Venting re. Mich. Gun Laws & H.R. 218

[Decisions13]

My dander is up and it's NOT a pretty sight!!!

Michigan recently changed their permit to carry concealed weapons laws. I'd like to meet the TWITS who wrote these.

Allow me to vent!

A retired POLICE officer may obtain a CCW without completing the prescribed weapons handling & storage class. A retired Federal L.E. Agent is NOT considered a Police Officer and must attent a class that he must pay for out of his pocket. These classes are presented by the N.R.A. ( I am NOT their biggest fan for a multitude of reasons). The classes cost in excess of $100.

Allow me to 'SPLAIN a few things:

For 23 years I was required to qualify with any weapon I carried every QUARTER! How many police departments have that requirement? Not only was I required to qualify , but I had to be PROFICIENT with it. Meaning that I couldn't take 10 courses of fire to qualify. I had to do it in very few courses or my weapon would be seized and this woulds affect my retirement date.

I was presented a copy of the FIREARMS POLICY which I had to read and SIGN FOR yearly! Meaning, if I screwed up in the use of my weapon I could be prosecuted. Now keep in mind that after I retired, I had a business training L.E. and I KNOW that they are not as up-to-date on their firearms policies as they should be. Read yours and see if there are some questions that come to mind as far as when you can and cannot use your weapon.

Security of our weapons was addressed at length in the policy, also. Where you could and could not leave them, how they must be secured, etc.

Now tell me that someone from the N.R.A. has as much knowledge of gun laws as I do or any Federal L.E. Agent does.

I went through EXTENSIVE training on updates of the laws, arrest techniques. firearms, the entire gambit, if not yearly then every 2 - 5 years at FLETC.

As far as H.R.218 is concerned, the IACP are the ones behind the stall of the bill. Chiefs of Police throughout the country are claiming that they don't have enough control of the individuals in their areas who have CCW's. In most places, Chiefs do NOT have to be a certified L.E. officer. Just what this country needs....a POLITICIAN in charge of the police department.

There is a web site where you can sign a poll regarding H.R. 218. If anyone is interested I'll find it and post it here or email it to them.

Thank you for allowing me to rid myself of this "wild hair". If I have stepped in anyone's pie, so be it.

Let's hear from any pros and cons.

[bhanson]

At least your state allows police and civilians to carry concealed.

Missouri doesn't trust their citizens, even with training and a permit to carry. A few years ago the Attorney General of Missouri sent out an opinion that off duty officers were not authorized by state law to carry concealed weapons.

I have worked through several organizations including NRA, LEAA and local grassroots organizations to pass HR 218 and a CHL law for Missouri.

The day I retired from over 30 years as a police officer, I was no longer trusted to carry a weapon.

I will be happy to pay the cost and take the class (actually I will probably teach the class) once we get the law changed here.

[Norm357]

Decisions thats awful! Have you tried talking to the chief LEO where you live? Maybe he can get the training requirement waived. Or you could just move to GA and carry without a permit on the basis that you are a retired Fed:D .
Norm

[darrell]

Decisions,

Reguardign the Michigan CCW. I live in Michigan and I can say that the CCW law is a little stupid. The subsection about Retired Federal Officers is in the works to be changed as we speak. I believe it will pass and will be vaild by the end of the year. However some Federal Departments give CCW permits to retired agents, and that means it is a Federal CCW and thusly trumps the State Law on CCW Permits. Least that is what the local Chief said to me. He is retired INS.

[deputytx1979]

I don't see that there is any diffrence between a federal officer and a state/local officer when it comes to the use or training of firearms.
I feel that retired officers/agents should be able to carry a firearm if they wish. The Texas Department of Public Safety has done wonders with their "Special Ranger" commissions for retired troopers and Rangers. It allows them to carry firearms and have full arrest powers.
Perhaps that thought is that a retired Michigan officer has been trained in the laws of that state. If you were a federal officer you could have been on Guam for the past thirty years and would not be as up to speed on state and local laws.
That's the only thing I can think of that would be a "decent" reason for the wording of the law.

[Decisions13]

Thanks for all the replys. I guess this is something that has needed to be opened up.

Norm, I spoke with Michigan State Police, a finer L.E. agency you will NOT find!!!! They enforce the law....no waivers. I wouldn't want to get my CCW that way, besides. By the way, I have held a CCW since my retirement in 1995.....the new law makes it null & void when it expires in August.

