

While I certainly understand the importance of safety with all firearms, the in
person safety inspections for hand gun owners seem to be an unnecessary step for
owners to take.  After extensive background checks and other safety hurdles,
this bill would allow owners to provide documentation via mail of their
purchasing agreements and completed licenses.  The bill still provides certain
requirements and prohibitions which are intended to keep citizens safe.   This
legislation would also save State and Local Governments significant revenue, at
a time when local governments all over the State are experiencing revenue
shortfalls.

Recently, I supported both pieces of legislation on the Senate floor.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and share your thoughts on this
issue.  Should you have any questions or concerns in the future please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Glenn S. Anderson

Michigan State Senator
6th District

Originally Posted By dougwg quoting Rep Anderson: This legislation would also save State and Local Governments significant revenue, at a time when local governments all over the State are experiencing revenue shortfalls.

He is wrong, the floor summary posted today says local police departments are still required to provide to the State Police pistol descriptions
required under Section 9 of the Act, and.
The law also prohibit a person from possessing a pistol in this State without first having obtained a license for it which means the same if not more work for local police.

See

legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2007-SFA-4490-F.pdf

Im sort of confused.

!) Liscense to obtain..
    Is this the "Purchase Permit that is required for non CPL holders? Or do all of us need to jump through Magical invisible hoops to obtain a purchase Liscense f this pasees?

2) Exemption for CPL holders and forms
     The four forms would be what you would normally get at the "Inspection" with the addition of anothe card? Do they forward these for you or now must you send in 1, 2???
    Can us CPL holders still buy/sell guns at will like usual or will his all change?

Im not liking this change.
I dont like the "Inspection" (Registration) in the first place, but it seems like they are just trying to make guns onobtainable for us common law abiding citizens

I kind of suspected this from the beginning as taking us from their shady 'backdoor' registration (at least they didn't call it registration), and leaving us with full blown 'front door' registration.

Why are they dicking around with this, instead of trying to eliminate the licensing/inspections/registration crap altogether?

Why should buying a handgun be any different than buying a long gun in MI? We're still stuck in the '70's I guess.

Quoted: I kind of suspected this from the beginning as taking us from their shady 'backdoor' registration (at least they didn't call it registration), and leaving us with full blown 'front door' registration. ...snip

THAT is the whole point.

This is BS and NOT what we want.

If they put the pistol reg in LEIN does that mean a prospective employer will be able to see how many pistols you have when he runs a criminal background check on you?

I know LEIN is for law enf., but for a fee an employer (or anyone else for that matter) can access information through MSP/SOS for a criminal background check.

www.michigan.gov/documents/LEIN_Access_to_Use_of_122572_7.pdf

You want to know who has access to the LIEN?  Check out this link.  You won't believe it.

Don't look in the bills for safeguards.  Its not there.

NRA email updates are still saying this is a good thing.  

Well read it and you tell me.  Bump to link at top.

well ill be damned.  not good at all.

but you better be sure I will get my $1 copy of those records.  If "they" are going to register my handguns, ill make sure they do it right.  Plus it keeps my pistol from being confiscated if I happen to misplace my CPL.


but, overall....fuck


edit: they could have fixed the no carry zones since they took the time to amend that section.  worthless bunch of overpaid pricks.

edit again: but this means we no longer have to appear with pistols for a physical "inspection" anymore right?

Why would any supposed “pro gun” groups support these bills?

Quoted: Why would any supposed “pro gun” groups support these bills?

Simple. $$$ and pressure. Everybodys got a price when there in politics...

Zar

Quoted: Quoted: Why would any supposed “pro gun” groups support these bills? Simple. $$$ and pressure. Everybodys got a price when there in politics... Zar

That makes no sense to me.  Who is giving the SAFR, NRA, MCRGO, or other “pro-gun” groups money and/ or pressuring them to sell out to sell out?  Whatchyou talking about Willis?

And we can no longer simple "loan" a fellow CPL a hand gun.

This is bullshit!

maybe they just didnt read the language.  they thought it was a pro-gun bill, and it ended up being worse than before.


i just cant believe they pulled this with so many more important things to accomplish in regards to gun laws.  they could have put CPLs under the SecOfState too, and didnt bother doing that either.

Quoted: And we can no longer simple "loan" a fellow CPL a hand gun. This is bullshit!

Wrong, Sec. 28.432 still applies, it is a specific override of Sec. 28.422 and 28.429.

Jeff

WTF?

How in THE HELL did this happen?

We seriously need to change these people out of office nex time around, they obviously can't figure out what the citizens of MI have asked them to do for them anymore.

Quoted: Quoted: And we can no longer simple "loan" a fellow CPL a hand gun. This is bullshit! Wrong, Sec. 28.432 still applies, it is a specific override of Sec. 28.422 and 28.429. Jeff

Wrong!

"AN ACT to amend 1927 PA 372,......to repeal (get rid of) all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,”

"by amending (changing) sections 2a, 5f, and 5o (MCL 28.422a, 28.425f, and 28.425o), section 2a as added by 2000 PA 381 and sections 5f and 5o
as amended by 2002 PA 719."

This means they are going to CHANGE all other laws that are not the same as the NEW law.

The new law states "(2) If an individual licensed under section 5b (a CPL holder) purchases or otherwise acquires (barrowed) a pistol, the seller shall complete a
record in quadruplicate on a form provided by the department of state police. The record shall include the purchaser’s
concealed weapon license number. The purchaser shall sign the record. The seller may retain 1 copy of the record. The
purchaser shall receive 3 copies of the record and forward 2 copies to the police department of the city, village, or
township in which the purchaser resides, or, if the purchaser does not reside in a city, village, or township having a
police department, to the county sheriff, within 10 days following the purchase or acquisition. The return of the copies
to the police department or county sheriff may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail
sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the police department or county sheriff. A purchaser who fails
to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more
than $250.00."

So not only can you NOT loan handguns to fellow CPL holders, you must now fill out and file forms with the state and if you don't you will be charged with a "state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00."

Quoted: Read SB 370 good and long gentleman.

Did we gain anything here or did we just get hosed with MORE paperwork????

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And we can no longer simple "loan" a fellow CPL a hand gun. This is bullshit! Wrong, Sec. 28.432 still applies, it is a specific override of Sec. 28.422 and 28.429. Jeff Wrong! "AN ACT to amend 1927 PA 372,......to repeal (get rid of) all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,” "by amending (changing) sections 2a, 5f, and 5o (MCL 28.422a, 28.425f, and 28.425o), section 2a as added by 2000 PA 381 and sections 5f and 5o as amended by 2002 PA 719." This means they are going to CHANGE all other laws that are not the same as the NEW law. The new law states "(2) If an individual licensed under section 5b (a CPL holder) purchases or otherwise acquires (barrowed) a pistol, the seller shall complete a record in quadruplicate on a form provided by the department of state police. The record shall include the purchaser’s concealed weapon license number. The purchaser shall sign the record. The seller may retain 1 copy of the record. The purchaser shall receive 3 copies of the record and forward 2 copies to the police department of the city, village, or township in which the purchaser resides, or, if the purchaser does not reside in a city, village, or township having a police department, to the county sheriff, within 10 days following the purchase or acquisition. The return of the copies to the police department or county sheriff may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the police department or county sheriff. A purchaser who fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00." So not only can you NOT loan handguns to fellow CPL holders, you must now fill out and file forms with the state and if you don't you will be charged with a "state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00."

So your supposition is that this act overrides the specifc verbage of 28.432.

Also, I believe you are overlooking the meaning of the text that specifies which sections are being ameneded/repealed and 28.423 is not one of them.

That said, many may believe as you do and it will probably take the AG to clarify this issue, but in my mind the specific "Inapplicability of 48.422" is a specific permission for the loaning of a pistol where both parties are CPL holders and the weapon is in the registry.

