Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 12-20-2012 10:07 AM by mick1001. 36 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (37 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Introduced in the Senate on January 25, 2011

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 01-27-2011 11:38 AM In reply to

    • Mark
    • Top 100 Contributor
      Male
    • Joined on 11-22-2008
    • Clarkston, MI.

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    I think this is a good idea, they handle our state drivers licenses so why not our CPL's too?

    But what I don't want to see in the is the federal govt making mandates to the states regarding these sovereign CPL's like they're trying to do with our drivers licenses, it's interference on a grand and unconstitutional scale to demand that our drivers licenses become natioanlized into a national ID card, the Fed's do not have that authority and we should not let them do it.

  • 01-27-2011 1:20 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     At first I thought this was a great idea also, but I am not so sure.  I hate the lines I have to stand in just to get a licenses and adding this to the load of the Sec of State I think might be going too far.  My only agreement to this would be to eliminate the $100 plus charge made to obtain the licsenses.  I would like to see the "Gun free zones" eliminated and I think it is obvious why.  I would like to see the CPL changed back to a CCW which would permit a pistole carrier to also have a defensive knife, and defensive sprays should be completely open for carry by anyone over 18.  I believe we need to have firearm amendments to the Mich Constitution.  Currently our constitution permits open carry without a CPL.  Give us a broader constitutional right as some of the other states do.

  • 01-27-2011 1:22 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     See ful conversation,

  • 01-28-2011 6:17 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     It is just another higher control of bigger Goverment. Move everything on up the ladder.

  • 02-17-2011 10:34 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     SOS Land was all for taking over the CPL's, but nothing happened. Thank you Senator Green for supporting gun rights.

    Florida has had SOS issue since they started issuing permits. My wife and I received Florida permits in the mail about 1999.

     

  • 02-17-2011 11:25 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    I think this is a bad idea and will oppose it or those elected officials who support it.  PLEASE QUIT TRYING TO PROTECT ME !!!  Also, PLEASE QUIT TRYING TO DECEIVED "we the people" into thinking we need anything that looks like or approaches modifying the US Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Is it the will of the people to remove anything from the Bill of Rights?  NO !!

    This is a pre-cursor of another attempt to slowly erode the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution at the State level.  Actually this bill states "... Beginning January 1, 2012, the DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE shall verify the requirements of subsection (7) (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m) through the law enforcement information network (LEIN) and report his or her or ITS finding to the concealed weapon licensing board OR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS APPLICABLE."  pg 15, SB 59. 

    This would put the MSP in control of making determinations on CPL eligibility, not the Issuing County.   The problem is that the newly appointed (not Elected) director of MSP has boasted of supporting theh Gun Control Group, Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence (MPPGV).   MPPVG has aggressively fought against Michigan's CPL laws in the past.

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights and does not need ANY adjustment by Michigan politicians, State Police or the Secretary of State.

  • 05-06-2011 9:18 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    How do you explain the many years Florida has had SOS issue successfuly. I wouldn't call it big government.  

  • 02-01-2012 9:20 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    I agree........ I have been given the right to bear arms specifically by the writers of the constitution to protect myself from those in government that would infringe on that right.
  • 02-01-2012 11:32 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     leave it alone the state just wants to make more money at our cost  i think the county gun boards are doing just fine . m.miller

     

  • 02-02-2012 6:26 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     I agree. The higher it moves up the line the more control big Goverment gets

  • 02-07-2012 11:04 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     Bad move on behalf of Sen. Green! This would strip local Constitutionally-Elected Sheriffs of the Local Gun Boards & put them under the purview of a Gun-Control Advocate for State Police's Political Appointee to deny law-abiding citizen's their rights to CPL's! The current MSP Director, a Granholm Gun Control Advocate, touts her ties to MPPGV - Michigan's equivalent of the Brady Gun-Grabbing Group! This about noting more in Lansing than MORE money & power grabs & opens a pandora's box for further Constitutional violations of your rights! KILL Senate Bill 59 NOW!

     

  • 02-07-2012 11:05 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     Bad move on behalf of Sen. Green! This would strip local Constitutionally-Elected Sheriffs of the Local Gun Boards & put them under the purview of a Gun-Control Advocate for State Police's Political Appointee to deny law-abiding citizen's their rights to CPL's! The current MSP Director, a Granholm Gun Control Advocate, touts her ties to MPPGV - Michigan's equivalent of the Brady Gun-Grabbing Group! This about noting more in Lansing than MORE money & power grabs & opens a pandora's box for further Constitutional violations of your rights! KILL Senate Bill 59 NOW!

  • 02-08-2012 1:42 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!!!!

     

    System works as it is, keep the local control in place!!

     

    The last thing we need is another Granholm figure-head in charge!!! NOT!!!