Darrel, the Fed's do NOT issue CCW's. If a ret. L.E. Agent told you that and they are carrying, they are doing it illegally!!!!! No better than a common criminal in my book!

Don't get me wrong, Folks......I do NOT believe everyone is entitled to carry a concealed weapon. When I was on the job I didn't want ANYONE to have a weapon other than me!!! Remember....a CCW holder qualifies once...ONCE!!!! How good are they? Can they hit a bull in the butt with a bag of rice? All L.E. officers know what the "shakes" are......How steady is that gun hand when you got someone in your sights? And if they are, or could be shooting back at you? This is my main gripe with the N.R.A.!!! EVERYONE SHOULD NOT BE CARRYING A GUN!!! 99% of the instances of weapons use would have been avoided if they didn't put themselves in a situation where it would have occurred.

Remember my words of wisdom....and I got a million of them.

The early bird gets the worm........but the second rat gets the cheese.

[EricTheBald]

I find it ironic that you would complain about your right to keep and bear arms being infringed and then state that you would like to infringe on the rights of others.

How do you reconcile that?

[Decisions13]

As I stated, Eric, non- L.E. don't need weapons outside the home/business if they don't put themselves in a position where they need them. They ARE NOT PROPERLY TRAINED in the use of weapons. Plain and simple. Does your liability insurance cover you if you miss who you are shooting at and hit an innocent individual? Most folks talk a good game, but, if you were brought up on the "right side of the tracks" it takes more than you will ever know to pull the trigger. Busting the cap is only the start......the psychological "bruise" is not something that disappears in a day or two.

Now I have explained why I don't think non-L.E. should have a CCW. Please explain why you feel the need to carry a weapon where and when you please. Who do you want to hurt? Are you transporting a large amount of cash? Is it insured? Please enlighten me.

[Jynkxxie]

I am just happy that I can carry out to din din now...

[EricTheBald]

As I stated, Eric, non- L.E. don't need weapons outside the home/business...
You feel comfortable deciding what other people do or do not need?


They ARE NOT PROPERLY TRAINED in the use of weapons.
Training is a separate issue, but since you brought it up, who isn't properly trained? EVERYONE who isn't a current or former LEO?


Does your liability insurance...
Insurance is yet another issue. Would you mind terribly if we stick to one issue at a time?


Most folks talk a good game, but, if you were brought up on the "right side of the tracks" it takes more than you will ever know to pull the trigger. Busting the cap is only the start......the psychological "bruise" is not something that disappears in a day or two.
You would be speaking from experience?


Now I have explained why I don't think non-L.E. should have a CCW.
I really don't think you have.


Please explain why you feel the need to carry a weapon where and when you please.
What does need have to do with anything?


Who do you want to hurt?
Why is your default assumption that I want to hurt somebody?


Are you transporting a large amount of cash? Is it insured?
Those are rather personal questions.
And why does it matter?


Please enlighten me.
I'm still waiting for you to enlighten me on how you reconcile telling people what they can and cannot do but object when someone does it to you.

[Jynkxxie]

Wow Nevermind! I love my country...still fear my government.

[Decisions13]

Eric,

You are making this out to be a onesided discussion. You have not responded to any of my queries in any way. When you do I would be glad to discuss this with you.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by Decisions13
Eric,

You are making this out to be a onesided discussion. You have not responded to any of my queries in any way.

Of course I have. You just don't like the manner in which I responded.

[Decisions13]

Eric,

I thrive on DEBATES, which you and I are NOT having.

I, also, REFUSE to have a battle of wits with an un-armed man.

Please continue to carry a concealed weapon thither and yon, knowing one bright day you shall draw it and aim it and find you don't have the......hummmmmmm....what shall I refer to them as......Ahhhhhh....Stones....Yes, stones....to use it and the big bad man/lady shall wrest it from your grip and and deposit it in a most uncomfortable void.

Eric, my friend, OUR conversation has ended.

All others have my undivided attention.

You can lead a horse to water, but.......if you get him to lie on his back and float, you really got somethin'.

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by Decisions13
Eric,

I thrive on DEBATES, which you and I are NOT having.

No, we are not. You're too busy trying to make it my fault that you're a hypocrite.