You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.

Lawmakers to propose overhaul of Michigan's concealed weapons law

By Kyle Feldscher

Lawmakers in Michigan are set to consider an overhaul of the state’s concealed weapons law that would allow certain gun owners to carry their weapons in pistol-free zones, according to an MLive report.

The report states that State Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, is the chief sponsor of the new bill that would also make the permit process more efficient, eliminate county gun boards by shifting permit approvals to county sheriffs and require licenses to be approved within 45 days.

Other changes in the new bill would require basic applicants to fire 98 rounds on the firing range before getting their license, as opposed to the 30 rounds currently required, according to the report.

The areas where highly trained licensees would be allowed to carry their guns would include churches, schools and sports stadiums, according to the report. The report states an extra nine hours of training and 162 additional rounds would need to be fired at a range to be considered highly trained.

To read the full MLive report, click here.

Kyle Feldscher covers cops and courts for He can be reached at or you can follow him on Twitter.



Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.

Of course you could learn this from MI State Police Legal update 86. Why not carry concealed into those places which are currently off limit. When we have demonstrated that guns can go there without problems.


Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

I would like to clarify a few things, first it is illegal to carry a CONCEALED firearm into a church, a school (k-12), a bar, a theater, hospital … However for 300k+ people we can openly carry a firearm onto those places restricted by a CPL. Also, a sign DOES NOT represent notification in Michigan. Although I have openly carried a 40 cal semi auto for a year. I have had little or no reaction when I went to two AA Schools, Meijer's, DQ, Great Clips, Aldi's, Argo, Geddies Park or anywhere else I have gone. Of course I will not go to the slaughter house of Michigan, Mich St, or Wayne St.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.

I don't know how many of the people had a CCW on the website below, but it sure makes a great case for having a weapon for self-defense.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.

@lefty48197 I just took a range safety officer training class recently or maybe it was the CPL class, but the point is a police officer came to speak and he said the number one violation a licensed handgun owner is charged with is alcohol related. It is currently illegal to carry a gun into a place that serves alcohol if that place derives more than 50% of its sales from same. So, a restaurant is okay to carry as long as food accounts for the majority of the receipts. Just to be clear for the uninformed, if you legally own a handgun, you can open carry in most places. Only when it's concealed do you need a CPL or concealed pistol license.


Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.

OK...thanks again for the edit button. It should read ADVICE...sorry


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 9:36 p.m.

@clownfish - regarding any statistics re handguns, the NRA rammed laws through congress that prohibits the CDC, who kept track of such thing, from doing it. There isn't any accurate info these days.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 9:27 p.m.

This is just plain dumb. Hasn't anything been learned from he events in FL? I have a CPL, but I almost never carry a pistol. It was mostly to legalize my transporting it in a vehicle without locking it up. I don't consider myself a "gun nut" and think the process now is just fine as is.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.

Democrats wonder why we get a bad name? We get a bad name because the far left seems to dispise the idea of self-defense IMO. I don't get it! Leave our Constitution alone people. From reading this by a few posters...I'm led to believe I may be one of the only Democrats left standing after the rest of my party lies down. What the WHAT???


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 5:39 p.m.

Please stop this insanity. This country hast turned into a gun-crazy society. Before long, we'll be like Florida. I'm not against gun ownership per se, and I know I'll see a lot of flack for saying it. However, it's about time politicians grew some balls and addressed this properly. MORE WEAPONS IS NOT THE ANSWER. I don't care how much "training" someone has. The fact that just about anyone can carry a loaded gun on his/her person almost anywhere tells me more about the failure of civility and the lack of community and the attitude of entitlement. Spare me your standard NRA-issue replies. The only reason to carry a handgun is to shoot another human being. We don't have to worry about grizzlies, varmints, or arrows from indigenous peoples. Before you label me all the usual liberal gun-hating tags -- I grew up with firearms, hunted, target shot, etc.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.

@Wong...timing is everything my man! That is priceless

Ulysses Wong

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

"We don't have to worry about grizzlies, varmints, or arrows from indigenous peoples." LOL, you can't ask for better timing! Who said the universe doesn't have a sense of humor.

Ulysses Wong

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.

"The only reason to carry a handgun is to shoot another human being. " "I grew up with firearms, hunted, target shot, etc." As for being like Florida, we also already have "Stand Your Ground" laws here in MI. IIRC the Self Defense Act 309 of 2006. AND such laws at least in Michigan are not make my day and get off scott free. They only presume innocence until proven otherwise. The gentleman in Fl will likely go to trial to prove deadly force justification. Just because he has not been arrested DOES NOT mean he won't have both a tough legal and civil journey ahead of him. Finally when"civility" and "community attitude" overtake criminals and they see the light, or when saviors can be there always to prevent tragedy, only then will I only carry to the range.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.

If it is going to be legal to carry a firearm anywhere you want, the assault laws should be changed to make it easy to charge those who display their firearms in an attempt to intimidate or coerce. It should only take the word of the victim to convict in such a case.

Ulysses Wong

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.

"It should only take the word of the victim to convict in such a case." Yep scary gun wielding maniacs should always be jailed and throw away the key.

Ulysses Wong

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.

And BTW is something "designed for death" more evil than something that wasn't even when that something that wasn't kills more? Definition of hypocrisy much?

Ulysses Wong

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : midnight

And your Brady inspired illogic is better? Guns exist solely to kill? Better get those Olympic athletes. What about all of those in Law Enforcement? The military? Bodyguards? You know those guys who daily put it on the line for people like you. Guns don't protect them, no by your "logic" they are beasts and killers.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 11:51 p.m.

Ulysses. Guns have no purpose other than death. In your faulty, NRA promoted pseudologic, why not mention water (drowniing) and air (tornados)? They kill as well...

Ulysses Wong

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.

"since I don't and wouldn't own such an oft abused instrument of death" And you don't own a vehicle either right? Cars are oft abused instruments of death. In fact more often than guns.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 10:39 p.m.

Ulysses, since I don't and wouldn't own such an oft abused instrument of death, I would never carry one either. Accuse away, my innocense would be easy to prove.

Ulysses Wong

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.

Would be pretty easy to accuse you of such a thing. Maybe even get a friend to back it up. How would you feel about that suggestion then? BTW those laws already exist.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.

It makes sense that the Michigan republicon congress would be owned and controlled by the NRA.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.

@Clownfish I agree the term "Highly trained" should perhaps be modified. Perhaps that's why it's put into quotes, a finalize wording has not been submitted? Or maybe it has, either way I agree. - I also agree (sort of) with your view on Open Carry. Though I do not open carry myself, I feel that if an individual wants to they should feel free to do so in those areas permitted (which is nearly everywhere, by the way, for those who do not know). When you say "...then we should have OPEN carry laws." that's where I'm a bit thrown off. I think a majority of gun owners/supports (you seem to be in this group) would agree that LESS laws/restrictions are better, to a degree. The reason people CAN open carry is because there is no LAW against it. It's a right and therefore needs no law to allow it. - I would also be surprised to find any accurate stats on the amount of crime deterred by cpl holders. A crime that doesn't happen is simply that. It gets no mark in the records or added to any stats. I would be interested (as I'm sure you would too) if some sort of system could be achieved. However, I still think it wouldn't be accurate. I'm sure some attempted crimes are never reported. - Also, I wanted to touch on your statement with preventing crime and carry concealed. It ties back into my initial point of absolute rights. We could both agree that simply carrying a concealed pistol does not deter crime (perhaps the fear of someone having a gun might, but the simple act of carrying does not). Yes, allot of the points made in these comments throw around numbers and talk about deterrents but I feel that's mostly an attempt to persuade/disprove some of the anti-gun folks. I don't view the right to carry a pistol as simply a deterrent... I view it as a right. I don't think the "goal" of carry concealed (or open) is crime prevention (though it may have that effect). The Goal is allowing those who want to right to carry a pistol the ability to do so.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.

Agreed. The wording is loose but purposefully so. Much has changed with our social structure, goals, economy, rights. I don't see it as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" ONLY IF "A well regulated militia..." is maintained. But that could just be my biased view. I love all my perrrrty guns


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:35 p.m.

I usually return to the text in the 2nd Amendment "...well regulated militia...". I have always found this sentence to be somewhat contradictory. On one hand it states clearly that this right "shall not be infringed", but it is qualified by the first part "well regulated". Dependent upon ones viewpoint one can make arguments to support regulation of firearms or not, all based on the same sentence!


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.

I would also like to see some evidence of crime prevention by CCW holders. What are the real stats? Not anecdotal evidence, but a real study that shows the number of crimes prevented by people with these permits. I am not against CC, I just want to see how the new system is working to prevent crime.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.

If the goal is to reduce crime, or prevent crime because the criminals don't want to be around people with firearms, then we should have OPEN carry laws. The guns should be strapped to the hips of the owners for all to see. 168 rounds makes a "highly trained" owner? that is a joke. I have fired THOUSANDS, many many thousands of rounds to achieve my ranking in the NRA system. Why not use that system to grant permits? Anything less than "expert" should not be considered "highly trained".


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:31 p.m.

we are allowed to open carry, more to the point there are not laws preventing open carry (in most cases). however I dont think I would in A2 or else you'd have people running and screaming and calling the cops saying someone was walking around town with a RPG blowing things up and the SWAT team would be called ;) I would disagree saying that the NRA system was good. NRA focuses on shooting, better (IMO) training focuses on fighting with a gun. They're very different. however, in the absence of any other standards that I know of, NRAs system would be better than 168 rds=expert... I've seen some crazy stuff at public ranges watching what some NRA instructors are trying to teach, wow. Id also be all about a 3rd tier of super-duper-expert cpl holders where they're allowed to carry anywhere, just give them the same level of training (or more) than the police, and same background checks, no difference then with a cop or trained citizen carrying.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 11:22 a.m.

This is a great new law and I hope it passes. Now they just need to include large theaters (Detroit opera house etc.) and hospitals so my wife can carry so I don't have to worry as much when she walks or rides her bike home at midnight. I do think that there should be a much higher round count for both basic and "highly trained" licenses. And there should also be accuracy standards that have to be met, we could use the police standard, but IMO even that one is not nearly stringent enough. To the anti carry lobby, where are the mass amounts of bloodshed and gun fights in the streets you all predicted when the "shall issue" cpl law passed? Exactly, it didn't happen...

Monica R-W

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7:30 a.m.

Why? What for are the only questions I can ask....


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.

Self protection? How many incidents of shootings/attacks with a weapons/attacks would you like me to post that took place in gun free zones like schools, sporting arenas? - You can choose not to carry and that's completely fine by me. I would rather have the opportunity to protect myself or those I love or even those around me, rather than have to coward in the corner and hope for the best.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 4:47 a.m.

Great! Now we will not know who with a gun is the criminal until he pulls the weapon and aims. Unfortunately, his initiative provides him with an advantage over the honest citizen who is seconds behind in drawing his weapon. Guess who gets the first shots off and who is likely to go down, along with a number of innocent bystanders I dare say! Criminals expecting citizens to be carrying weapons are likely to start shooting with less provocation than risk being shot themselves. In crowded places like schools, shopping centers, churches, and stadiums liberal carry laws raise the risk levels for injury to many innocents.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7 p.m.

I vigorously disagree!


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 11:15 a.m.

Ahhh, are you serious? LOL... Clearly that's what every public shooting demonstrates, the criminal firing into crowds hoping to get lucky and take out those bad cpl citizens...


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 3:47 a.m.

The entire Michigan House is up for election in November 2012. VOTE.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:59 p.m.

Amen to that Sparty...(allegedly) = ) the only thing Repubicans are good for is passing pro gun legislation in my opinion. If we took that away from them, they would have no use at all!


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 11:13 a.m.

I agree, we need more moderates and conservatives!!

Monica R-W

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 7:32 a.m.

Will do Sparty!


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 3:45 a.m.

This is a really kooky bill. An extra 9 hours training and 162 extra round fired at a range makes you "highly trained"? REALLY? And this will allow guns in schools? churches? AND sports stadiums? REALLY? Are we absolutely positive that these "highly trained" people won't be getting drunk at the sports stadiums where they're carrying weapons? What if the church BANS guns in their church? Does this kooky bill FORCE the churches to accept armed visitors even if the church opposes possession of arms in their House of God? REALLY?

Unusual Suspect

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:51 p.m.



Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.

To answer you question, no, passing this bill will not force the "house of god" to accept firearms. - "Are we absolutely positive that these "highly trained" people won't be getting drunk at the sports stadiums where they're carrying weapons?". How many current CPL holders do you hear/read about that take their guns into bars, drink, and star shooting up the place? Most CPL holders follow the laws. And currently, the laws do not allow us to take our guns into bars and drink, so why would all of the sudden take our guns into the sporting arenas and drink? The CPL is mostly based off the honor system, there is allot of trust there. I think it's safe to say, based on the lack of articles of drunken bar shootings by CPL carriers, the license CPL group is a mostly responsible group.

Chris Werth

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:26 p.m.

As far as churches are concerned this only a minor change. The law as it is today does not prohibit you from carrying at church, it just requires you to get permission from your pastor/priest or church board. With the new law it will be the other way around, you will be allowed to carry by default, but the church has the option to prohibit you from carrying by simply posting a small sign. With the new law or the old law it is really up to each church to decide if they want to allow concealed carry on their property. This is true for all property and business owners under todays law. All they need to due is post a small sign and you are prohibited from concealed carry on their property. As for someone getting drunk at a sports stadium while carrying, that would still be illegal. The allowable BAC while carrying is so low that a single drink will put you over the limit. I have always thought it was wrong that we cannot carry in the locations that we are most likely to need it. How many times do we hear about multiple shootings at a school, how many of these lives could have been saved if some of the teachers had been carrying? If a terrorist or some nut case wants to kill a lot of people where would they strike, at a sports stadium or other large venue where there are a lot of people in a small space; I would be happy to know that there are people there carrying a gun in order to stop the terrorist/nut case and minimize the damage he could cause. Look at the violent crime statistics, violent crime rates have dropped nearly every time a state has voted to allow concealed carry. I think someone is less likely to attempt a car jacking or mugging it they know there is a 1 in 10 chance the victim could be carrying a gun.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 1:09 a.m.

The NRA writing more legislation; just like the legislation in FL. Brilliant. All the issues that we needed fixed in Michigan and these 'legislators' (with no training) have to focus on this sort of stupidity. Why are we paying for this kind of 'legislature'. Oh, I forgot. The NRA is paying with campaign contributions.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:44 a.m.

I'm all for's about time. The training requirement is important and I'm glad to see that's in there.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.

CCW law is a joke! Criminals are laughing there butts off! Too many Restrictions. Law Abiding Adults need to be told the rules and stay in the legal boundaries.

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.

We need more guns like we need a hole in the head (badoom chu) Really, we need more restrictions on guns, not less. First, we should start with a psychological evaluation for anyone who wishes to own a firearm - which should be renewed every couple years like a drivers license. The same with testing ones's ability to hit a target and properly handle a weapon -- every 3 years you have to be re-certified.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:41 p.m.

I agree, we need way more gun restriction laws on the books so the criminals have more stuff to laugh at and not follow...


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:37 p.m.

@Jamie Magiera "people purchase guns and maintain their licenses based on how often they feel they can make use of it"? - First, I'm not quit sure what you mean there. Make use of it in what way? Is carry concealed making use of it? Is firing it making use of it? I also feel this is a general statement you're presenting as fact with no evidence to do so. I don't buy guns and maintain their licenses (which, by the way, guns don't have licenses) based on how often I can "make use" of them. I buy them because I admire and enjoy their range of functions (shooting, targets, hunting, protection, even their looks). - You go on to say if it's easier to carry in pistol free zones then more people will buy guns. I'm having a hard time believing this statement as well. I'm willing to bet if you took the areas CPL carriers can currently carry (sq. miles) and compared that to the combined area of pistols free zones (sq. miles), the area we can currently carry would trump the pistol free zones in comparison. So, if we take your statement as fact, there would only be a small number of pistol purchases in comparison considering the area (potentially) being opened up is small. But, I think there will not be any dramatic rise in gun sales because we are allowed to carry in schools/churches/sporting arenas. Consider the fact those places can still choose if they will allow pistols on the property... and that area drops even more. - I've seen these types of arguments presented on countless boards and in school. When you really look at the numbers though... there is no fact behind them. It's just fear manifesting itself into a bunch of "what if's". The same arguments were made as more and more regulations were removed from gun owners.. and guess what... the violence has dropped as a result (to many sources to cite its all over though). - If you don't want to carry, especially in these areas, you don't have to. However, some of us would like to protect ourselves, n

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:25 a.m.

zigziggityzoo, people purchase guns and maintain their licenses based on how often they feel they can make use of it. If it becomes easier overall (as in allowed) in places such as stadiums, schools, etc., there will be more people buying them and maintaining their licenses - in other words, more guns. In terms of 1 in 21, that's actually a low number. Also, consider the distribution of that number. At any rate, more guns in large public places that have high levels of tension, such as sporting events, is a really stupid idea (I'm curious if this will include events where alcohol is served - fun!). There is absolutely no reason to bring a gun into a public sports venue or school.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 9:33 p.m.

These laws have nothing to do with gun ownership (Which already requires that an individually not be deemed mentally ill, mind you). These laws are concerning whom can carry a concealed firearm and where. I should hope you know that 1 in 21 adults in this state already possess a concealed pistol license, and are carrying around you every day. You make it home to your bed every night despite average 5-10 concealed pistol licensees being present in the Meijer grocery store along with you.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.

I have a CPL and I carry where ever it's legal to do so. I support any changes to the law that make it possible for licensed CPL holders to carry in more places. But ... "highly trained"? I shoot 300 - 1000 rounds in practice per MONTH and I sure don't consider myself "highly trained."

Joe Kidd

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.

I can shoot a buckets of golf balls too, and I still hit them wrong. It's not the numbers, its the how. I can tell anyone what they are doing wrong with a pistol, but I have no idea what I am doing wrong with the golf club.

Alan Goldsmith

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.

"The areas where highly trained licensees would be allowed to carry their guns would include churches, schools and sports stadiums, according to the report." Thanks to several 'progressive' including management of the Michigan Theater, UMS, Arbor Brewery and others who made this great day possible by supporting Rick Snyder.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:48 p.m.

Puleeze...let's not go and give Gov. Snyder any credit for this. Gov. Granholm signed "Shall Issue" into law and signed EVERY piece of pro gun legislation placed on her desk...including the Castle Doctrine.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.

Gah... I should really read my post before I hit enter. - -"you're not talking about people WITH a CPL, ..." -"...2010 UCR only shows 413 death by use of a FIREARM (instead of homicide) for Michigan". - Wish we could edit posts for simple mistakes


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

@Jamie Magiera You're not talking about people a CPL, those statistics are for a blanket general population. Plus, you're not even citing their research properly! You said "39% of licensed owners do not store them properly." And the article CLEARLY states 39% of homes WITH CHILDREN. Which is not 39% of the population considering not everyone has children. Your second source has the link cut off. The F.B.I. 2010 UCR only shows 413 deaths by use of Homicide for Michigan. I'm willing to bet a majority of those were not committed by people with a CPL. You also go on to label sporting events as a high-tension place. I'll make an point I made a few posts up. Look at the places licensed CPL holders are allowed to carry currently: Shopping stores, Target, Meijers, Joan Fabrics, Gas stations, flower shops, parks, Cars on the roadways, etc. How often do you see wild-west type shoot-outs between LICENSED CPL holders? The simple fact is you really don't. The gun violence happens by unlicensed criminals who could care less about a written law. This article is about opening the doors for those law abiding CPL holders to carry (if they choose) in an area criminals already bring them because they do not follow rules. These areas currently empower criminals to bring a gun to an area where, more than likely, no law abiding citizen wanting to protect themselves can (because current law does not allow it, and they will follow that law). Most recent shootings I can think of in "pistol free zones". Keep in mind, these are not licensed CPL holders (which the topic of this article is related). -

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:43 a.m.

Mike, "law-abiding" is vague. According to NSC research, 39% of licensed owners do not store them properly ( In terms specific to Michigan: "Between 1999 and 2003, an average of 1,066 Michigan residents died each year due to firearm injuries. Suicide and homicide were the cause of death in 51% and 46% of cases, respectively. The remainder were unintentional, undetermined intent and legal intervention" ( And now, the state wants to increase the ability to have firearms in large public places with high tension, such as sporting events. The ability to carry weapons in schools is ludicrous. It's a complete violation of the sanctity of the the learning environment.

Long Time No See

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 2:53 a.m.

@Mike Who is the "James" to whom you are replying?


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 12:47 a.m.

@James - please cite for me where all of this violence with legal, law abiding citizens is taking place.

Jaime Magiera

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.

Hah, you aren't kidding. All the people who thought Snyder was awesome because he was going to run Michigan like a business, neglected to realize that he meant a business in the 1600s, with as much guns, violence and overbearing property owners to match.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (and if I am, disregard my comment). But, it seems you're against this move? My response would be, look at the places licensed CPL holders are currently allowed to carry. Places like, grocery stores, hardware stores, general public, parks, roadways, etc. You don't see wild west type shoot-outs between LICENSED cpl carriers. My specific point being. This would only changes things for the Law Abiding Licensed and carrying cpl holder; people who are following the laws and regulations put in place by the state.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:26 p.m.

@ Kyle Feldscher Any indication of how currently licensed individuals will be categorized? Will we be kept on our "normal carry condition" status or bumped right into the "Highly trained" level? Or will this be a case by case basis depending on the documentation of training submitted at the time of our CPL application? Or is none of that clear yet considering where the proposal is?

Kyle Feldscher

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:45 p.m.

At this point, it's unclear - the bill is supposed to be introduced tomorrow, when I expect more details will come out. However, I believe zigziggityzoo would be correct. It stands to reason that more training will be required to carry a concealed weapon into currently gun-free zones. Wish I could give a more concrete answer, but I imagine more information will be available soon.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:33 p.m.

Highly trained requires taking additional training, I assume after the law is passed, that meets the specified requirements.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

It seems in conflict to expidite a process and create an artificial time limit for permit turn-a-round, when you want to determine if the person is a potential risk to the community. As a registered pistol owner (not CPL), I do have a problem requiring the approval in 45 days. I prefer they take the time needed to perform the backround check. Will the Sheriff receive additional funding to conduct the new duties or just an unfunded mandate? I agree more training is better, but an extra box or two of rounds won't make you "highly trained" by any stretch.


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

The government does not really even need 45 days to do a full back ground check. We live in the electronic age now. The original 60 days was implemented so that counties with an aversion to CPL laws could not sit on applications indefinitely.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.

I agreed with alot of what "Major" is saying. Alot of this boils down to personal responsibility. We can set outrageous requirements on many thing ranging from car licensing to gun ownership. Fact is, it's on that individual to properly educate themselves and perhaps those around them. I myself am pro-gun and pro-carry. I do not, however, believe everyone that can carry should. If someone is not comfortable carry and/or does not want that responsibility then fine. I commend that person who chooses not to carry because they don't feel 100% confident in doing so. I've often viewed these "gun free zones" as "criminal empowerment zones". The ONLY thing restricting concealed carry of pistols in certain areas does, it stops the Law-Abiding people from doing so. A criminal is going to ignore the sign where as the licensed carrier will (mostly) abide by it. You never know when or how a threat will present itself. I would rather be prepared and save my life or the life of someone near me, then lie down helpless and allow the worst to happen.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:10 p.m.

Personally, I think we (CPL holders) should be "highly trained", everyone of us. When I took my training, hearing some of the comments amongst the group I thought to myself, there are some people that shouldn't carry concealed. In the question answer phase of training, in my case an NRA lawyer was there to answer questions, some of the questions asked were proof enough to me the particular individual was not worthy of such an huge responsibility. I thought that for some, more training was needed, both range and book (law). Obviously I am pro gun, and feel this is a sound and needed change to the law. Allowing only criminals to have guns in area's that contain the most precious things we have, family and friends, is not a good thing. People with CPL's in Michigan have to be squeeky clean throughout their entire lives to possess one. No alcohol/drug offenses, no criminal offenses, no violence or restraining orders...ever! This filters out most of the types that should not carry. This only underscores the reason that concealed carry, everywhere, is a good thing, safe, effective and has saved untold millions of lives almost every year. The fact one cannot ignore is "when your life is in peril and seconds count, a police officer is only minutes away"!


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.

"untold" because there are no stats to back this up. There is no doubt that weapons do save lives and often prevent crime, but "millions"? Please.

Stupid Hick

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 3:37 a.m.

I'm curious as to why you pick "squeaky clean" as the standard for who should be able to get a CPL to protect themselves. Would you favor the same standard for being able to get a driver's license?


Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 1:27 a.m.

Mike S I'll clarify, millions of untold lives are saved annually in the US by a gun stopping, thwarting, or otherwise altering the outcome of a deadly crime in favor of the victim. Not just concealed per se, but in self defense, which is what concealment is about. I say "almost every year" because the stats are varied. Time magazine did an article some time ago and had it at 335,000 a year. A Florida State University criminologist says two million defensive gun uses per year by law abiding citizens

Joe Kidd

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 10:45 p.m.

I agree completely. Just had a blog debate over some schmuck from California whining because he was arrested at a NY airport for carrying his weapon with a CA CCW. Apparently he does not know about reciprocity among individual states. He was allowed to plea to a much lesser offense, then cried about not getting his gun back. Anyone with a carry license should be trained about the differences in laws from state to state. If a trainer does not cover that, they should not be in the business.

Mike S

Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 8:52 p.m.

Thank you for your perspective on the trainees. Can you give a citation for "saved untold millions of lives almost every year"? Does the NRA compile such data?


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.

This is overall a good thing. It both IMPROVES training required for licensed individuals, and streamlines the process. What's not to like?


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 6:54 p.m.

Perfect - just what we need - real snipers at the Ohio - Michigan game.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.

I guess what I meant by private property is, you do not have an absolute right to be there. The university can implement rules/regulations that forgo a state law. But thanks for explaining it like that. It is important to make sure terms/concept aren't being used loosely.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 8:06 p.m.

@Kraiford12 The university stadium is not considered private property- It is property of the university, a publicly owned institution. HOWEVER, the university is NOT preempted by the state, meaning it can make its own ordinances against carrying firearms, and they can thus prohibit carry in the stadium and upon all of its property.


Wed, Mar 21, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.

This law would not force the University to allow pistols at football games. That's still considered private property and as such, they can choose to not allow the carrying of pistols. Hope this puts your sniper fears to rest.