2007 House Bill 5108 (Exempt veterans from CPL training )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Joel Sheltrown (D) on August 21, 2007, to exempt current and former peace officers, and honorably discharged veterans who have had pistol training from the state’s Concealed Pistol Permit (CPL) safety training requirement.
- Referred to the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, And Natural Resources Committee on August 21, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on April 15, 2008, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Joel Sheltrown (D) on May 1, 2008, to require those covered by the bill to certify that they have read and understand the concealed pistol license course materials regarding Michigan firearms laws including civil liability and the use of deadly force . The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on May 1, 2008.
Passed in the House (101 to 7) on May 1, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on May 6, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

1) Please Pay Attention ... [by Anonymous Citizen on September 27, 2008]

The purpose of making significant changes in Michigan CCW law several years ago was to ensure that all citizen-applicants for permits would be treated equally and uniformly. Providing special exemptions for certain groups of citizen-applicants deviates from that important purpose and intent.

Not only that, my DD 214 is close to 35 years old, meaning that any training it would document is darned near ancient history -- just about meaningless.

Reply

Line

2) Please pay attention... [by C. Lee on September 26, 2008]
This bill does NOT say that a Veteran can opt out of ALL CPL Training. All that it is allowing us Military Veterans to "opt out" of is the SAFE HANDLING AND USE of a firearm. If you have gotten verifiable Military training in the safe use of a handgun (ie. you have on your DD-214 Qualification for either the M-9, or the 1911 for older veterans) then you STILL HAVE TO TAKE THE LEGAL CLASSES, you just do not have to take the "this is the business end of your firearm" class.
Reply

Line

3) I support this proposal [by danniemeadows on June 6, 2008]
See my arguments below in support of this proposed legislation. I address charges of "elitism" and creation of "special classes". Credit for training is not being given for irrelevant reasons or unjustifiably.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation