Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 17, 2005, 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

The vote was 105 in favor, 0 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 777 at House Journal 108)

Click here to view bill details.

I believe this is a very good idea. I hope it goes to the legislators and is passed, overwelmingly.

This is a good Idea. People who have already trained do not need to repeat kindergarten gun safety. Further more this nonsense of "honorable/dishonorable" is more stupidity. If you have no record, and would ordinarily qualify, why have additional hurdles? Times change, things that may have got you a dishonorable in the 40's are honorable now (Just look at John Kerry). Police and Military are in unusual positions. Why should a dispute over my medical condition result in me having a favorable seperation just because I needed to sue to get my retirement? If this law is to BENEFIT, then don't allow for the ability to retalliate by an employer! MAKE THIS LAW APPLY TO ALL WHO HAVE BEEN TRAINED, MILITARY/POLICE, etc.. One personality dispute can change the "appearance" of a stellar career by a vindictive personnel manager and that should not happen, since it allows people to be in control of your life, long after you have no association with your adversaries. Stop the abuse!

I think this law is a good one, and should be expanded to all former Police officers who had to carry a hand gun in the line of Duty...

I am opposed to allowing *anyone* to carry a concealed pistol who has not been informed of Michigan laws regarding self defense. I am sure that most veterans will not be informed on Michigan law and this could lead to improper and illegal actions by licensees. This would sully our exemplar record of almost four years and 125,800 current CPL licensees, yet no illegal shooting that has been reported in the press. Further, training in handling a long gun is inadequate preparation for handling a pistol. Many veterans have never handled or shot a pistol. I believe we would be making a mistake by turning them loose with CPLs without adequate training. Careless handling that leads to an injury can also hurt our record, as well as a potential tragedy. I therefore believe that this law should be turned down by the committee. Instead, if we are looking to do something nice for veterans, why don't we eliminate the fingerprint requirement entirely? This would reduce the cost of a five-year license to $26, and reduce the time for issuance to a few weeks rather than months.

How about sailors boy scouts and air force not to mention the national guard this is a bad idea SEMPER FI http://www.bobsbunker.com/

Mr. Felbeck's comments are reasonable assumption, however, with regards to police and former police , we have certainly spent a multitude of years carrying beforw you were authorized to. Additionally, if I'm injured or retired, I cam carry my equipment without having this training and will not allow a group of clown calling themselves "responsible gun owners" to alter how I protect myself. Does your CPL class tell give you an A,B,C, on the legality of someone who has promised to do gret bobily harm because you sent them away fo 25 yrs. ? Stick that CPL training for law enforcement, (who are the people who protect you, and by the way, already had this traing in the academy) don't shine!

How about article I sect, VI of the mich. constitution, (if you are familiar) as opposed to some nonsensical babble! If you have a problem with the people who protect america protecting THEMSELVES, then point it out! If not, then you are just another mouth with no logic for the arguement you posted. Mr. Semper Fi, you do believe in the constitution, don't you? After all, isn't that what YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEFENDING, SINCE THAT IS WHAT DEFENDS US ALL!

I agree that requiring people who can probably teach gun safety should not be required to sit through a class on gun safety just to get a piece of paper so they won't be arrested for carrying a gun that they have a constitutional (state and federal, by the way) RIGHT to do anyway. I do think that proper training in gun use is a goal that the state should promote. I think that gun safety should be taught as part of physical education or perhaps a government class. That way, all citizens could qualify for carry permits. Let's add that to the bill. People need to understand why the 2nd amendment was put into the constitution. If you've got to use public schools to indoctrinate potential citizens, let's do it correctly.

