February 2012 Lawful Concealed Pistol License (CPL) Holders in Michigan

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- The most recent (February 2012) County by County CPL report is now available for download from the Michigan State Police web site.

According to the MSP report, as of February 3, 2012 there were 300,786 concealed pistol license holders in Michigan. Click here to download. MSP

Lawful Concealed Pistol License (CPL) Holders in Michigan.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Will Vested Interests In Making A Buck Crush Constitutional Carry?

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- By the close of business on November 1, 2011, the Wisconsin Department of Justice reported that over 80,000 concealed weapons permit applications were downloaded from their website. That’s a lot of $50 checks.

To be more precise, that’s $4 million dollars worth of checks if all 80,000 people who downloaded the application actually applied.

And that was just on day one. In Michigan, over 270,000 people had purchased a CCW permit in that state since its CCW law had been passed. If Wisconsin climbs to a similar number, as I believe we will, we’re talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5 million dollars in new revenue pouring into state coffers every five years. No bureaucrat can ignore $13.5 million dollars.

Business is good if your business is regulating inalienable rights.

Now, Act 35 — Wisconsin’s new shall-issue permit-to-carry-law — specifically states that these monies are not to exceed the administration costs of the license-to-carry program. But let’s face it: Does it really cost the DOJ $50 to conduct a background check and print up a little black-and-white card?

Make no mistake: This is a new gun tax. Some have called it a “coat tax.” We all know that bureaucracies don’t tend to get smaller over time. More revenue will invariably lead to more vested interests in the system. This cycle will become self-perpetuating. New agents and administrators will be hired on. And the program becomes a means unto itself.

And then there’s the problem of a state law enforcement agency with a list of gun owners — never a good thing. With congress and the institutional gun lobby trying to pass HR 822, so-called National Rightto- Carry Reciprocity, it’s plain to see how the feds would also begin to get a vested interest in keeping — and regulating — concealed carry by permit.

No Money in Freedom
Contrast that with what would happen if Constitutional Carry were to be passed (that is, no permit, background check or fees, as intended in the Second Amendment), then the money — poof! — suddenly goes away. What will all these big-government bureaucrats do with themselves? For starters, they’d have to compete in the private sector for jobs requiring actual skills. And that’s hard work (for a government leach).

Now, there is some precedent that in states like Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming a permit-to-carry system morphed over time into Constitutional Carry. But that always occurred years after a permit system had been in place.

In other words, much money had already been made. And other factors — like a properly-trained pro-gun lobby convinced state politicians their vested interest in political reelection was in freedom-to-carry and not permit-to-carry. So those states moved to better laws in spite of vested interests working against them, not for lack of them. Finally, what about the vested interests of concealed carry trainers? Some of these chaps — like the police department up in Marion, Wisconsin — are charging people upwards of $150 for a class to get a permit. Others, like Technical Colleges in Central Wisconsin, charge around $15 for the class.

One need not resort to wild conspiracy theories to explain why state officials are resistant to a concept like Constitutional Carry. It can simply be explained by human nature and the vested interests that feed off each other.

It all means that the fight to restore the right to bear arms will be met with resistance from every possible angle — even from those on the pro-gun side. Thankfully, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. And if anything is worth a little vigilance, it’s liberty.

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” – all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians – but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control – regardless of the political party – and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

Right To Carry Road Show

New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense

New Jersey – -(Ammoland.com)-  Dear friends of the NJCSD,

Just a quick note to inform you that after a long hiatus, the Right To Carry Road Show is back on the road again. Proceeds from this upcoming event will benefit Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and Oath Keepers.

The “Right-to-Carry Road Show” is a mobile processing system where all of the steps necessary to obtaining a permit to carry a firearm are consolidated. In some states, politically-motivated bias against gun owners is so extreme that many local police departments refuse to perform the fingerprinting, going so far as to intentionally give citizens the runaround or intimidate people into giving up.

In the past, completing the application process may have required several days to complete by the time the applicant arranged for fingerprinting and notarizing, sometimes even causing time off from work to coordinate scheduling with frequently uncooperative local agencies.

“The ‘Right-to-Carry Road Show’ brings all the elements together in one place and lets people get everything done in about one hour,” said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD. “We even put all the paperwork in an envelope, seal it up, and ship it to Florida for you. No more petty bureaucrats or politically-motivated roadblocks, just a fast easy way to assert your right.”

In states like New Jersey, where obtaining an in-state carry permit for self-defense is virtually impossible, the Right-to-Carry Road Show makes Florida permits available to those who want them. Since Florida has reciprocity with many states surrounding New Jersey and allows non-residents to apply for permits, offering the Florida permit is the next best thing for New Jersey gun owners.

The next RTCRS will be held on December 17th from 10AM to 2PM (hourly time slots) at the gun show at the Greater Philadelphia Expo Center. For more information, go to the SAF Fundraising Store and click on the ‘upcoming events’ link.

For a very limited time, there is an earlybird discount of $5 for those who register before this coming Wednesday. Because of the limited capacity, we urge you to pre-register rather than leaving it to chance while at the show. Be sure to use discount code RTCRS1217 when making your reservation.

Those of you who might be willing to volunteer to help, please respond to our email at president@njcsd.org and we’ll follow up with you.

As always, if you have any questions, let us know!

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- – MCL 28.425k covers alcohol. The limit is a BAC (Bodily Alcohol Content) of .02. This is essentially a zero-tolerance standard.

It is much lower than the standard of .08 for driving a car. The law says that you may not carry a conealed pistol if your BAC is at, or above, .02. The penalties get stiffer as the BAC numbers go up:

.02 – .079: Civil infraction, $100 maximum fine. CPL revocation for up to 1 year (note that your local county gun board may elect to treat this as evidence that you are a danger to yourself or others and permanently revoke your CPL.)

.08 – .099: Misdemeanor. 93 days in jail maximum. $100 fine maximum. 3-year CPL revocation.

.10 and above: Misdemeanor. 93 days in jail maximum. $100 fine maximum. Permanent CPL revocation.

The law also contains essentially the same language as the statute controlling the Michigan’s Driver’s License with respect to tests of breath, blood, urine. So, a refusal to provide a sample upon request of a law enforcement officer who has probable cause, results in suspenstion or revocation of your CPL.

The statute also states: “(3) This section does not prohibit an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol who has any bodily alcohol content from transporting that pistol in the locked trunk of his or her motor vehicle or another motor vehicle in which he or she is a passenger or, if the vehicle does not have a trunk, from transporting that pistol unloaded in a locked compartment or container that is separated from the ammunition for that pistol or on a vessel if the pistol is transported unloaded in a locked compartment or container that is separated from the ammunition for that pistol.”

So, if you find yourself deciding to have a drink at a holiday party. You may put your pistol in what is commonly referred to as “Transport Mode” and be sure that you stay below the .08 BAC limit for operating a motor vehicle if you are going to drive yourself home.

As always, be safe! Responsible gun owners know that alcohol and gun powder do not mix. The majority of accidental discharge stories begin with a bottle being opened. MCRGO members have an outstanding safety record. Let’s keep it that way.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. These are the (partially) true stories of My Gun Culture says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. These are the (partially) true stories of My Gun Culture says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

Michigan Concealed Pistol License (CPL)

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- – Q: If I get pulled over by the police while I am lawfully carrying a concealed pistol, is it considered sufficient notice to hand over my Concealed Pistol License (CPL) with my Driver’s License?

A: Maybe not.

MCL 28.425f(3) states: “An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol and who is carrying a concealed pistol and who is stopped by a peace officer shall immediately disclose to the peace officer that he or she is carrying a pistol concealed upon his or her person or in his or her vehicle.” The penalty for a first offense includes a $100 fine, and a CPL suspension of up to six months.

In one case, the driver handed his CPL over to the officer who stopped him. He did this because he had been told by a reliable source (an experienced police officer from another jurisdiction) that it is considered dangerous to use the word “gun” when talking to an officer on the road side since officers yell, “Gun!” to one another when a dangerous person displays a firearm. The driver was ticketed for the non-disclosure. In subsequent trial, the dashboard video camera record showed that it was approximately 40 seconds after the officer arrived at the driver’s window that the driver verbally disclosed his concealed pistol.

The court found that the simple act of handing over the CPL was not adequate disclosure and that the 40-second delay before verbally disclosing was not “immediate disclosure.”

So, the only safe course of action if you are pulled over is to make your disclosure as soon as the officer gets up to the window. In order to try to avoid what police officers often refer to as “a heightened sense of awareness.” (their way of saying that they are alarmed or frightened,) you should maintain a calm tone of voice and demeanor and simply tell the officer that you have a valid Concealed Pistol License and that you are carrying. You do not have to use the word “gun.”

Note that the statute does not require you disclose when you have a CPL and are NOT carrying. However, some officers will be alerted to the fact that you have a CPL before they approach your car. You may want to have a brief conversation with the officer even on days when you are not carrying, simply to avoid any confusion or misapprehension.

Note also that it is a good idea to avoid rummaging around in your passenger compartment as the officer is walking up to your vehicle. If it is dark out, turn on your interior lights, turn off your car stereo and keep your hands in plain sight on the wheel until the officer establishes contact. Remember that the police have dangerous job and your interaction will go more smoothly if you show that you are not a threat to the officer’s safety.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- - Q: I am a Michigan CPL holder planning vacation travel by car, and I am planning to bring my pistol along for safety. What are the legal ramifications of traveling with my pistol?