Also, I see no language in 370 that requires that a pistol in your possession must be registered to the holder, just that it must be registered, period.  Therefore this is consistent with 28.423 and the ability to loan pistols is not changed.

Unfortunately,  Bill 370 is inconsistent with it's verbage in my opinion as it starts out with "purchase or otherwise aquire" and then only speaks to purchasing a pistol.  If they had intended to prohibit temporary loaning then the verbage used should have been aquired or take possession, rather than purchase.

Also here is the info from the legislative analysis that supports my agruement.

Carrying or using someone else's pistol. [§12(1)(i), p.13] Current Section 12(1) describes persons who are exempt from the license requirement of Section 2 and the safety inspection requirement of Section 9. The bill would eliminate this reference to Section 9 and safety inspections (as Section 9 would be repealed) and would amend an existing exemption (Section 12(1)(i)) for certain persons carrying, possessing, using, or
transporting a pistol belonging to someone else. Under the bill, a person could carry,
possess, use, or transport someone else's pistol so long as the other person's possession of the pistol was authorized by law and the person using it either (1) has a license to carry a concealed pistol, or (2) is exempt from licensure as provided in Section 12a. [Section12a exempts many law enforcement and corrections officers from requirements forobtaining a concealed weapon license].

The entire document may be found here.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0370-5.pdf

As always YMMV.

Jeff

so what exactly does this bill mean?

Quoted: so what exactly does this bill mean?

Short answer, only changes are no visit to PD, now you mail the stuff to PD/MSP.  Otherwise, nothing else has changed INHMO.

Jeff

Looks like they FAST TRACKED it when they knew we were marshaling opposition to it. In this case the "Online Pro-Gunners" who were engaged with them on the issue were ignored.

What this means is we need to build ourselves up even larger, with a louder voice and we need to organize ourselves with some more influence.

Not looking forward to the next time I'm at a traffic stop and the officer looks at the LIEN and sees what Pistols I have registered!

Officer: "Radio, I need some backup here, I've got a live one"
Sargeant: "Process with felony-stop procedures"
Officer:  "Roger that, can we get SWAT dispatched on this?"
Dispatch:  "Why would anyone need that many pistols?"

Officer:  (over the public address system)"Driver, show me your hands!"
Me:  "Pursuant to Act 372 of 1927 as amended and specifically, MCL 28.425(F)(3), I am required to inform you that I am licensed under the Act and may be carrying a concealed pistol on, or about, my person or in my vehicle!"
Officer:  "Radio, this guy is shouting about something about a pistol and he's required to act!, Speed up the SWAT guys!"

Isn't there some law prohibiting the registration of guns in this state?  I can't find it, but I remember someone making reference to it.  Seems like "safety inspection" was like the states way of circumvention.

Well I have been out of the loop on this for the past few weeks and am not happy with the changes.  I was on the other board and I cannot believe that the SAFR rep was promting this as a great victory (and breaking his arm patting himself on the back).  

The thing that worries me the most is the inclusion of this in the LEIN system.  I work in a public school and have seen the results of background checks that contained incorrect information.  Now the same people could get a copy of how many handguns a person owns.  Not to mention how this could affect a traffic stop if the officer is anti.

Finally, if this piece of legislation was for democrats "because they needed something "pro-gun" to take back and "show off"." then I think it should have been killed.  Why settle for not a compromise but for something worse just so some antis can get reelected?

The gun owners that only look at the trip back to the police department for the safety inspection (I hate that too) and disregard the rest of this bill (more paperwork put on the owner, guns listed in LEIN, full blown state approved registration database, etc) boggles my mind.

This just undid what, 5 years of recent hard fighting?

Guys, it has ALWAYS BEEN IN THE LEIN SYSTEM, this is no change!

The cops have always been able to see your CPL and gun registration info, where do you guys think all the info on the green cards went?

Jeff

So-doing away with the 3 parters for a 4 parter??

How is this efficient?

Also,when sending in copies,how does' one know that they received it,unless you pay extra ot the PO?

The receiving Departments can screw up and get the sender in trouble!!

I know that one can take the paperwork in,but we had to this for the "safety check"??

See repsonses in bold.

Quoted:
So-doing away with the 3 parters for a 4 parter??

How is this efficient?  It's not

Also,when sending in copies,how does' one know that they received it,unless you pay extra ot the PO?  Close to the 30 day mark, go to PD and get copy 1.00 dollar

The receiving Departments can screw up and get the sender in trouble!!
Clearly this sucks!

I know that one can take the paperwork in,but we had to this for the "safety check"??
But at least if this passes they don't get to fingerfuck or hang on to your gun for a few days

It aint great law, but it the best they could agree on.
Jeff

Can somebody point me to the authorization statute authorizing the police to place my handgun green card in the LEIN database - I mean the one PRIOR to the one they just passed?

We didn't get anything out of this deal - no SBR, SBS when they could have forced some horse trading. They gave away the baby with the bath water and without a fight - well except for us WE DID FIGHT it.

The State police just did it.  There is no statute.  There was a database but not a full blown LIEN access.  Any police here to tell us?  I was told the police officer had to call in and get the pistol SN run.  Now, anyone with Lien access can get the info if they have your name.

Quoted: Can somebody point me to the authorization statute authorizing the police to place my handgun green card in the LEIN database - I mean the one PRIOR to the one they just passed? We didn't get anything out of this deal - no SBR, SBS when they could have forced some horse trading. They gave away the baby with the bath water and without a fight - well except for us WE DID FIGHT it.

www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hdvkg245kyafsfq5ftvgrs55))/mileg.aspx?page=shortlinkdisplay&docname=mcl-28-429

FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927
28.429 Pistols; safety inspection required; certificate of inspection; exemptions; requirements of pistol presented for inspection; violation as civil infraction; fine.

Sec. 9.

(1) A person within the state who owns or comes into possession of a pistol shall, if he or she resides in a city, township, or village having an organized police department, present the pistol for safety inspection to the commissioner or chief of police of the city, township, or village police department or to a duly authorized deputy of the commissioner or chief of police. If that person resides in a part of the county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, he or she shall present the pistol for safety inspection to the sheriff of the county or to a duly authorized deputy of the sheriff. If the person presenting the pistol is eligible to possess a pistol under section 2(1), a certificate of inspection shall be issued in triplicate on a form provided by the director of the department of state police, containing the name, age, address, description, and signature of the person presenting the pistol for inspection, together with a full description of the pistol. The original of the certificate shall be delivered to the registrant. The duplicate of the certificate shall be mailed within 48 hours to the director of the department of state police and filed and indexed by the department and kept as a permanent official record. The triplicate of the certificate shall be retained and filed in the office of the sheriff, commissioner, or chief of police. This section does not apply to a wholesale or retail dealer in firearms who regularly engages in the business of selling pistols at retail, or to a person who holds a collection of pistols kept for the purpose of display as relics or curios and that are not made for modern ammunition or are permanently deactivated.

(2) A person who presents a pistol for a safety inspection under subsection (1) shall ensure that the pistol is unloaded and that the pistol is equipped with a trigger lock or other disabling mechanism or encased when the pistol is presented for inspection. A person who violates this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of not more than $50.00.

Filed and indexed and kept as a permanent record - nothing authorizing entry of this record into the LEIN criminal background database until now - and what did we get in exchange - we don't have to take our handguns into the PD?

We got a BIG TIME INVASION OF OUR PRIVACY that's what we got.

Now very nearly everybody and their brother will be able to electronically access your personal handgun inventory! This NEW system will be ripe for abuse.

Easy Mike, I'm on your side of this, I don't like it, not one bit.

I'm going back and forth with a guy that had a hand in this bill in some way over on migunowners.org

If you would like to read it - www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?p=253563