Well, I'm neither military or a LEO, but I have had guns since my pre-teen years. I agree with the spirit of this bill in general; that people who know firearms well should not be required to sit through a course that they could very well teach. This part is sensible. But the world of the military, and the reality of citizen CPL are two different things! I also resented having to take the class, but when I came out of it, not only did I have a great time, but ended up learning a lot! The two main things I got from it were the changes in Michigan gun laws (and a few old ones I didn't know about) and various methods of carrying concealed in different conditions. (Like today, when it's going to be in the 90s!!!) Carrying a gun as a citizen is like the Mobil Speed Pass to jail if you get careless -- or in this case, are UNINFORMED. I think that eliminating this provision, therefore, is more dangerous than beneficial. If this bill were re-tooled to say that ex-police / military could skip the gun safety and shooting range time aspects and, instead, take an abbreviated course on the law and concealment, then I'd be all for it. That's my two pannies...

I'm in total agreement with Felbeck! The training in Michigan laws should be a must, and proof of military training in the use of handguns while should be required>

I disagree with the Assumption that former LEO's don't need training. I have met at least a half dozen in recent months who don't have a clue what the laws are, and feel that their former LEO position makes them exempt from the laws. Some of them also have attitudes. While some revisions to the laws will make it legal for them to carry in places where Joe CPL only can't carry, there are others that still apply, such as immediate notification etc.

I am a U.S. Navy vet from 1967-1973 and I did not have any pistol training. I was an electronic technician, and pistol training was not necessary in my rate. I agree that additional up to date training and learning about the latest laws is indeed a good idea. I would want to do that regardless. On the fingerprint note though, I have had my fingerprints taken so many times I've lost count. I would like to think they got me ID'ed real good with my military service.

I don't see the logic in this bill. A person can go through a complete term of service and never have a day of handgun training. I am an honorably discharged veteran, however I don't understand what that has to do with the right to carry a handgun. I am not anti gun. I own handguns and longguns. I do a lot of hunting and shooting. I can't see where this bill was thought through before it was introduced.

Don't you represent MCRGO? They said they support this bill.

99.9% of people who have come out of basic and AIT have had far more gun safety training than anyone taking a CPL course (and this even includes the Navy and Coast Guard). We understand the legalities of when we can fire a handgun. The intent behind this bill is obvious and past due, and though I'm a solid Republican, I applaud Sheltrown for his solid pro-gun views. I suspect the people giving this bill a hard time are really foes of the NRA and MCRGO. Ironic they argue against a Democratic bill!

As this bill was approved 11-0 by the House Committee on Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation, the next step will be a vote in the House. In my opinion, those who support this bill are being influenced more by sympathy and support for our troops in Iraq, God bless 'em, than they are by the strong possibility that we will now have CPL licensees out there who know nothing about Michigan's self defense laws. I hope it doesn't happen. In response to one query, these opinions are my own and have always been labelled as such.

your correct great idea

No, not anti-NRA, nor Anti-MCRGO, just anti-special classes created for those who probably have no more knowledge of Michigan CPL law than the average Joe. This law is a bad idea.

While we appreciate the job you do, we are not ready to create a special class of citizenship for you, either. You are no more entitled to your Second Amendment rights than anyone else is and there should be no special dispensation or privileges for you. We should all be treated equally.

HB4520 attempts to build into the law special classes of applicants for CPL’s that the current law was designed to eliminate, thereby defeating the purpose of the current law. Further, the reputation of all gun owners will be damaged when an "untrained" officer commits a violation. If this happens, will all the facts be properly reported in the media? As to waiving the requirements for ex-military personnel: a better 'gift' would be free hunting, fishing, and drivers licenses for five years. There is no way these veterans can assure having knowledge of the laws of Michigan upon returning to civilian status without actually taking the course. Just as bad, a veteran moving here from another state will also be lacking knowledge of Michigan law, but still eligible for a "free pass" CPL. How ironic if the "gift" of a CPL (without training) to a veteran results in her being fined, arrested, or worse. In short, this law does nothing to further gun rights in Michigan, confuses existing law, and is a direct offense-a slap in the face-to all gun owners and CPL holders

Please excuse my error; should have been HB 4522 (not 4520)