A: According to the US Code, (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 44, Section 926A)

“Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, that in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.”

This means that you can travel with your gun, even through states that don’t allow their citizens to protect themselves, or that do not yet have reciprocal agreements with Michigan, as long as it is legal at both ends of your trip, and you are lawfully in possession of it.

You don’t mention which states you are traveling through or visiting. If you are traveling in states that have concealed pistol reciprocity with Michigan, you must abide by the specifics of concealed pistol in each state that you visit. As the saying goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Reciprocity just means that the other state recognizes your CPL as a license in their state. But, the details of concealed carry vary widely from state to state. So, you must research the laws in each state that you intend to visit and be sure to comply.

Even if you are traveling through a state that outlaws self-defense with firearms, such as Illinois, you are allowed to do so by the above federal statute. But, you need to lock it up, either in your trunk, or a locked gun case if you have a van or SUV. And, you must lock up your ammo separately. The best advice is to put such locked cases as far from the driver as possible. Also, it is generally accepted that the storage space behind the tilting bench seat of a traditional two-door pickup truck is inaccessible to the driver.

Review – Michigan’s Handgun Registration Law
Applicable only to individuals who are licensed to carry a concealed pistol in Michigan.

Public Acts 194, 195, and 196 were passed in Jan 2008. The primary change was to MCL 28.422a:

“…(2) If an individual licensed under section 5b purchases or otherwise acquires a pistol, the seller shall complete a record in quadruplicate on a form (RI-060) provided by the department of state police. The record shall include the purchaser’s concealed weapon license number. The purchaser shall sign the record. The seller may retain 1 copy of the record. The purchaser shall receive 3 copies of the record and forward 2 copies to the police department of the city, village, or township in which the purchaser resides, or, if the purchaser does not reside in a city, village, or township having a police department, to the county sheriff, within 10 days following the purchase or acquisition. The return of the copies to the police department or county sheriff may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the police department or county sheriff. A purchaser who fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00. If a purchaser is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this subsection, the court shall notify the department of state police and the concealed weapon licensing board that issued the license of that determination.

(3) Within 48 hours after receiving the record copies returned under subsection (2), the police department or county sheriff shall forward 1 copy of the record to the department of state police. The police department or county sheriff shall retain the other copy of the record as an official record for not less than 6 years. Within 10 days after receiving the record copies returned under subsection (2), the police department or county sheriff shall electronically enter the information into the pistol entry database as required by the department of state police if it has the ability to electronically enter that information. If the police department or county sheriff does not have that ability, the police department or county sheriff shall provide that information to the department of state police in a manner otherwise required by the department of state police. Any police department or county sheriff that provided pistol descriptions to the department of state police under former section 9 of this act shall continue to provide pistol descriptions to the department of state police under this subsection. The purchaser has the right to obtain a copy of the information placed in the pistol entry database under this subsection to verify the accuracy of that information. The police department or county sheriff may charge a fee not to exceed $1.00 for the cost of providing the copy. The purchaser may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the record. However, the person is not required to have the record in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period. …”

Additional Information:
Pistol Registration, Purchase, and Transfer for Michigan Residents
Purchasing and Registering a Pistol in Michigan
Pistol Sales Record – Form RI-060 (10/2008)

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Constitutional Concealed Carry Derailed By Wisconsin Republicans

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Madison, Wis. --(Ammoland.com)- In articles here on AmmoLand and in email alerts over the past several weeks, Wisconsin Gun Owners (WGO) warned Governor Scott Walker and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R) were conspiring to sell out Constitutional Carry.

Just last week, Governor Walker showed his true colors and the state legislature fell in lockstep by turning SB93 — the nopermit Constitutional Carry bill — into one requiring permits and training, at Walker’s insistence.

Despite republicans taking control of Wisconsin’s legislature in the Nov. 2 mid-term elections, no commitment on Constitutional Carry (concealed carry with no permit system) was issued from Governor-elect Scott Walker (R). Instead, the governor harpooned Constitutional Carry against the wishes of gun owners when he went public on June 3, 2011 with a demand for the legislature to bring him a permit bill.

The newly-elected legislature — where republicans now control the assembly and state senate — has breathed new life into growing momentum in Wisconsin to by-pass a “Shall-Issue” concealed carry law in favor of one modeled after Vermont’s or Alaska’s laws.

If successful, the reform would mean anyone who may legally purchase a firearm may legally carry it. Similar legislation was passed in Arizona this year, and several other states — Texas, Utah and Iowa — are on the cusp of rolling back permit-to-carry requirements.

While WGO has been in contact with Governor Walker’s press secretary, Cullen Werwie, Walker refused to comment on Constitutional Carry until late last week when WEAU-13 news Eau Claire reported, “Walker issued a statement Friday saying any bill that reaches his desk should include a permit and training” (Walker: Concealed carry needs permit, training 6/3/11).

Walker did earn an F rating due to his failure to answer the WGO candidate survey, which asks candidates their position on no-permit carry. The survey was re-issued to Walker giving him the opportunity to tell gun owners his views, but he has not responded.

Meanwhile, five organizations — Wisconsin Campaign for Liberty, Gun Owners of America (GOA), National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), Wisconsin Carry, Inc., and the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) — have lead the push by stating their support for Constitutional Carry.

“Given how the elections turned out, asking the Wisconsin legislature for a “shall-issue” concealed carry bill will be like kissing your sister,” wrote Tim Schmidt, president of the United States Concealed Carry Association.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. has reported that the Wisconsin Republican Party has adopted no-permit carry into its official platform.

Divide and Conquer at Public Hearings
On Thursday, May 12, two public hearings were scheduled for two different carry bills. AB126 was the assembly permit-to-carry bill heard in Madison at 10:30 am, while SB90 its Senate version, was heard in Wausau before the State Senate Committee on the Judiciary at noon.

Also heard in Wausau was SB93, the no-permit bill, which would have ushered in Constitutional Carry with the option of getting a permit for reciprocity purposes.

WGO testified in favor of SB93, and handed out a flyer for information on the bait-and-switch pulled on gun owners by the institutional gun lobby and anti-gun republicans in the assembly.

“Our veterans did not fight in foreign wars for privileges,” said Corey Graff, Executive Director of WGO. “They fought for rights. For freedom. For liberty. If you don’t understand this basic concept, you’re probably not qualified to be representing We the People.” In an e-mail alert issued before the hearings, WGO reported that the Madison heading “presents you with a false dilemma: Support a bad carry bill, or publicly oppose ‘concealed carry. This is a mockery. State politicians think they can divide-and-conquer gun owners — driving permit-to-carry supporters to Madison and pushing those who support Constitutional Carry up to Wausau.

“We recommend attending to show your support for Constitutional Carry, despite the fact that republican leadership only allowed the permit bill.”

Reporting that a backroom deal had been struck, WGO alerted gun owners that both bills would be allowed to be introduced in the state senate — but the real bill that leadership was pushing (ie. not actively fighting against) was the permit bill.

“We believe this gives the NRA and Rep. Jeff Mursau (R-36) in particular the opportunity to give lip service to Constitutional Carry, while actively working to ram a permit bill into law. It allows them to speak out of both sides of their mouth,” the alert said. Constitutional Carry legislation was not given a hearing in the assembly. According to inside sources,

Assembly leader Jeff Fitzgerald (R) and the republican establishment was using every procedural trick in the book to block Constitutional Carry.

While many gun owners assumed the permit bill,AB126/SB90 (as of press time now SB93) is a “step in the right direction,” WGO reminded them it includes fees (a gun tax) and a registration list of licensees maintained as a criminal database by the Department of Justice.

“Do you support new taxes, bigger government and gun registration?” asked WGO.

Anti-Gun Police Chiefs Back Permit Bill
According to a story in the Wausau News Herald (Galloway introduces concealed gun bill, May 4, 2011), “Wausau Police Chief Jeff Hardel said he doesn’t support concealed carry.”

He goes on to say how much he dislikes Constitutional rights: “”Overall, I think you’ll find law enforcement doesn’t support (concealed carry).

“But if it’s going to pass,” said the Chief, “then I just think we need to have a proper system in place.” “…A proper system in place.”

Translation: An anti-gun police chief who doesn’t respect your right to self-defense, or the Constitution, will support a “proper system.”

By “proper system” is meant taking a blow torch to the Second Amendment by turning a right into a privilege by permit, guilty-until-proven-innocent Brady-style background checks, fees (new gun tax), and gun owner registration — providing DOJ (under which works the anti-gun BATFE) a list of everyone who carries.

“Does this sound like a step in the right direction?” asked WGO.

Darling & JFC Ram Training and Permits On June 9, the Joint Finance Committee, co-chaired by State Senator Alberta Darling (R-8) — notorious F-rated anti-gun compromiser — defied the wishes of gun owners when her committee turned SB93 into a permit bill, and tacked on the requirement for mandatory training. “Wednesday, JFC co-chair Alberta Darling told 27 News she would also like to see a bill with training and permit requirements,” reported WQOW-18 Eau Claire News.