  • 02-11-2012 10:03 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    An Open Letter To The Sponsor and Co-sponsors of this bill: 

    A lot of us place great value in our local elected leaders, people we often know on a first name basis, to competently take care of matters that mean the most to us. With higher levels of government the bureaucracies become more faceless and impersonal, and often, less competent and more prone to the pressures of lobbyists, PACs, and other groups who may or may not reflect the views of the governed. As a cosponsor of this bill, there must be something that's prompted you to support this measure.

    Please don't continue to support legislation which strips power from local magistrates and then centralizes that authority in the State. States and the Federal Government should only be delegated those duties which can't be carried out on a local level, and to my knowledge, there isn't any compelling reason to eliminate the local licensing boards.

    Sincerely,

    [UntaxMe]

  • 02-12-2012 3:16 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     I agree with you

  • 02-12-2012 3:47 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     

    This is written to all Senators in the State of Michigan Legislature:
    I request and urge you to vote against SB 59 because it usurps the rights of the local community. The bureaucrats are not the ones who should be deciding which citizens get the right ro bear arms and who will be denied this right. I thought that we were ALL FOR LIMITING GOVERNMENT ROLES IN PERSONAL LIFE!!. Then why this power grab and expansion of central governmental authority. We already have the bureaucrats in Washington expanding their roles in our private lives, now you guys are following their example!!! We voted you into office primarily because we did not want the policies of the previous regime, now you are following the same path!!! NO GOOD!! Vote AGAINST SB 59.
  • 02-13-2012 12:40 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Moving CPL to the Secretary of State is plain common sense:

    1. The Secretary of State has the computer resources to determine if an individual has an outstanding warrant or has lost their 2nd Amendment liberties because of felony conviction, etc anyway.

    2. Just like a driver's license, you can be issued the permit right on the spot.

    3. Just like a driver's license, the CPL can be renewed by mail (naturally, background checks would continue - just like your driver's license).

    4. It would free up a person in the Sheriff's/Police department to do more important work for its citizens than citizens asking to exercise their God-given 2nd Amendment rights.

  • 02-17-2012 5:39 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Bad Idea, we shouldn't be taking this away from elected officials in the county and give it to 1 person who could be a liberal someday that makes it difficult or more expensive to obtain a CPL through out the state and it would mean more longer lines at the SOS Office. leave it to the Sheriff and the rest of the Gun Board. our rights are safer that way.
  • 02-18-2012 10:29 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     I agree with you. Why does the goverement always to get more control from the top down?

  • 03-22-2012 6:29 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Senate Bill 59 – how could anyone propose this? This is what we want to vote for? The bill wouldn't eliminate "no carry" zones such as schools, stadiums and churches. But licensed carriers who get training beyond what's already required in state law could get exemptions that would allow them to carry guns in those zones. I would like to propose an idea that the reason these are No CARRY zones is for the safety of citizens who don’t think its necessary to carry a gun on our person wherever we go, nor do we want to be among others carrying guns wherever they go. It’s ludicrous to make the argument that someone could just carry it unconcealed. No one does that in the United States! And I an thankful for that. I do not support Senate Bill 59 and after reading the full bill I CANNOT believe that this is the kind of legislative action that is being proposed in Senate. This first item is only one is a string of items within the bill changing the currently weak Concealed Carry Law. This entire bill is unacceptable – not the fact that Senator Green can attend a meeting and flash his handgun and say if this was out in the open I could bring it. Well who would want to sit or stand next to Mr. Green? Not me. And I would NEVER want a child of mine standing next to – in his school building – an adult carrying a concealed weapon or an open carry weapon. Think about it, a teacher could leave a gun in their desk if this law is passed. Where do you think that might lead? I could come up with a thousand examples of why this is a terrible idea for Michigan or any other state. Or how about someone at a stadium who has had a few drinks too many and either uses his gun or without knowing allows someone else to use it. Has Mr. Green never been to a stadium where alcohol is served. Guns do not belong there. And do we really think a house of worship is where we should be bringing our guns. Truly the idea is unbelievable. We just keep crossing the lines with guns until they don't exist anymore. It makes me feel very sad. I get very tired of gun supporters screaming (they are rarely polite) about their rights, well I (as a sane person who does not feel the need to be armed at all times or be in public places with others who are armed at all times) should have rights to. This proposed bill violates mine.
  • 03-23-2012 9:33 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     Caroline

    I respect your right to go unarmed but respect the rights of others which wish to be prepared in case of trouble. As for your belief in "Gun Free Zones", have you ever thought of what nice targets these areas are for those who do not believe in gun free zones. Just look at the news of attacks in schools and other areas which have been declared "gun free'. Many of the fatalities which have occurred may have been prevented if dedicated and training citizens have been able to carry guns. I have always thought what great targets for a terroist attack are schools, stadiums and other "gun free zones". Where else can they attack and not fear getting hurt in return?

