Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 27, 2005, to eliminate the fingerprinting requirement for those renewing an existing concealed pistol license (CPL) if the state police establish a fingerprint database and a licensee's prints are in it

The vote was 106 in favor, 1 opposed and 0 not voting

(House Roll Call 1075 at House Journal 84)

Click here to view bill details.

Our thanks to Rep. Sheen for introducing this badly needed bill. Rep. Gene DeRossett's bill of the last session, HB 5989, passed the House by 77 to 14 but was not even given the courtesy of a Senate committee hearing. In spite of the spurious arguments of the Michigan State Police, there is no real reason why CPL licensees applying for renewals should have to go through the inconvenience and exhorbitant expense of getting fingerprinted again. Let's end this now and put pressure on the Senate to give the bill a fair hearing. We can do it.

While it would be nice to eliminate a meddlesome fingerprint requirement for renewals, I'm curious as to why there is ANY reguirement at all to have them taken in the first place? Or has Art 1, Sec 6 of our state's constitution been recently amended without anyone knowing about it?

Thanks so much for introducing this legislation! It eliminates a whole lot of unnecessary work for our police and expense for law abiding citizens who go about carrying a weapon the legal way in the first place! Our fingerprints don't change, so why take them repeatedly? This is true "common sense" legislating at it's finest. Again, THANK YOU!

I'm all for this and have always been. However, I'll save my elation for when it finally passes and is enforced. There have been bills submitted in the past (HB5548 and HB5989, the latter having been sponsored by Gene DeRossett which he later STRIPPED that part from the bill leaving the bill useless) that have died without any further action). I sometimes think these bills are all being submitted just to give the voters "false hope" so the voters will vote for these politicians again. Well I for one am keeping track and will remember on voting day. I will also be reminding others of same so let's quit pussyfooting around and get down to real business. It's the VOTERS that are supposed to be represented here, not the politicians! Fingerprinting for renewals is completely unnecessary as we all know. Why is it so difficult to have this removed from the renewal process? I think the people of Michigan, especially the CCW holders, having more than proven themselves. Let's get this taken care of once and for all and move on. WaCo in particular, needs this. Then, let's start working on the SOS taking over this operation (HB 891) and out of the hands of the county gun boards.

There is no need to be finger printed every time a CCW is renewed. They never change.

Once is enough.

The reason for fingerprinting (since someone asked) is for background checks. However, since they CLAIM they do not keep the fingerprint cards (a really stupid thing, if you ask me), we may have to go through fingerprinting one more time, IF this measure should pass. I hope I'm wrong. Al Lowe Coordinator Michigan Pink Pistols

We don't need to be wasting the expensive time of the Michigan State Police; they have real crimes to solve and limited resources as is. If a holder of a Concealed Pistols License commits a crime that would disqualify them from getting a license renewal, then the law enforcement community is fully aware of that fact. And since the MSP, County Prosecutor, and Sheriff are all represented on the county Gun Board, they sure don't need a new fingerprint to let them know about a problem; it better be on their record. As a NRA Certified Instructor who teachs CCW courses, it would appear the fingerprint requirements for CPL renewals are nothing more than an intentional hassle of the most law abiding citizens in the state. There are current LEOs carrying a gun on duty who would not be able to qualify for a CPL as an ordinary private citizen.

HOw about guys like Rader, who was exempt for 30 years from CCW- Why don';t the Brady people say disarm the police now?

There is no need to ask for more money for more fingerprints to make more work. Sometimes more is just a waste of time.

if you had as many flaming hoops to jump through to get an abortion... there would be a lot more people hanging around.

Napolean Dynamite

You're so good with women

So what exactly does this mean? That, at present, there is no setup by the MSP for these files? Suppose they don't set one up? Suppose they drag their feet in getting this setup? Is there a time line that they have to have this completed by? Does this mean that our fingerprints are now going to be a permanent record of the MSP just like they are with the FBI? Why was this even a stipulation in getting our CPL renewed? By renewing, it is already known that we have been fingerprinted before and they were cleared! I think this is just another way for our legislators to sidestep this issue. When are they going to have the brass to stand up for our rights? There IS a 2nd Amendment! They should read it!!!

The bill's text states in part,"... that only eliminates the license renewal fingerprint requirement IF the state police establish a fingerprint database and an individual's prints are in it." What do you mean IF? Is this an option with the MSP? Are you saying they DON'T have to establish a database? And IF they don't, then this whole bill is for naught?! We need better language here to clarify this. As well as a time frame to establish and implement this bill.