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” – all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians – but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control – regardless of the political party – and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- – Q: What is the penalty for carrying a concealed pistol without a concealed pistol license?
A: MCL 750.227 (2) states: “A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license,” and goes on to specify a substantial penalty in paragraph (3): “A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.”

In short, a person who carries a concealed pistol in violation of this section is subject, upon conviction, to a prison term of up to 5 years. Historically, the carrying of a concealed pistol has been punished severely due to the fact that others are not placed on any warning or notice that the individual is armed. Concealment of a pistol was, and is, seen as a criminal act in and of itself, even if no other crime is contemplated or attempted.

The license to carry concealed carries conditions such as completion of a training program that includes relevant legal instruction. Note that no license is required within your own home, on your own land, or in your own place of business.

Q: What am I supposed to do if I choose to eat in a restaurant that serves alcohol while I am carrying my concealed pistol?
A: Assuming that you have a valid CPL (Concealed Pistol License), and that the restaurant is not considered a tavern or bar (defined as an establishment that derives more than half of its income from the sale of alcohol by the glass), the other issue is the rights of private property owner or lessor. If the management of the restaurant has a no guns policy that is communicated to you in any reasonable manner, including signage, verbally etc. then you are trespassing if you carry your pistol on the premises. Private property owners have the right to set conditions on your entry onto their private property; and if you violate those conditions, you are trespassing.

If you choose to drink alcohol, and plan to stay below the .08 BAC level and drive yourself, or plan to ride with a sober driver, you must be sure to store your pistol so that you are not carrying it concealed. Essentially, you must put it in what is commonly referred to as “transport mode.”

MCL 28.425k(3) states: “This section does not prohibit an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol who has any bodily alcohol content from transporting that pistol in the locked trunk of his or her motor vehicle or another motor vehicle in which he or she is a passenger or, if the vehicle does not have a trunk, from transporting that pistol unloaded in a locked compartment or container that is separated from the ammunition for that pistol or on a vessel if the pistol is transported unloaded in a locked compartment or container that is separated from the ammunition for that pistol.”

Keep in mind that, according to the same statue, by accepting your CPL, you have consented to a search of your breath, blood, or urine in exactly the same way that you did when you accepted your Driver’s License: “(1) Acceptance of a license issued under this act to carry a concealed pistol constitutes implied consent to submit to a chemical analysis under this section.” This means that, as long as a law enforcement officer has probable cause, you must submit to such a test for alcohol, or controlled substances. If you refuse, your refusal will be reported to your county gun board and: “(ii) The refusal may result in his or her license to carry a concealed pistol being suspended or revoked.”

So, the mere fact that an establishment happens to serve alcohol does not mean that you cannot be armed there. However, you cannot carry your pistol in a bar. And, you cannot drink while carrying. The statute lays out a BAC level of .02, which is best treated as a zero-tolerance standard.

Q: I am a current CPL holder. I bought a new motorcycle this spring and wondered if it’s legal to carry my revolver concealed on me while riding the bike. I also wondered if I can store or conceal the revolver in a locked compartment on the bike?
A: So long as you have a valid, Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License), you may carry concealed pistols anywhere in the State of Michigan except for those places listed on the “Pistol Free Areas” list in the statute, or private property where the party in control prohibits weapons in general or asks you specifically not to carry there. Note that the intent of the law is that you should lock your gun in your vehicle when you find yourself about to enter a “Pistol Free Area.” (NOTE: I use the quotation marks to indicate that the statute uses the term “Pistol Free Area,” but only law-abiding citizens are deterred by the rule.) The question of storage is a question of reasonableness. If you have a compartment on your motorcycle that is secure, you should be fine storing your pistol there. However, if the gun falls into the wrong hands, you could potentially face criminal and civil liability. So, be sure that your method and location of storage pass the “sniff test”.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- – Responsibilities of Individuals With a Concealed Pistol License

1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately disclose to the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle. Failure to disclose this information to a police officer carries the following penalties:

• First offense = State Civil Infraction – $500 fine and 6-month CPL license suspension.
• Second offense = State Civil Infraction – $1000 fine and CPL license revocation.

2. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall have the license in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol.

• Failure to possess CPL license when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and a $100.00 fine.

3. Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a police officer:

• His or her license to carry a concealed pistol
• His or her driver license or personal identification card

Failure to show CPL license and Michigan driver license or Michigan personal identification card when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and $100.00 fine.

4. A pistol carried in violation of numbers 1, 2, or 3 is subject to immediate seizure by a police officer.

If a pistol is seized for failure to possess a CPL while carrying a concealed pistol:

Individual has 45 days in which to display their license to carry a concealed pistol to the law enforcement agency that seized the pistol and the pistol shall be returned.

• If the individual does not display their license to carry a concealed pistol within 45 days the pistol is subject to forfeiture.
• To Ensure safety during police encounters if you are stopped by a law enforcement officer you should:
• Keep your hands where an officer can see them. Cooperate fully with the police officer.
• If you have a gun with you, tell the police officer as soon as possible.
• Do not make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon.
• If in a vehicle at night, turn on your vehicle’s dome light.

In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized.

Frequently Asked Question
Q: Does the prohibition on carrying concealed pistols in schools and on school property (except while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian) apply when school is not in session? I often take my children to play on the swings/play structures in the school yard during the summer when school is out and would like to carry on those occasions.

A: MCL 28.425o which prohibits carrying concealed in schools and on school property does not provide an exemption for occasions when school is not in session such as on weekends and during the summer months. Consequently, apart from other exceptions, schools and school property remain “pistol free zones” even when school is not in session or closed.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Looking For NYC Pistol License Holders

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

New York – -(Ammoland.com)- The NYPD has sent out form letters to pistol license holders who list handguns which can accept magazines holding 10+ rounds (deceptively) implying that all such magazines are illegal and that the guns must either be modified or turned in prior to renewal of the pistol license.

See http://www.nysrpa.org/images/NYPDmagazineletter.jpg

NYSRPA is looking to speak with anyone who has received a similar letter. Please call Tom King @ 518-424-1349 to further discuss the issue.

With regard to NYPD trying to con people out of their lawfully possessed magazines, we are specifically looking for:

• Anyone who informed the NYPD that their magazine was made prior to September 1994 and thus lawful and nevertheless had their handgun license revoked or not renewed because of it.
• Anyone who turned in their magazine based upon on the misleading statements in the NYPD’s letter.
• Anyone who turned in their magazine and is now trying to get it back.
• Anyone who corresponded with the NYPD about this letter and/or a magazine capacity issue.

About:
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state’s largest and oldest firearms advocacy organization. Since 1871, our organization has been dedicated to the preservation of Second Amendment rights, firearm safety, education and training, and the shooting sports. Our membership consists of individuals and clubs throughout the state. We are a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization and the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York. Visit:  www.nysrpa.org

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)-

Population* over 21 years of age = 7,085,405 (data released May 5, 2011)
Licensed CPL holders = 266,967 (as of May 4, 2011)
Adult Population Ratio with CPL’s = 1 in 26.54

*Michigan population data source: Demographic Profile for Michigan 2010 Census – michigan.gov

Frequently Asked Question

Q: Can I allow my CPL to expire and then carry a receipt for payment of the application fee for a new license to prove that one is licensed during the “gap” of time that the new license is issued?

A: No, this is likely a misreading of the statute that could expose one to potential criminal liability.

First of all, the CPL renewal scheme allows one to renew anytime within the year preceding expiration without any loss of time under the old license. It is obvious that this policy is designed to encourage timely renewals of the CPL.

The relevant statute does mention holding onto your receipt along with the expired CPL, but this provision does not apply unless the gun board has failed to meet its 60-day deadline to approve or reject renewals.

Therefore, unless the gun board has failed to meet it’s deadline, it is not lawful to carry a concealed pistol with an expired license whether or not one has a receipt for the new license.

To ensure that one is continuously licensed, one should apply for a renewal no later than 60 days before the expiration of the current license.

MCL 28.425l
(2) The concealed weapon licensing board shall issue or deny issuance of a renewal license within 60 days after the application for renewal is properly submitted. The county clerk shall issue the applicant a receipt for his or her renewal application at the time the application is submitted. The receipt shall contain all of the following:

(a) The name of the applicant.
(b) The date and time the receipt is issued.
(c) The amount paid.
(d) A statement that the receipt is for a license renewal.
(e) A statement of whether the applicant qualifies for an extension under subsection (3).
(f) The name of the county in which the receipt is issued.
(g) An impression of the county seal.

(3) If the concealed weapon licensing board fails to deny or issue a renewal license to the person within 60 days as required under subsection (2), the expiration date of the current license is extended by 180 days or until the renewal license is issued, whichever occurs first. This subsection does not apply unless the person pays the renewal fee at the time the renewal application is submitted and the person has submitted a receipt from a police agency that confirms that a background check has been requested by the applicant.

(4) A person carrying a concealed pistol after the expiration date of his or her license pursuant to an extension under subsection (3) shall keep the receipt issued by the county clerk under subsection (2) and his or her expired license in his or her possession at all times that he or she is carrying the pistol. For the purposes of this act, the receipt is considered to be part of the license to carry a concealed pistol until a renewal license is issued or denied. Failing to have the receipt and expired license in possession while carrying a concealed pistol or failing to display the receipt to a peace officer upon request is a violation of this act.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

California Rifle and Pistol Association

Los Angles, CA --(Ammoland.com)- Through their joint Legal Action Project, the NRA and CRPA Foundation are sponsoring two new legal actions to enforce a 16-year old court Order against the City of LA over its concealed weapons permit (CCW) issuance policies.

Under Penal Code § 12050, et seq., the LAPD has an obligation to process applications for CCWs, and to issue CCWs if the applicant has “good cause.” For many years, the City and the LAPD had a policy of not making applications available, never finding good cause to exist, and effectively prohibiting the issuance of any CCWs.

Two lawsuits filed in the 1990′s were supposed to change that. But despite a binding settlement in those suits that resulted in LAPD being ordered by a court to implement new policies, the LAPD has abandoned these court ordered policies for handling citizens’ applications for CCWs, and has fallen back on its old habits.

The City’s unlawful refusal to properly process CCW applications was challenged in two lawsuits in 1992 and 1994. To settle the suits the LAPD agreed to implement a specific and transparent court ordered procedure to provide clarity and fairness for citizens applying for CCWs. The LAPD agreed that all citizens who request a CCW permit application would be provided a CCW application at any LAPD station house, that the application would be accompanied by a written copy of the LAPD’s procedure for handling the application, and the applicants would be informed of the procedures for appealing the denial of a CCW application. The settlement also resulted in the establishment of a Citizens Advisory Review Panel, made up of appointed citizens who would review CCW applications denied by the LAPD and make recommendations regarding whether the LAPD should reverse its denial of the CCW application.

A memorandum discussing the suits and their history is posted here.

The LAPD has repeatedly failed to honor its legal obligations under the settlements. The LAPD no longer makes CCW applications and a written copy of the CCW policy and appeal process available at all station houses. And the LAPD is ignoring the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel and has instead enacted a de facto policy of again issuing no CCWs, despite whatever showing of good cause the applicants might make.

So in a city with almost 4 million citizens, with some 300 CCW applications being made per year, LAPD has only granted 24 active CCWs. Citizens who have had credible and ongoing threats made against them and their families, and those who carry large sums of cash as part of job and are high-profile robbery targets, have been repeatedly denied CCWs despite meeting the “good cause” criteria for receiving CCWs that the LAPD was forced to agree to years ago.

To rectify this situation, two new legal actions are being pursued. The first new court action is a motion to enforce the court’s old order in the 1994 case, Assenza v. City of Los Angeles. Some of the original plaintiffs from that case seek to force the LAPD to reinstate its agreed-to policy of providing applications and copies of its written policy at all LAPD station houses. In support of its motion, NRA grassroots activist citizens who were recruited to investigate the LAPD’s practices have submitted declarations about their recent attempts to get CCW applications. They were frustrated by uncooperative officers at individual station houses, all of whom had a complete lack of understanding of the LAPD’s application process, and who in almost all instances could not provide a CCW application to the requesting citizen, much less a copy of the LAPD’s written policy. Perhaps most egregiously, LAPD officers bluntly told citizens that unless they were celebrities, they shouldn’t even bother filling out the CCW application because they would be denied a CCW as a matter of LAPD policy.

The second action is a new lawsuit, Davis v. City of Los Angeles. The nine plaintiffs in this new action, some of whom have had CCW applications pending and unresolved with the LAPD for years, have submitted sworn declarations attesting to a litany of missteps and abuses by LAPD in its handling of their CCW applications. These abuses include not only the failures to provide applications and copies of the written policies at stationhouses, but refusals to timely consider their applications, failures to respond to inquiries regarding the status of applications, failures to acknowledge the availability of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel as a method of appealing denial, and the failure to give any weight to recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Review Panel.

Second Amendment challenges may be incorporated into these lawsuits as the case law develops in the Ninth Circuit, where another NRA/CRPAF LAP case, Peruta v. San Diego, is currently being heard.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- Q: I am a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holder. I have been told that I can only carry one pistol and may not carry a back-up gun. Is this true?

A: It is probably not true. MCL 28.425c states that a CPL holder may: “Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.” I have heard that some instructors of the legal portion of the CPL class are teaching that the words “a pistol” mean that only one pistol may be carried at a time. I disagree. There is a general rule (the rule of lenity) for interpreting law which holds that behavior that is not prohibited is allowed.

Since the law does not prohibit carrying more than one concealed pistol, it is reasonable to interpret the statute as applying to each pistol that a CPL holder chooses to carry.

While not the final word on the matter, the official position of the Michigan State Police agrees with me. In reply to a recent inquiry on this very topic, the MSP replied as follows: “Nothing in Michigan law limits the number of pistols that may be carried by a CPL holder – a CPL holder may carry as many pistols as he or she wishes.”

I believe that this is a correct interpretation of current law.

However, it is possible that some local law enforcement and prosecutors could try to make an issue of this. But, as of this writing, I have not heard of any such cases, and the able staff of clerks and law students who assist me with research have been unable to locate any record of such cases.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Covington VA --(Ammoland.com)- NO PHOTOGRAPHS ALLOWED!

I cannot believe that we are still having some localities photograph Concealed Handgun Permits applicants!

There is NO authority in the law for the Circuit Courts or the police to make you submit to a photograph to get your concealed handgun permit.

If you are told they need to photograph you, REFUSE, and then get in touch with VCDL ASAP.

I have just learned that Botetourt County is requiring these unlawful photographs and we will be in touch with them about this on Monday. Apparently they have been doing this for years!

If you don’t tell us when there are abuses like this, then they won’t get fixed. If you refuse to submit to unlawful requests, then, if push-come-to-shove, there is standing to appeal to a higher court.

AN IMPORTANT REMINDER ON CHP RENEWALS:
Renew your CHPs no earlier than 180 days and no later than 90 days before expiration. If you do that, then your new CHP’s expiration date will be exactly 5 years out from the expiration date on your expiring permit. IF YOU WAIT UNTIL THERE ARE LESS THAT 90 DAYS UNTiL EXPIRATION, your new Concealed Handgun Permits will have an expiration 5 years out from when the judge signs it – possibly causing you to lose weeks on your expiring permit that you had paid for 5 years ago. There is a THREE-MONTH window – don’t miss it!

A REMINDER ON FINGERPRINTING
Only first-time applicants for a CHP can be fingerprinted. There is to be NO fingerprinting on renewals. Also, fingerprinting is up to the locality – if they pass an ordinance authorizing it, then new applicants are fingerprinted, otherwise there is no fingerprinting. Currently only about 1/3 of localities require fingerprinting of first-time applicants.

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

State of Maine

AUGUSTA, MAINE --(Ammoland.com)- State Rep. Dale Crafts says his bill to modify the law regarding concealed carry weapons is a safety enhancement for law abiding citizens and would make concealed carry permits more affordable.

The bill by Rep. Crafts (R-Lisbon), LD 658, is titled “An Act to Modify the Requirement of a Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon.” It is modeled on laws currently in effect in Arizona and Alaska. In essence, it would allow a person to carry a concealed weapon without a permit except in certain places, which are detailed in the legislation.

“In my view, an armed society is a safer society,” said Rep. Crafts, a second-term legislator. “The requirement to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon could be considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment, which states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers thought that right was so basic that it comes at the top of the Bill of Rights, just after the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

“American citizens have a right to protect themselves,” he added, “whether they are in their own homes or in a public venue. This bill would enhance the right to self-protection for law-abiding folks, with reasonable restraints.”

Rep. Crafts said his bill also would make concealed carry permits less expensive – $10 for an original application instead of the current $35 fee – and would extend the length of permits from four years to seven years.

Under LD 658, all restrictions that apply to concealed carry permits would apply to the proposed law, and persons carrying a concealed weapon without a permit would be subject to additional restrictions. Such persons, for example, could not enter a polling place on the day of an election, the grounds or buildings of a school or a nuclear power plant or hydroelectric facility.

Moreover, the prohibition against carrying without a permit would extend to “a structure, vehicle or craft owned, leased or operated by the state or a political subdivision of the state after a reasonable request by the operator or sponsor…to remove the dangerous or deadly weapon and place it in the custody of the operator or sponsor for temporary and secure storage.”

Rep. Crafts said his bill has been attacked in press accounts based on false and misleading statements. In one article, a critic said the bill would make guns “very, very available to young people – to children – who are just playing with them.”

Rep. Crafts said critics need to remember that citizens are currently allowed to carry weapons that are not concealed. “I don’t see this leading to an explosion in the number of guns,” he said. “Right now you can walk down main street wearing a holster with a revolver just like you could in the old West. The only difference with my bill is that you could conceal that same weapon.”

Southwick Associates

FERNANDINA BEACH, Fla. --(Ammoland.com)- Nearly 3 out of every 4 recreational shooters and hunters in America owns at least one handgun according to a recent survey conducted by HunterSurvey.com.

Of particular significance, however, is the finding that the handgun owners who don’t already possess a concealed-carry permit, about 40 percent said they intend to apply for one within the next 12 months.

Nearly Half of All Handgun Owners Plan to Apply for a CCW Permit in 2011

This strong interest in obtaining concealed-carry weapon (CCW) permits could mean a real demand for training and CCW-related accessories and firearms in the coming year.