    As for gun supporters being rarely polite. I feel as a whole they are more polite than most envirmentists and animal rights actitivists. After all you have never heard of a gun owners killing people or destorying private property to make a point for gun rights. As for your fears of drunks, more people are injuried and killed on the highways and byways by drunk drivers in one month than injuried or killed by a legally owed and register firearm.

    It used to be a sign of a free person to owe and carry a weapon. Only slaves and bonded people were not allowed weapons but when then were freed, a weapons was given to them to show they were a free man.

    Do not fear the honest person carrying a firearm, fear the dishonest person that is.

    NotAfraidOfGuns

     

  • 03-27-2012 2:41 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    You know who totally listens to laws about no-carry zones? Criminals. Cause, Y'know, Criminals totally listen to laws in general because being a criminal means you follow every single law. No. What this law does is give honest law abiding citizens willing to undergo training usually WITH A POLICE OFFICER to carry a pistol anywhere. You know who else carries into pistol free zones concealed? Off-duty police officers. And you need a squeaky clean record to get a CPL. You know what's illegal to do right now as well? Drink while you're carrying. You know where criminals prefer to shoot people? Where they know nobody will shoot back. Schools, Churches, Etc. And furthermore do you know who wanted to require you to own and know how to use a gun? The founding fathers of this country. Who wrote the bill of rights. Y'know, that document that kind of outlines the foundation of ALL our rights? Which we, as gun owners, do indeed like to quote because fear mongering people who have no knowledge of firearms tend to try and stomp them out at every turn. Guns are not scary tools of death and destruction like most anti-gun people believe. It's not the guns going into places and killing people. It's the people doing it. And honest to god they would be using crossbows or knives or any other means if all the guns were taken away. But oh wait, You know where guns are taken away and criminals still get them? England. Why? Because once again criminals will ALWAYS get guns no matter what the law is on them. Criminals are criminals by light of the fact that they do not listen to laws. The only people laws against guns hurt are honest law abiding citizens who have a right to defend themselves. "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
  • 03-27-2012 8:12 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    The SB 59 second draft (page 16) and current draft (page 25) would require a Sheriff to issue a concealed pistol license to someone convicted of “accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes” under MCL. 750.145a, when they are NOT allowed to get a CPL now! Whose idea was that?! What agenda would those politicians or the drafters of the bill legislating that sheriffs issue a gun license to someone convicted of a heinous crime like that against our children?
  • 03-27-2012 9:55 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    johnap88:
    The SB 59 second draft (page 16) and current draft (page 25) would require a Sheriff to issue a concealed pistol license to someone convicted of “accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes” under MCL. 750.145a, when they are NOT allowed to get a CPL now! Whose idea was that?! What agenda would those politicians or the drafters of the bill legislating that sheriffs issue a gun license to someone convicted of a heinous crime like that against our children?
    That's funny, I can't seem to find that in the bill reading through it. I do find a section stating that they shall NOT issue the license to them. Maybe you misread the bill.
  • 03-27-2012 11:14 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    my bad, i misunderstood an e-mail i have that was referring to another draft of the bill. here is a response about it. Pg 25, lines 11-13 were struck because it is an improper reference to a crime. SB 59 amends the Firearms Act and the bill drafter updated the language to reflect changes that were made in the Penal Code—the conduct in lines 11-13 is now a felony, not a misdemeanor. With that, CPL permits are not granted to anyone with a felony (see pg 22, lines 20-23). yeesh
  • 03-27-2012 11:47 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Also, SB 59 holds Michigan sheriffs and local taxpayers liable (civilly and fiscally) for delays that may be beyond their control at the state or federal levels. The State police normally are the cause of delay of the CPL's being issued and they wont be held responsible but the Sheriff and Tax payers will be punished. that totally is unfair. State Officials must be held to the same standards of accountability if delays, errors or omissions occur on their end, not just the Sheriff’s Office and local taxpayers. Remember they wanted to give the Secretary of State and State police the power to issue the license? well it was abandoned but what i already stated and other issues are to give the Sheriff a hard time just so they can re-argue "Secretary of State and State police" to take over. why else to punish the sheriffs and tax payers for the state police and federal delays, errors etc? there is a ton of issues with this bill and even the Michigan Sheriffs Association is strongly against this bill. they do support permit holders to carry guns in pistol-free zones though, that i do support too but they have a ton of issues in this bill that isn't being talked about by the legislator. it used to be less than 20 pages but the bill grew to 57 pages or more(last i seen was 57). making changes and adding on to it. i would ask the Michigan Sheriffs Association about this bill to know the issues.
  • 03-28-2012 4:32 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     This is just another way for the State to money for the Counties and/or local units of government.

  • 04-26-2012 2:04 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

     What is Substitute S-3?

  • 12-16-2012 9:30 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    I do not understand why SB 59 supports registered gun users to bring guns into public schools. Bringing guns into schools does not encourage a sense of safet. Safety is a fundamental ingredient for student learning. In the wake of Friday's tragedy it makes me pause and wonder why our legislators put this into the bill. I appreciate that governor Synder is giving some thought to SB 59 before he decides whether to sign it.

  • 12-16-2012 3:14 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Bill 59?   On what planet does this sound ok? 

    I am totally confused why this is a partisan issue! 

    I see this bill past with basically 100 percent republican support.  Would they really feel the same way if they lost a child like those in Conneticut? 

    Is there just one good reason to make it legal to bring a gun to any public event, school, or church? 

    This isn't the wild west anymore! 

    James

     

     

  • 12-16-2012 8:41 PM In reply to

    • smac
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 12-17-2012

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    For those of you confused by this bill, do you realized that these zones are only "Gun Free" zones for law abiding citizens. Someone intent on taking lives dosn't care about these established zones, and one prepared adult could have ended the situation much quicker in Conneticut or Colorado and saved lives.

     Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to carry AND for tougher laws to obtain firearms and much longer track records for gun owner before allowing ownership of handguns.

    These troubled individuals will be around, if there are no guns they will use explosives or other methods, I'm in favor of limiting the number of guns and stiffer penalties for guns that make it into the wrong hands. Police cannot be everwhere, and there is a reason why these "soft targets" are in the news these days, adults must have a way to protect when required. I wish that just one of the seven adults lost in conneticut had this right.

  • 12-17-2012 3:21 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    In a perfect world there would be no need for guns, but unfortunately and obviously we do not live in a perfect world so it makes common sense to take whatever measures we have to to protect ourselves and other innocent parties.

    Legally armed, trained civilians carrying a concealed handgun is rarely a problem as we are statisically the most law abiding demographic group of folks in this country.

    Currently, a person who has a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License) can legally carry his/her handgun into a school as long as the handgun is NOT concealed and in a couple of recent cases this practice cause a lot excitement when some folks chose to do this.

    SB 59 would not give a Concealed Pistol Licensee the right to carry their guns onto school property (as this right already exists) but it would require them to take extra training keep their handgun concealed while they are on school property.

    Schools are very "soft" targets for those looking to kill the innocent and unprotected with little or no fear of being stopped or facing any serious resistance and there's many horror stories, and a lot of dead children and teachers that confirms this.

    If I had a child who was in danger, I would appreciate anyone who chose to defend them by any means available, including lethal force if necessary.

     

  • 12-17-2012 8:27 AM In reply to

    • Lynda
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 12-17-2012

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    if a law abiding citizen doesn't then a crazy criminal who DOESN'T follow the law will. We prepare for fires, tornadoes, power outages, our children prepare for gunman and practice lock downs in schools. If we have even one good guy with a gun in a school when a bad guy is there shooting it up then the odds of our children surviving has increased dramatically! It's not if it is going to happen it's when. We advertise "Gun free School Zones" so these nuts know where to go to not get shot back at. Our state is already an Open carry state. All this is doing is allowing someone to put a jacket on and cover their pistol. You are around guns a lot in your shopping experience and you never new it. Funny how no one was killed.
  • 12-17-2012 9:38 PM In reply to

    • rebee
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on 12-18-2012

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    The argument that allowing the carrying of concealed weapons will prevent criminals from shooting innocent people is pretty specious one. If the weapon is concealed, who;s to know who has a weapon? A bit of silly thinking. To really make it work, it should be required that eveyone carry a concealed weapon. Then we can be fearful of everyone. And for the sword and crossbow enthusiast, they are a lot tougher to conceal. Just saying......
  • 12-18-2012 12:44 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    That really is silly thinking. You realize that right now everyone knows that people can't have guns in those locations. That's what we call common knowledge. When it becomes common knowledge (I.E once news media picks up that this bill has passed) that people CAN carry in those locations, they cease being common targets. Not everyone has to carry, all it takes is knowledge that people may be carrying. The Oregon shooter at the mall last week was confronted with a CPL holder and shot himself shortly thereafter.
  • 12-20-2012 10:07 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

    Assaults in the schools could maybe be stopped.  Gun free zones are prime targets for mad men.  All gun free zones send a message that says we are satting ducks. My classes for my CLP lead by the county sheriff said these gun free zones you shouldn't go to these places. Avode them as offen as you can. 

    I see the schools as one of these places and the chruch I attend weekly I go because I feel the need to attend.  But offen think I'm a duck waiting for that hunter.

    Filed under:
Page 1 of 1 (37 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems