Posted: 3/21/2012 4:17:51 PM EDT
|
I had contacted Senator Mike Green's office a few months back about the delays in granting my CPL application here in Kent county, and his communications director Ryan Mitchell gave me an update about the proposed changes that will be heard in committee tomorrow morning:
Senate Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee Location Room 210 Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933 Date Thursday, 3/22/2012 Time 9:00 am CPL Reform SB 59 (S-3) “Best Practices delivering Better Service to the Best-trained Gun Owners in the Nation” Best Practice “Gun boards, an archaic entity created during the dawn of Michigan gun control laws in 1927, would be eliminated.” No other “shall issue” state in the nation uses a gun board to issue CPLs All other states issue through a single local or state agency. This simply eliminates one costly, duplicative and time-consuming step. Sheriffs currently verify CPL eligibility and forward results to the gun board through the clerk. They will now simply forward decisions to the clerk as well. “County sheriffs would assume the responsibility of gun boards. Accountability for abiding by the law will rest with one local, elected official.” Sheriffs are elected by the people. They also possess knowledge of “bad actors” in the community. County clerks would continue their current administrative role in the process. “Nothing changes about the standards for getting a CPL. The strong background check and fingerprint requirements are preserved.” “CPL fees would be used to improve the CPL process for applicants.” Funds would be dedicated to staffing, equipment, supplies and technology upgrades to improve the service provided to taxpayers applying for a CPL. No longer would CPL fees be used to subsidize unrelated operations. “Annual reporting requirements would be strengthened and provide a more accurate picture of the law-abiding nature of those with a CPL.” “Mandatory instructor registration would end. Instructors instead would list more information on certificates to help verify their qualifications to teach.” Additional information includes instructor contact information, certification number, certification expiration date, the certifying organization, and the organization’s contact information, instructional hours and rounds fired. Better Service “No more endless delays. License decisions would be made within 45 days from the date of application.” The original law was written during the era of snail mail and hardcopy records. The substitute will modernize the CPL law to reflect the technology that exists today and that provides nearly instantaneous access to records. Local records checks can easily be accomplished in 45 days. The average time for FBI background checks to be completed is less than a day, with the max being 42 days. 35 states base their statutory deadlines on the date of application. “The deadline will finally have some teeth. If counties fail to obey the law, they will have to issue temporary licenses and refunds of their share of the fee.” Currently, many counties ignore the statutory time requirements because there is no consequence. “Clerks will have to mail approved licenses, saving folks an additional day off of work. They’ll also have to send renewal notices 3-6 months prior to the expiration date. Counties do it for dog licenses, they should do it for CPLs.” This measure helps avoid unintentional lapses, particularly with recent changes in issue and expiration dates. The law will also require that notices and licenses be sent in sealed envelopes to protect individual privacy. “Applicants would be provided with a “Rights and Responsibilities” booklet that explains the CPL process, their rights and responsibilities in plain language, clearing up confusion about the law once and for all.” “A CPL fee will get you a CPL, like a driver’s license fee gets you a driver’s license. No more nickel and diming of law-abiding gun owners. Counties could not charge more than the statutory $105 fee.” Many counties mandate additional fees for things like laminating and photos. Our CPL fee is the highest in the Midwest and 6th highest in the nation for a “shall issue” state. Applicants deserve better for their hard-earned money. “Even more teeth will be added to the law. County sheriffs who unjustifiably deny licenses to law-abiding, qualified citizens would be subject to increased financial penalties in court.” The proposal increases financial amounts courts can award to applicants when denials are overturned upon appeal, including court fees, attorney costs, the license fee, and up to an additional $500. “Applicants will no longer fear financial penalty simply for pursuing due process of a Constitutional right in the courts.” Current language in the law can be used by the courts to force applicants to pay the county’s court and attorney costs if their appeal is unsuccessful. This will be eliminated. “Training that was completed within 5 years before applying for a CPL would be acceptable, ending unreasonable standards imposed by counties across the state.” This provision will create a uniform statewide standard and end confusion for applicants and instructors. “A license suspension would be a license suspension, not a de facto revocation as is practice. The proposal creates a uniform reinstatement process for licensees who obey the law during the suspension period and still qualify for a CPL.” A reasonable, maximum $10 fee for a replacement license card is set in law. Licensees will not be charged the full fee again to get their license back. Best-Trained Gunowners in the Nation “The quality of CPL training provided to folks would be strengthened and improved by increasing the required number of rounds fired from 30 to 98.” This enhancement simply reflects the current NRA training standard, which a majority of folks go through anyway. “Counties could no longer mandate unregulated refresher courses for renewals. The affidavit you swear to under penalty of a felony will serve as adequate verification that you obeyed the law.” The 1 hour range requirement for renewal would be clarified to include the firing of 98 rounds. Currently, there is no specific round count mentioned. “While getting a CPL in Michigan will be no more difficult than it currently is, a reasonable avenue is established for law-abiding folks to get a ‘shall issue’ exemption to the pistol free zones.” Applicants who have completed an additional 9 hours of training and fired an additional 94 rounds would qualify for the exemption, as would NRA instructors teaching CPL courses. Essentially, we’re going from a one day requirement to a two day requirement. The framework for this training already exists in the NRA. Just as when “shall issue” was passed, training availability and affordability will meet the demand. Instructors could easily combine the courses. “The elitist practice of creating exemptions for the select few based on their occupation will end. The law will focus on training and proven competency with firearms.” “A licensee can currently carry openly in places such as schools and hospitals. They want to carry concealed. They should be able to put a jacket over their firearm.” Folks with a CPL are better-vetted and better-trained than ever before. It doesn’t make sense that they can carry openly but not concealed, as they could for decades until 2001. Employees would still be subject to employer policy regarding firearms. |
|
Quoted:
A reasonable avenue is established for law-abiding folks to get a ‘shall issue’ exemption to the pistol free zones.” Applicants who have completed an additional 9 hours of training and fired an additional 94 rounds would qualify for the exemption, as would NRA instructors teaching CPL courses. I like the sounds of this. |
| I don't see the need for another 9 hours of training and range time which is going to add another $125-$175 to the cost of getting your permit. If you are qualified enough after the class to carry then you are qualified enough to carry in a pistol free zone. Why couldn't they just change it so pistol free zones are no longer recognized for anyone with a CPL instead of making someone pay twice as much to be able to carry where they should be able to in the first place? This sounds good on the surface but the details make me think there is some back door deal that went on with this extra training thing. |
|
Quoted: No, it's not perfect, and we're not going to get perfect, but most of it makes a lot more sense than what is in place now, so I recommend you contact your senators to support it. This. We need to get it passed yet, right? The extra training will help sway some. |
As an NRA instructor I'm curious as to what comprises the extra 9 hours of training. To be perfectly frank, and being an NRA member for 40 plus years, I am sometimes disappointed in the NRA training format/contents, thus I am afraid this additional training requirement for those who want it may not be real meaningful/realistic. I hope to be pleasantly surprised. 
|
|
Quoted:
i hope this gets passed. because after turning 21 this last winter i want to get my cpl, but the county i live in is one of the few left with a gun board. Not sure what you mean. The gun boards are alive and well in all of the counties in Mich. This pending legislation would change that, among other aspects of the current CPL law/process. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i hope this gets passed. because after turning 21 this last winter i want to get my cpl, but the county i live in is one of the few left with a gun board. Not sure what you mean. The gun boards are alive and well in all of the counties in Mich. This pending legislation would change that, among other aspects of the current CPL law/process. I think he means that he has to appear before the board where the rest of the counties meet without us present . I know Gratiot County still does this. |
|
Quoted:
Hey, guys, I got an email today from Ryan Mitchell saying they're hoping to get SB59 on the floor next week. Bug your senator, guys! If/when passed this bill will have been changed. I'm waiting for the final version before I form an opinion, but as an instructor I'm not favorably impressed so far, especially with the requirement that instructors have to spend another $400. to take the PPOTH class in order to teach it to CPL holders who will have to fork out more dough. If this is progress I guess I am confused as to the meaning of that word. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hey, guys, I got an email today from Ryan Mitchell saying they're hoping to get SB59 on the floor next week. Bug your senator, guys! If/when passed this bill will have been changed. I'm waiting for the final version before I form an opinion, but as an instructor I'm not favorably impressed so far, especially with the requirement that instructors have to spend another $400. to take the PPOTH class in order to teach it to CPL holders who will have to fork out more dough. If this is progress I guess I am confused as to the meaning of that word.
I believe that's what they based the extra 94 rounds, and 9 hours on, but the legislation does not actually reference a program, from the way it's worded it sounds like if you can currently teach the class you'll be able to teach the other part to, basically build your own program, but it doesn't actually say one way, or another. |