“I see a real growth opportunity for qualified firearms instructors and shooting facilities in providing the training that many states require in order to secure a CCW permit,” said Rob Southwick, president of Southwick Associates, which designs and conducts the surveys at HunterSurvey.com and AnglerSurvey.com.

“Interest in CCW could also generate quite a market opportunity for companies that not only make handguns suitable for concealed carry, but also for manufacturers of accessories that serve that same market, such as holster and ammunition makers.”

Those who hunt, fish and target shoot are invited to participate in the surveys conducted on HunterSurvey.com and AnglerSurvey.com. Each month, participants who complete the survey are entered into a drawing for one of five $100 gift certificates to the sporting goods retailer of their choice.

About AnglerSurvey.com, HunterSurvey.com, ShooterSurvey.com: Launched in 2006, AnglerSurvey.com and HunterSurvey.com, ShooterSurvey.com help the outdoor equipment industry, government fisheries and wildlife officials and conservation organizations track consumer activities and expenditure trends.

The information above represents only a small sample of the vast amount of data collected from the complete survey results and available to government agencies, businesses, the media and other interested parties. Results of these non-scientific surveys are statistically weighted to reflect the attitudes and habits of anglers and hunters across the United States.

About Southwick Associates:
Southwick Associates was founded in 1989 to serve state fish and wildlife agencies, as well as the sport-fishing and hunting industries. We specialize in economic and business statistics related to fish and wildlife. Our expertise includes measuring retail expenditures by anglers, hunters, wildlife viewers and other outdoor re-creationists; quantifying the jobs, tax revenues and other economic impacts of outdoor recreation; tracking trends within outdoor industries as well as identifying major distribution channels and the overall structure of specific outdoor-related industries; and analyzing the value of fish and wildlife resources and their uses including land transactions, new business ventures, fish kills and more. Visit: www.southwickassociates.com

Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore

Maryland --(Ammoland.com)- As predicted, the gun bills began appearing in the second week of the Session.

We are seeing the normal fare, including the expected exploitation of the Tuscon shooting by Senator Frosh. Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez is jumping on the anti-gun agenda with what is expected to be a crossfiled House bill identical to Senator Frosh’s SB 162.

What is unusual this Session is the number of crossfiled bills with 8 of the 13 bills filed to date being crossfiled. Depending on whether or not the House Judiciary Committee holds its hearings on the same day as the Senate Judicial Committee this could make our task more or less difficult.

We are currently reviewing several of this year’s “anti crime” bills to see what mischief may be lurking in the details.

Senator Frosh Files Anti-Gun Legislation – Committee Hearings Scheduled

While it may not be the main event for this session, the first “Gun Bill Day” will be in the Senate on Thursday, February 10, 2011.

This is somewhat early in the Session so it appears that Senator Frosh, Chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee is eager to promote his anti-2nd Amendment agenda. Be sure to check the new bill information and hearing links in the Useful Links During the 2011 Session section below.

HB 9 Carry Permit Reciprocity - Hearing – After Action Report

The hearing went quite well. Most notable were the number of pointed questions asked of the Maryland State Police.

Click here to view the “standard” video recording of the HB 9 hearing.

Click here to read or download HB9 (Note: West Virginia was omitted by Legislative Services and will be added to the scope of the bill by way of amendment when Delegate Smigiel introduces his bill before the Committee.)

Your support is STILL needed to advance this bill. Last session, this same legislation failed in a 10-10 tie vote. Please focus your efforts on the following members of the committee (remember to keep your communications polite and respectful):

Click here to E-mail members the House Judiciary Committee

Gun Bills Filed
The following gun bills have been filed to date. They are listed below categorized under bills we should support or oppose.

NOTE: Clicking on the bill number will link you to the MLIS bill information page. Clicking on the bill title will link you to the actual bill text.

SUPPORT:

HB 9
Regulated Firearms – License Issued by Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Virginia – Reciprocity
Synopsis: Specifying that a license to carry a regulated firearm, including a concealed regulated firearm, issued to an individual by Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Virginia is valid in Maryland.
HEARING DATE: heard on 01-25-2011 SUPPORT

HB 91
Courts – Bankruptcy – Arms
Synopsis: Authorizing a person to claim an exemption in specified bankruptcy proceedings for arms in an amount not to exceed $2,000 in value; and applying the Act prospectively.
HEARING DATE: none scheduled SUPPORT

OPPOSE:

HB 252 – SB 239 (crossfiled bills)
Crimes – Possession of Loaded Handgun or Regulated Firearm – Enhanced Penalties
Synopsis: Prohibiting a person from wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun loaded with ammunition on or about the person or in a vehicle under specified circumstances; prohibiting a person from possessing a regulated firearm loaded with ammunition under specified circumstances or if the person is under the age of 21 years; establishing penalties, including mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment, for violations of the Act; etc

Note: There is no provision exempting persons who have no prior criminal record and who are simply carrying a firearm for personal self-defense, and who cannot obtain a carry permit due to the restrictive anti-self defense policies of the Maryland State Police.

HOUSE HEARING DATE: none scheduled
SENATE HEARING DATE: 02-10-2011 OPPOSE

SB 161
Regulated Firearms – Applications for Dealer’s License – Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements
Synopsis: Requiring the Secretary of State Police or the Secretary’s designee to disapprove an application for a State-regulated firearms dealer’s license if the Secretary or designee determines that the applicant intends a specified person to participate or hold a specified interest in the management or operation of the business for which the license is sought; requiring licensed dealers to keep records of specified information; etc.

Note: Just another liberal anti-gun paper chase to make becoming a firearms dealer as onerous and unappealing as possible.

HEARING DATE: 02-10-2010 OPPOSE

SB 162 – HB ? (House crossfiled bill coming)
Firearms – Detachable Magazines – Maximum Capacity for Ammunition
Synopsis: Altering the maximum capacity for ammunition in a detachable magazine for a firearm that can be manufactured, sold, offered for sale, purchased, received, or transferred; and altering the number of rounds of ammunition in a magazine or an assault pistol which, when used by a person in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, results in that person being guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to specified penalties.

Note: Far be it from Senator Frosh to miss an opportunity to exploit the Tucson tragedy to further his anti-gun agenda.

HEARING DATE: 02-10-2011 STRONGLY OPPOSE
NO POSITION:

HB 79
Task Force to Study the Creation of a Maryland Center for School Safety
Synopsis: Creates yet another short-term “feel good” to study school safety and produce a report that few will ever hear of and fewer still will actually read.
HEARING DATE: 02-09-2011 NO POSITION

HB 161 – SB 174 (crossfiled bills)
Criminal Law – Use of Firearm in the Commission of a Crime of Violence or a Felony
Synopsis: Prohibiting the use of specified firearms in the commission of crimes of violence or felonies; and defining “firearm”.
HOUSE HEARING DATE: none scheduled
SENATE HEARING DATE: 02-10-2011
NO POSITION

HB 172 – SB 173 (crossfiled bills)
Criminal Law – Diminution Credits – Possession of a Regulated Firearm by Person Convicted of Crime of Violence
Synopsis: Decreasing the number of days per month that an inmate serving a term of confinement that includes a consecutive or concurrent sentence for a crime of possession of a regulated firearm by a specified person prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm is allowed as a deduction in advance from the inmate’s term of confinement; etc.
HOUSE HEARING DATE: none scheduled
SENATE HEARING DATE: 02-10-2011

NO POSITION

HB 241 – SB 240 (crossfiled bills)
Criminal Law – Restrictions Against Use and Possession of Firearms
Synopsis: Expanding to all firearms the prohibition against the use of a handgun or an antique firearm capable of being concealed on the person in the commission of a crime of violence or felony; increasing the maximum term of imprisonment applicable to a violation of the prohibition against possession of a regulated firearm by a person who was previously convicted of a crime of violence or a specified drug- related crime from 5 to 15 years; etc.
HOUSE HEARING DATE: none scheduled
SENATE HEARING DATE: 02-10-2011

NO POSITION AT THIS TIME – BILLS ARE CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW

About:
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (AGC), located in Marriottsville, Maryland. The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. was formed on July 1, 1944 when a number of World War II veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland area began looking for a place for recreational and competitive shooting. They organized with several other Baltimore area shooting clubs to form the “AGC” Visit: www.associatedgunclubs.org

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- The New Jersey Attorney General’s motion to dismiss a recently-filed Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against the state’s subjective handgun carry laws was “predictable and disappointing,” SAF said today.

The lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Garden State’s “justifiable need” gun permit standard also involves the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and six private citizens. It was filed in November in federal court.

The Attorney General’s brief asserted, “When a handgun is carried in public, the serious risks and dangers of misuse and accidental use are borne by the public.”

“That is a pretty lame argument,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Considering that there are more than 6.2 million law-abiding citizens licensed to carry in 48 states, and that many of these people have either intervened in, or prevented crimes by their mere presence, New Jersey’s position on this issue simply defies common sense.”

Gottlieb said the very nature of New Jersey’s “justifiable need” requirement is arbitrary, discriminatory and “wide open to official abuse.”

“We are disappointed but not surprised by the State’s response to our lawsuit,” noted ANJRPC President Scott Bach.

“The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home has long been disparaged in the Garden State, and if necessary we are prepared to take this lawsuit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to change that.”

SAF is also challenging gun permit provisions in neighboring New York and Maryland, and has filed a federal challenge to North Carolina’s Emergency Powers Act. Additionally, SAF filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder over enforcement of provisions in the 1968 Gun Control Act that prevent American citizens living abroad from purchasing firearms in this country. SAF won Second Amendment incorporation in its lawsuit against the Chicago handgun ban, McDonald v. City of Chicago.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Grass Roots North Carolina for Firearms Education

North Carolina --(Ammoland.com)- Whistling past the graveyard, gun control activists like Roxane Kolar of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCAGV) insist Tucson’s tragedy couldn’t happen here. (North Carolina)

Unlike Arizona, they contend, our handgun purchase permit law requires background checks and gives sheriffs discretion in denying permits to unstable applicants.

Unfortunately, Kolar is wrong about both the law and the possibility of mass homicide.

Inaccuracies in a recent News & Record article notwithstanding, gun laws in Arizona and North Carolina are more alike than different. In both states (and throughout the U.S.), purchases from gun dealers require federal background checks via the computerized National Instant Check System (NICS) which, since 2007, has included involuntary commitments for psychiatric treatment.(1)

Although NC sheriffs may deny purchase permits to whomever they decide isn’t of “good moral character” (whatever that means), purchase permits are not universally required. Beyond the fact that rifles and shotguns are exempt, since 2003 anyone who passes the FBI background check and takes the training for a concealed handgun permit – over which sheriffs have no discretion - bypasses the purchase permit requirement.

Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) shepherded passage of that exemption(2) because sheriffs’ “discretion” results in arbitrary, even malicious denials. The purchase permit law celebrated by NCAGV, for example, is a Jim Crow law passed in 1919 amid southern racial tension. It was apparently modeled after a 1918 law adopted by Missouri which was itself a reaction to St. Louis race riots in 1917(3). While application of our law remains undocumented, in Missouri the ACLU and others complained for decades that blacks were being unfairly targeted. Missouri’s permit law was finally repealed in 2007.(4)

Depending on county, North Carolina sheriffs’ whims include inconsistent residency requirements, arbitrary limits on the number of permits issued(5) (each gun purchase requires a separate permit); requiring applicants to produce notarized character affidavits from acquaintances(6); even checking traffic citations(7). I routinely field complaints about permits denied over personal conflicts. A sheriff could even decide you aren’t of “good moral character” if you oppose his reelection. Having been rendered redundant by NICS, we will seek repeal of the archaic permit law in the upcoming legislative session.

While some blame the Tucson shootings on Arizona’s law allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns without permits, their argument rests on the bizarre notion that a schizophrenic nihilist capable of murdering a nine-year-old girl would somehow be deterred by laws prohibiting him from carrying concealed firearms.

Nothing in either state or federal law would have prohibited Jared Loughner from buying guns here. Despite being ejected from college for dangerous instability, despite increasing paranoia toward acquaintances, and despite being a clear threat to himself and others, he had committed no disqualifying offense and nobody had him involuntarily committed – even in Arizona, where commitment is actually easier than in most states.(8)

After Virginia Tech, Congress rushed through the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007″ to include mental health data in background checks. But it failed in Tucson because like Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, Loughner remained free despite being a known menace.

Until we reverse the trend toward “deinstitutionalizing” dangerous psychotics begun in the 1960s,(9) no gun control law will prevent mass killings from happening anywhere, including here.

Footnotes to Valone Article

References:

1. “NICS Improvement Act of 2007″: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640
2. House Bill 817: www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2003&BillID=h817&submitButton=Go
3. Kopel, David B. The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? Prometheus Books, 1992, page 337. Attorney David Kopel is Research Director at the Independence Institute.
4. Ibid at note 3, page 367.
5. Avery, Chatham and Durham counties, among others.
6. Durham County.
7. Guilford County, rescinded in response to GRNC complaints.
8. “Arizona tragedy: Little could have been done before shooting, experts say,” Arizona Republic, January 14, 2011: www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/01/13/20110113arizona-shooting-jared-loughner-mental-health-issues.html
9. Torrey, Dr. E. Fuller, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens, New York, W.W. Norton, 2008. Review available at: www.aei.org/EMStaticPage/1724?page=Summary

About:
Grass Roots North Carolina/Forum for Firearms Education is a non-profit, all volunteer organization devoted to educating the public about trends which abridge the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and engaging in grass roots activism to preserve those freedoms. Formed in 1994 to conduct a highly successful rally for the Second Amendment, GRNC has gone on to conduct projects like “Remember in November: A Gun Owner’s Guide to Voting,” bringing concealed carry to North Carolina. Visit:www.grnc.org

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment is offering an Introduction to Handgun Shooting class through the Becoming an Outdoors-Woman (BOW) program.

The three-hour class will take place at the Detroit Sportsmen’s Congress in Utica on Monday, Jan. 31 from 7 to 10 p.m.

The class is designed especially for women ages 18 and over to learn basic handgun shooting skills from certified instructors in a safe and comfortable environment.

Participants will learn firearm safety, fundamentals of pistol shooting, ammunition basics and tips on purchasing a handgun. Several different firearms will be set up for handling under certified instructor supervision. This is a basic introductory to handgun shooting class and beginners are welcome.

It is not the course required by law to obtain a concealed pistol license (CPL), but is a great class for those who are new to handgun shooting and may be interested in obtaining a CPL in the future.

Participants will visit the on-site shooting range to practice shooting .22 caliber handguns. Eye and ear protection will also be provided.

The registration deadline is Jan. 24. Register early; class size is limited to 24 participants. A $30 fee is due at the time of registration. For registration forms and information on this and other BOW events, visit www.michigan.gov/bow, email dnr-outdoors-woman@michigan.gov or call 517-241-2225.

Detroit Sportsmen’s Congress is located at 49800 Dequindre Rd. in Utica.

The Department of Natural Resources and Environment is committed to the conservation, protection, management, and accessible use and enjoyment of the state’s environment, natural resources, and related economic interests for current and future generations. Learn more at www.michigan.gov/dnre.

Self Defense A Human Right Oleg Volk**

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs have filed a motion for summary judgment in their federal lawsuit that challenges New Jersey handgun carry laws.

SAF and ANJRPC filed the lawsuit last month in federal district court in New Jersey. If this motion is granted, there could be action on the case early in 2011.

“We’re challenging New Jersey’s unconscionable law that forces citizens to demonstrate some absurd justifiable need in order to exercise a constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The way Garden State officials consistently abuse their authority to deny handgun licenses under existing statute is simply unconstitutional, and our case will prove that.”

“Our papers represent a superb piece of legal work and establish a rock solid foundation for restoring sanity to the way New Jersey treats the fundamental right of self defense,” added ANJRPC President Scott Bach. “The right to defend yourself with a firearm outside the home has long been denied in the Garden State, and we intend to change that.”

The legal brief filed as part of Monday’s summary judgment motion details the legal reasons for overturning New Jersey’s carry laws.

“Our partners in New Jersey anticipate opposition from the state Attorney General,” Gottlieb said. “We expect a motion for dismissal to be filed by the Attorney General sometime next month.”

Since its historic Second Amendment victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, SAF is also pursuing challenges to similar gun permit law abuses in New York, California, Maryland and Washington, D.C., and has also filed a federal lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s Emergency Powers statute, along with several other important Second Amendment cases.

About:
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

**Image: by Olegvolk.net

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)-Long Island Firearms has contributed $2,000 to the Second Amendment Foundation to support its legal actions, including a lawsuit in Westchester County challenging a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show “good cause.”

This is the second such contribution from a New York group. Earlier, the Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE) contributed to the SAF legal action effort.

“SAF is very grateful for this level of support from Long Island Firearms,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“The level of support we are getting from New York gun owners clearly demonstrates their dedication to correcting the Empire State’s onerous gun laws. For far too long, officials in the Empire State have treated the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a highly-regulated privilege. It is time for that to end.”

On July 16, SAF filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky’s denial was because he could not “demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public.” Nikolov’s was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was “any type of threat to her own safety anywhere.” In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

“Long Island Firearms recognizes the implications of our lawsuit,” Gottlieb noted, “and they have generously put their money on the line. We certainly appreciate the support, and we’re going to use every penny wisely in our effort to restore gun rights one lawsuit at a time.”

LongIslandFirearms.com

Long Island Firearms maintains a website that promotes firearms education, gun reviews and other activities. Their website is LongIslandFirearms.com.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Visit LongIslandFirearms.com and support them today!

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan - -(Ammoland.com)- One of the interesting things about teaching and practicing gun law is the fact that this area of law is not well-settled.

It is cutting-edge, developing law. For example, readers may be aware that only very recently did the US Supreme Court rule, in McDonald v Chicago, that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

Rather than being the end of the debate, that ruling led to Chicago adopting the most restrictive gun control regime in the United States, which was almost immediately challenged in court. The new case, and others like it, will help to define the outlines of our Second Amendment rights by forcing courts to rule on what restrictions are reasonable.

We have similar issues of Michigan law currently being played out in Michigan courts. One of them is the right of CPL (Concealed Pistol License) Holders to carry openly in places where others are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Back in 1931, Michigan adopted MCL 750.234d which lists places where citizens may not possess firearms.

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.”

Note the language “Except as provided in subsection (2).” Well, subsection (2) says:

“(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.”

So, for quite some time, many in Michigan have concluded that, according to the plain, direct language of MCL 750.234d(2)(c), a person with a valid CPL is not subject to the prohibited list and may carry openly in the places listed. In fact, the Michigan Attorney General issued an opinion stating so and it has been the consistent position for some time of the Michigan State Police that a CPL holder may enter one of these places while openly carrying. The plain language of the law supports such an interpretation. This information is shared via various websites and posted and reposted in places on the Internet where interested citizens discuss these issues.

One of my clients recently learned that there is another interpretation. He was carrying openly in a place that the court ruled is a “sports arena” under subsection (1)(e) of the above statute. We disagree with that interpretation. But, we’ll save that issue for a future discussion (and his appeal.) The court also ruled that the plain language of the statute is not what the law really means. The court adopted the prosecution’s interpretation which basically says that because MCL 28.425c (2) says:

“(2) Subject to section 5o and except as otherwise provided by law, a license to carry a concealed pistol issued by the county concealed weapon licensing board authorizes the licensee to do all of the following:

(a) Carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person anywhere in this state.

(b) Carry a pistol in a vehicle, whether concealed or not concealed, anywhere in this state.”

that the legislature must really mean that the only exception for CPL holders under MCL 750.234d must be when the CPL holder is carrying concealed and not openly. The court adopted this interpretation, even after being made aware that it is contrary to the relevant official opinion of the Attorney General and other commentators on this issue. My client was found guilty and fined. We are appealing the conviction on a number of grounds, including this specific ruling. However, it should be noted that those who choose to carry openly are subject to a number of practical and legal risks, the full extent of which is not currently clear. Reliance on opinions of law enforcement officers, legislators and others does not mean that a court will not interpret the law differently.

My client in this case was arrested and his gun and ammo were confiscated. He has missed several days of work over a period of months, and has incurred significant legal bills. If not for the generous contribution by the MCRGO Foundation Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund (www.MCRGOFoundation.org) his bills would have been potentially unmanageable. There have been literally hundreds of pages of legal documents generated so far in this case, and it is likely to continue for several more months as we appeal.

Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to the MCRGO Foundation to help support this kind of work as we move forward toward clarity in Michigan gun law.

Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

Virginia Shooting Sports Association

Virginia --(AmmoLand.com)- On a positive note, the House of Delegates passed three concealed handgun reform bills yesterday.

Regardless of what the Senate does with the House versions of these bills, the reforms will become law with the Govenor’s signature as only one bill need pass and be signed to become law.

They are:

• SB 3 – Provides that Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs) renewal applications may be submitted by mail;
• SB334 – Repeal of the Restaurant Ban; and,
• SB 408 – Allows an individual who may legally possess a firearm but does not possess a CHP to store their firearm in a locked compartment of an automobile or boat.

Tucker Martin, Governor Bob McDonnell’s spokesman told the media yesterday that the Governor will sign all three of the bills. The legislation will become effective on July 1, 2010.

About:
The Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA) was originally founded as the Virginia State Rifle and Revolver Association in 1938. VSSA is the official state association of the National Rifle Association. VSSA is also closely affiliated with the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), Virginia Outdoor Sports Information Network (VOSIN), National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Virginia Gun Collectors Association, and the Virginia Wildlife Federation (VWF). Visit: www.myvssa.org

Ohioans For Concealed Carry

Ohio --(AmmoLand.com)- On Friday the Ohio Attorney General’s Office Released the 2009 Annual Report on Concealed Handgun Licenses, and the numbers are quite impressive.

By the end of the 2009 calendar year almost 200,000 Ohioans had been issued a license since 2004.

2009 was the single most popular year with over 50,000 new licenses issued. Approximately 28% of licenses issued since the inception of concealed carry in Ohio ocured in 2009. The interest in self-defense has never been stronger in Ohio, following a year of record gun sales nationwide. The news media believes this is a reaction to President Obama’s preceived anti-gun agenda.

This report is really popular in our discussion forums today: http://tiny.cc/aDl5C

Here are some of the related stories in the news today:

• http://tiny.cc/sntZr
• http://tiny.cc/uSC91
• http://tiny.cc/cPssh

About:
Ohioans for Concealed Carry, founded in 1999, is a grassroots political activist organization. When founded, the primary goal of OFCC was getting concealed carry passed into law in Ohio. With that accomplished, our mission became to refine the concealed carry law and to expand and preserve the rights of all gun owners in Ohio. Visit: Ohioccw.org

National Association for Gun Rights

Iowa --(AmmoLand.com)- In the middle of America, you wouldn’t expect it to be so difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

But in Iowa, it is — especially if the local sheriff doesn’t like you.

That’s why I’m glad to introduce you to a great new organization fighting on this issue. Iowa Gun Owners has been pushing for a major reform of Iowa’s “Might Issue” concealed carry laws.

Not since Alaska (in 2003) has a state passed a no-permit-needed concealed carry law, enacting real carry freedom for law-abiding gun owners.

Iowa Gun Owners burst on to the scene in their rural state because for too long nothing had been done about their atrocious gun laws.

Compared to most of the smaller states, Iowa has some of the worst firearms laws in America, and no one in power seemed to care (though local gun owners have wanted change for years).

But in early 2009, State Rep. Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) sponsored a bill to end the demand that Iowans beg permission to carry concealed.

And Iowa Gun Owners took action.

Surprising pundits throughout the state, Iowa Gun Owners brought Sorensen’s bill within 1 vote of passing their State House.

Now, in an effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the institutional gun lobby has offered a “compromise.” To many, that comes as no surprise, but it will spell defeat for any real concealed carry reform in Iowa.

Why would I write every gun owner in America for help on this issue?

First, Iowa is truly a pivotal state. Its early Straw Poll and Caucuses make it our nation’s most watched political barometer.

Second, rarely does the chance come to pass historic legislation like this.

Every freedom lover in America should be excited about the possibility.

It’s not just about one more “Shall Issue” state, but rather it’s about Iowa becoming a bellwether for liberty in the very heart of our nation.

I often hear “the Second Amendment is my permit to carry”, and I couldn’t agree more. What, after all, is the right to “bear arms”, in a modern context, if it is not to carry concealed?

But those are just empty words if the law makes a mockery of the Constitution.

With that in mind, I encourage everyone who truly embraces the Second Amendment’s right to “bear arms” without infringement to jump on board and help out Iowa Gun Owners.

Seriously, it’s that important.

To carry the tools of self-defense in Vermont and Alaska, you don’t have to undergo a background enema, be fingerprinted like a common criminal, pay for state-mandated firearms training or have your name and address end up on some list.

You don’t have to beg for your God-given rights. That’s what the Second Amendment REALLY means!

Unfortunately, some of the elitist gun owners in America — the head-honchos of the institutional gun lobby — have trouble understanding that. In many states, they even directly oppose Vermont-Alaska real concealed carry.

Their opposition to freedom is nothing but a self-serving “I’ve got mine” attitude, seasoned with a dash of “not EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun.”

But let’s examine that attitude: it means they don’t really oppose gun control.

They just oppose gun control when it’s imposed on them. Give them their own little tin-pot dictatorship, and they’re happy to limit your freedom.

Understand that real concealed carry doesn’t allow a criminal to carry concealed legally, since that criminal is already ineligible to possess a firearm in the first place. Enacting a Vermont-Alaska law simply affirms a God-given right, which is secured by the U.S. Constitution and all but 6 state constitutions.

While it’s true that permitless carry does not provide a mechanism to carry across friendly state lines, it does remove the hoops-and-hurdles in the home state. If one is worried about reciprocity acquiring a permit will still be an option.

So what can you do to help?

Donate to Iowa Gun Owners with a one-time gift through NAGR’s special Iowa Freedom! Donation Page. Or, if you prefer, donate directly to Iowa Gun Owners.

As a fledgling group run by a young man of the highest integrity, Iowa Gun Owners is an organization I fully endorse — in fact, I believe it’s so important to help Iowa Gun Owners that I’ve donated directly to them myself.

So join me in making a generous contribution today!

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan --(AmmoLand.com)-The most recent (Nov 2009) County by County CPL report is now available for download from the Michigan State Police web site.

According to the MSP report, as of Nov 3rd, 2009 there were 217,443 concealed pistol license holders in Michigan.

That increases the ranks of law abiding concealed gun owners in Michigan by 3227 defenders.

Click here to download County by County CPL report.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation”

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Q: What is the recommended course of action in case of an accidental exposure of a concealed firearm in a public place?

A: If you inadvertently expose your weapon and it is seen by others, my recommendation is that you assume that you will be the subject of calls to 911. Many members of the public will assume that you are a law enforcement officer, or will be familiar with Concealed Pistol Licenses and not make an issue out of seeing a gun. However, there are members of the public who will assume the worst and call in “Man (or woman) with a gun!” Such a call can place you in a potentially dangerous, and certainly inconvenient position. Responding officers may approach you as a threat. So, assuming that you are properly licensed and the pistol is registered properly, and that you are in a place where you are authorized to be (not in a so-called “Pistol Free Zone” or trespassing on private property, etc.), I recommend that if someone appears to be concerned and may have called in to 911, that you act as a responsible citizen and call in yourself to clear up any misunderstandings.

I have been on police ride-alongs and seen that officers respond very quickly to gun calls over the radio. Also, I have had clients who were on the wrong side of “dispatcher momentum” and found themselves in stressful situations with police officers pointing weapons at them and shouting orders. I feel that we should try to avoid an “us versus them” mentality when dealing with the police and try to understand that their jobs are stressful, and therefore we should make reasonable attempts to provide dispatchers with correct information.

While open carry is legal in Michigan and police agencies have been doing a better job of training their officers in how to respond to law-abiding armed citizens, in my opinion it is only common sense to try to defuse a potentially dangerous and stressful situation by calling the incident in yourself and cooperating with responding officers, who may ask to see your CPL and your Driver’s License or State ID card.

Of course, I also recommend making wise decisions about carry weapons, holsters, and clothing so that concealed pistols remain concealed. The traditional reason for requiring licensing of concealed pistols is because they give the bearer the element of surprise in case the need arises for a defensive gun use. A “concealed” pistol that is actually visible, whether directly or through clothing, gives up that element of surprise.

You may choose to simply ignore the situation and perhaps no one will call it in to 911. If that happens, be prepared to follow all lawful commands of the responding officers. However, if you do not know the non-emergency number of the local law enforcement agency, or it is after hours, and you call 911. Be sure to immediately tell the dispatcher that your call is not an emergency but that you want to clear up any confusion. In my opinion, this is the responsible thing to do.

Steve is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing, www.StevenWDulan.com, and serves as an adjunct professor teaching firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, as well as an instructor of the legal portion of CPL classes around the state. He is a current member of the Board of Directors of MCRGO and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation and the MCRGO Foundation Firearms Civil Defense Fund.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation” Visit: www.mcrgo.org

New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

TROY, NY --(AmmoLand.com)- From time to time the notion of a renewable pistol license (in contrast to the current lifetime license) surfaces in the State Legislature.

Rumors are currently spreading around the state via the internet and word of mouth that certain individuals/groups involved in Second Amendment advocacy are soliciting support for a Renewable Pistol Licensing Law.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association worked diligently last year to defeat a similar proposal brought forward by Governor David Patterson and we wish to make it perfectly clear at this time: The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association opposes this proposed legislation and will invest all our assets in defeating it.

We are told that a benefit of the proposed legislation would be periodic checks on license holders’ legal status and fitness to own firearms. No one wants firearms in the wrong hands, and at present every firearm purchase in New York State requires a NICS background check. This serves the same purpose as periodic investigations, and at very low cost and inconvenience.

The fee for periodic renewals is uncertain, but whatever it turns out to be, it is sure to escalate. New York City provides a useful comparison here. It currently costs hundreds of dollars to periodically renew a NYC pistol license, and that cost is sure to rise as City government seeks additional sources of revenue. Would a State system function any differently?

The proposed legislation would also add licensing requirements such as expensive, mandatory training classes run by well, we don’t know. Would these classes facilitate the licensing process or serve as just one more way to deny an application? We don’t know. In addition, you will be trekking to your county clerk’s office, since renewal applications must be personally delivered. We are promised a 30-minute turnaround time at the clerk’s office. We doubt it.

All in all, the proposed legislation offers little, and promises to be a burden. It is time for New York’s shooters, hunters and Second Amendment advocates to join together and speak with one voice. Renewable Pistol Licenses are not an option for New York State firearms owners.

About:
The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association is the state’s largest and oldest firearms advocacy organization. Since 1871, our organization has been dedicated to the preservation of Second Amendment rights, firearm safety, education and training, and the shooting sports. Our membership consists of individuals and clubs throughout the state. We are a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization and the official NRA-affiliated State Association in New York.

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Virginia - -(AmmoLand.com)- I had a report that the Dickenson County Circuit Court Clerk, Richard W. Edwards, was not issuing temporary permits when permit approval exceeded the 45-day limit.

I called Mr. Edwards and we spent some time on the phone. He said that permits were typically taking 60 to 90 days to issue, due to the judge not signing off on them in a timely fashion. Mr. Edwards was not aware that he was supposed to issue temporary permits (which do not require approval by the judge, BTW) after 45 days.

I pointed him to the code section (18.2-308 D) and he said he would correct his procedures as soon as his deputy clerk returns from vacation in a week or so.

If you live in Dickenson County or have any gun owning friends that do, let me know permits are being issued on time and if not, if temporary permits are being issued on time.

About:
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right. Visit: www.vcdl.org

ICarry.org

Rockford, IL --(AmmoLand.com)-That’s our new slogan at ICarry.org – and we aim to be the #1 right-to-carry resource for our two beloved holdout states.

If you don’t already know, I live in Illinois. I’ve been staying active for over 4 years to try to get the right to carry. It’s been a long, tough battle. I’ve even gotten doubtful at times myself, as I see many gun owners in Illinois and Wisconsin are.

I wanted to take a second to assure you that we will get concealed carry. I have a feeling it won’t be very long either. I’m thinking at least one state if not both will get it next year. Pretty bold statement, right? I try not to blow smoke up skirts, and it’s only been recently that I realized we were so close.

Open Carry events in Wisconsin are becoming more and more frequent and successful The US Supreme Court has affirmed our right to own and use pistols for self-defense. This ruling mentions open carry and very strongly supports it. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Chicago gun ban case and rule on it next year in a landmark case that will analyze whether or not, or to what extent, states may regulate the right to keep and bear arms!

Organizations like the Illinois Sheriff’s Association, Illinois Farm Bureau, and others are coming out supporting a concealed carry law. County advisory resolutions have swept the State of Illinois urging them to pass a concealed carry law. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn recently signed HB182 and HB3714 to protect law-abiding gun owners from wrongful prosecution and the IL Supreme Court just ruled that you can carry an unloaded gun – even with loaded magazines – in the console and presumably other compartments of your car without having to use a second case! I could keep going, but it’s not necessary. More info is on our site.

The point I am making is the time has come for the right-to-carry in Illinois and Wisconsin. Watch as more and more politicians begin supporting it. Smart politicians will see their constituents pushing hard for it. Smart politicians will see the trend of everything moving towards more freedom to own and carry guns.

Women, minorities, and police are pushing for it. People with disabilities who tend to be prime targets of violent crime are pushing for it. We are all equal and we are all pushing for it.

ICarry.org will be starting aggressive ad campaigns to make right-to-carry the top issue for this election and keep it the top issue until it is done. We wish to educate the public before AND after major victories for right-to-carry are won. We will bring many new people into awareness of this issue. This will allow concealed carry to be as effective as possible as a crime deterrent after it is passed.

I’d like to thank our friends at OpenCarry.org for helping to encourage the open carry of firearms up in Wisconsin. This is one of the most effective ways to effect change and educate the public at the same time! Keep up the great work open carriers – we’ll see you at events.

So next time you hear yourself start to say “It’ll never happen…” Please stop and pull your foot out of your mouth because it is happening. If you hear any other gun owners start to talk like that, then tell them to signup at ICarry.org for the free gun so we can take a quick second to educate them too.

Thanks!

ICarry.org, 1817 18th Avenue, Rockford, IL 61104, USA

About:
ICarry.org, a website devoted to to bringing concealed carry to Illinois and Wisconsin – the only two states without it.

Michigan Coalition For Responsible Gun Owners

Michigan – -(AmmoLand.com)-My understanding is that Michigan is a “shall issue” state. Does my county gun board have the authority to force me to appear in person to answer questions before they approve my Concealed Pistol License Application?

A: Yes. MCL 28.425a states: “The concealed weapon licensing board may investigate the applicant for a license to carry a concealed pistol. The investigation shall be restricted to determining only whether the applicant is eligible under this act to receive a license to carry a concealed pistol, and the investigation regarding the issuance of a license shall end after that determination is made. The concealed weapon licensing board may require the applicant to appear before the board at a mutually agreed-upon time for a conference. The applicant’s failure or refusal to appear without valid reason before the concealed weapon licensing board as provided in this subsection is grounds for the board to deny issuance of a license to carry a concealed pistol to that applicant.”

So, the County Gun Board may require you to appear and answer questions regarding your eligibility under the “shall issue” law. The Board is under no requirement to do so. Some counties do and some don’t. My understanding is that some county boards simply ask applicants to reaffirm that all the answers on their applications are still true and correct as of the appearance date. This is allowed by the above statute.

Note that each county gun board is made up of the Prosecuting Attorney, the Sheriff, and a member of the State Police (or their designees.) The above-referenced statute also states: “The county prosecuting attorney or his or her designee shall serve as chairperson of the board…”The Prosecuting Attorney of each county is an elected official. The term is 4 years and runs on the same cycle as the U.S. Presidential elections. If you live in a county where the local prosecuting attorney is not respectful of your gun rights under the Michigan and United States Constitutions, you should vote accordingly, and urge others to do likewise.

Bio:
Steve Dulan (www.StevenWDulan.com) is a member of the Board of Directors of the MCRGO and the MCRGO Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the MCRGO Foundation. He is an attorney in private practice in East Lansing and Adjunct Professor of firearms law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School. as well as an NRA Life Member.

About:
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Formed from just eight people in 1996, we now have thousands of members and numerous affiliated clubs across the state. We’re growing larger and more effective every day.

Our mission statement is: “Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation”