West Virginia Governor Vetoes Constitutional Carry Bill


Despite speculation that he’d allow constitutional carry to become law without his signature, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin wasted no time in vetoing Senate Bill 347 when it hit his desk. As wtrf.com reports, in true Manchinesque style, Tomblin wanted everyone in the state to know that’s he’s all for gun rights. Just ask the NRA! “Throughout my career, I have strongly supported the Second Amendment, as demonstrated by my repeated endorsements and high grades from the National Rifle Association.” . . .

However, I must also be responsive to the apprehension of law enforcement officers from across the state, who have concerns about the bill as it relates to the safety of their fellow officers. It also would eliminate the required gun safety training courses for those applying for a concealed carry permit. In light of these concerns and in the interest of public safety for all West Virginians, I have vetoed Senate Bill 347.

The current licensing process would have remained in place had the bill become law. Mountain State residents would have had the option of obtaining a state-issued carry license to take advantage of reciprocity arrangements with other states.

Second amendment supporters in the legislature have vowed to consider the legisislation next year. SB 347 had passed with overwhelming, bi-partisan majorities in both houses.  The Senate passed it 32-2, and the House passed it 71-29.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch


  1. avatar cogline says:

    Do they have to wait until next year or can they call a special session now to override his veto?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      My thoughts exactly.

    2. avatar JoshtheViking says:

      Yes, this!

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      I think it’s usually up to the governor to call a special session. But WVa might be different.

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        Uh there’s no way the governor calls the session for the state congress to override his own veto.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Uhh, yes I understand that. What I was saying is that, under the applicable law, generally the legislature can’t call itself into special session. Just think about it a second. After the session is over, they don’t have the authority to do anything. It is generally the governor’s prerogative whether or not to call a special session of the legislature. So yes, in this case I wouldn’t count on it happening.

    4. avatar Publius says:

      This. The lowest percentage of members voting for it was 71% in the House. They can easily cram his veto up his ass, so why don’t they?

      1. avatar Nick says:

        With the legislative session over, a special session would need to be called. This would require the governors participation, either willingly calling a special session for the override vote (yeah right) or being forced into doing so by law if petitioned by 60% of each house, which sadly isn’t very likely either but is at least possible.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Aha–thanks for the specific info.

    5. avatar JT says:


      Second to last paragraph under the “Sessions of the Legislature” section.

      If they get three fifths of the members of each house to request it, the Governor has to call a special session if he wants to or not. The support is there to do it in the House, but the Senate isn’t as eager and is willing to wait until next year.

      If they don’t do a special session, they are planning on fast tracking the bill with the same language next year and sending it to the Governor early enough so they will still be in the regular session to override the veto.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        If they don’t do a special session, they are planning on fast tracking the bill with the same language next year and sending it to the Governor early enough so they will still be in the regular session to override the veto.

        JT, where do you get your information regarding the legislature’s plans?

        1. avatar JT says:

          One of the articles I read said the West Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (state level 2A lobbying group) was already working with legislators to make sure it got introduced with the same wording that passed both houses on the first day of next year’s session.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          They should force a recall NOW. There’s no assurance the makeup of the legislature won’t change next session.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    His grade with the NRA should immediately be changed to an “F”

    1. avatar MeRp says:

      I don’t know about F… I would reserve that for true, explicit, gun grabbers. There’s a whole range of letters (with + and – too) in between that can account for shades of gray like this.

    2. avatar JT says:

      He doesn’t care. He is term locked and can’t run in the next election. He also doesn’t seem to have any political aspirations for once the term is over.

  3. avatar Will says:

    Wait, and those majorities aren’t big enough to override a veto?

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      The session is over.

    2. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

      They voted for it BECAUSE THEY KNEW THE GOV WOULD VETO IT. It’s just the way politics works.

  4. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    Thanks Governor! You can open carry without any training course. You can open carry without any permit, but stick that gun in a concealed holster, your purse, or your person and it is now concealed and you have to get the permission of the state, pass a course and apply for a permit.

    Is that being “politically correct” or insane?

    Insanity rules!

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Looks like the perfect set-up to create more victim-less criminals like Steffon Josey-Davis in NJ. His job at an armored car company and plans for a LE career were all dashed while his carry-permit was in-process because in inadvertently left his gun in his glove compartment. Now, he is a convicted felon.

      West Virginians will be subject to the same abuses as in NJ if they neglect to get a permit and inadvertently leave a gun in the passenger compartment of their cars.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        We discussed his case yesterday. He didn’t inadvertently leave it in the glove box. He was willfully and knowingly carrying illegally because he was already a security guard and was so close to becoming a cop. He figured that if he ever got busted, he’d get out of it. He was wrong. The revolution eats its own, I guess.

        Sucks to be a New Jerseyite. Must suck even worse to be a felon New Jerseyite who was oh so close to a comfy, cozy career oppressing fellow New Jerseyites.

  5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    While Republicans aren’t much better on any issue other than gun rights, this crap wouldn’t happen if conservatives would stop electing democrats.

    WV with a Democrat governor and senator? Elections have consequences. Ensure the governor knows that his actions have electoral consequences, as well.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      You might want to consider how Republicans view Obamacare, taxes, and border security before making the overused “Republicans aren’t much better” deal.

      1. avatar Cory Goulding says:

        “You might want to consider how Republicans view Obamacare, taxes, and border security before making the overused “Republicans aren’t much better” deal.”

        I’ll ask what have the republicans in office done about Obamacare, taxes and border security?

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Most Republicans voted against Obamacare, for lower taxes, and for border security.



          Of course Republicans aren’t perfect – some even aren’t that good, which is why I’m an Independent (Constitutional Conservative) – but the fast way to sh!tcan your freedom today is to vote for Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Bloomberg, Yee, etc.

          The vote is only one part of the story, but I hope to turn around the big government entity peacefully if possible.

      2. avatar Joel from PA says:

        Republicans have been selling out their base for years now. They say one thing and cave to the status quo….in that aspect they are worse than democrats….

      3. avatar Erik says:

        Basically the republicans will lie through their teeth and raise taxes anyway, to give to their corporate buddies while depriving us of healthcare, no thanks

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Republicans will raise taxes to give to their corporate buddies while depriving us of healthcare


  6. avatar JSIII says:

    Stop electing democrats, the democratic base HATES guns. They have less to lose voting against and overriding pro gun legislation than most republicans. Vote for the effing republican already

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      We need more republicans…like Peter King, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie.

      1. avatar The Mountain That Rides says:

        The worst Republicans are still miles better than the best Democrats.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          That’s patently false.

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        I have read a lot, but I do not believe I have ever seen all those words and names put in the same sentence before today.

      3. avatar juliesa says:

        Except for some NE Repubs, most Repubs are good on gun rights. Many are excellent.

        99% of Democrats will revert to the party platform when push comes to shove.

        Both parties suck, but no Dem can be trusted on gun laws, which is the main reason I haven’t voted for one since 2004. Also, the corruption. The last Dem I voted for, the incumbent sheriff, got kicked out of office for corruption. Nothing more crooked than a South Texas Democrat.

        1. avatar Custodian says:

          Uh huh.

          A south Texas Democrat, at best a wannabe Dixiecrat…is not worse than:

          A New York Democrat
          A Chicago or Illinois Democrat
          A Californian Democrat
          A Hawaiian Democrat
          A New Jersey Democrat
          A Connecticut Democrat
          A Maryland Democrat
          A Massachusetts Democrat

          or. D.C. Democrat

      4. avatar pwrserge says:

        I dare you to name one legitimately pro-gun Democrat.

        1. avatar juliesa says:

          I can think of one in the whole country, and he won’t ever run for office again because we don’t elect Dems to statewide office in TX. Chancellor John Sharp of Texas A&M refused to oppose the campus carry bill and says he trusts his students and staff to to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home. He’s really bucking the academic establishment (which I have come to loathe) by saying that.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          There are legitimate pro-gun Dems at the state level, I have seen some referenced on this blog (but no, I can’t recall their names). In national level offices, you’ll find legitimate pro-gun Democrats in the same place you’ll find pro-life Democrats: riding unicorns and rounding up yetis and sasquatches.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          Joe Dorman, D-Ok. A+ NRA rating.

        4. avatar Erik says:

          John Dingell, James Hargrove, Brian Blake, Larry Seaquist, Steve Boyer….

      5. avatar Mr. Antisocial Guy says:

        Hi neighbor, can you say RINO? I thought you could.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          Except that the guys in power tend to be more of the RINO sort than the principled conservative or libertarian types that people are pretending are synonymous with republican.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          The truth that Republican-supporters don’t want to hear, Jason.

      6. avatar BlueBronco says:

        True. But there are a lot more Diane Feinstainks, Barb Boxer, Chucky Shoomer, Dick Durbin among the Democrat ranks than across the aisle. And these 4 Dems have NEVER been pro 2A on any vote.

    2. avatar Jim says:

      Unfortunately Utah’s Republican governor is set to veto Constitutional Carry for a second time. His rationale is that the current process is working just fine and needs no changes.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Utah makes money on permits, and Utah firearms instructors all over the US make money on training. Follow the money.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:


          On the individual level, there are those who somehow feel special because they see the license as something to set them apart from the rest.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        It’s not a binary solution set. In any case, Democrats simply can’t be trusted on 2nd amendment issues.

        1. avatar James St. John says:

          Neither can Republicans.

        2. avatar Publius says:

          The problem is that for a lot of people, guns rights aren’t their sole voting issue. When Republicans stop doing retarded stuff like trying to legislate what kind of pants people can wear / how low cut a tank top can be or trying to legislate that others must follow Christianity, moderates will be much more likely to vote Republican instead of Democrat.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:


          I really missed the bills that anti-cleavage / anti-pants bills that Republicans are allegedly pushing. Please provide examples. If its a Mormon Republican out of Utah or something I think we’ll be ok. Cops aren’t taking people to jail for cleavage and daisy-duke shorts.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Accur81: People of Walmart. o_O

        5. avatar Grindstone says:

          Absolutely it’s not a binary solution. But I’ll vote for a democrat with a solid pro-gun history over a republican who sells out.

  7. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    If they had not waited to the last minute to pass constitutional Carry they could have EASILY overridden the veto. Who is getting fooled here?

    “Overriding a Veto
    If the Legislature is still in session when the governor vetoes a bill, a simple majority vote of the members of both legislative bodies is necessary to override the veto. In cases when a budget bill or supplemental appropriation bill is vetoed, a two-thirds vote of the members of both houses is needed to override the veto.”

    1. avatar John says:

      Who’s getting fooled indeed!

      A lot of what we see, and is reported is actually legislative theater. The real legislative process happens behind closed doors well out of sight. Senator, “I don’t want this, but I can vote ‘yea’ if I know it’ll be vetoed’ Gov, “I’m down with that. I’ll make a ‘public safety’ announcement and you’re covered. Let’s go have a single-malt”

      Vote trading. Favor trading. Playing fast ‘n’ loose with constituents rights and money. What’s not to like? They get rich and we get … well we all know what we get: kozebubkes!

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

  8. avatar Model 31 says:

    See, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats…wait a minute…

    “apprehension of law enforcement officers…relates to…safety of…officers…and would eliminate…training for a concealed carry permit.”

    At least criminals obey the law…now I’m just confused.
    It could be worse….think Texas!

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      We can have guns in our cars without permits in Texas.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        And I can carry my handgun in my place of business, even tho it is open to the public during business hours, because I am the one in control of the premises.

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        That was sarcasm. As a native Texan, been car carrying for years. As for the open carry stuff here, OC of pistols have been going on for years. Most people think the OC demonstrators are carrying rifles but they are in fact Texas size pistols. Gotta remember, everything is bigger in Texas.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And they can be loaded. And unregistered. And we don’t need something as profoundly stupid as a FOID to purchase them.

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      It could be worse….think Texas!

      I lol’d

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      Oh, I forgot. No Republican governor has ever veto’d a pro-2A bill ever, right?

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        I guess an appropriate question would be to find a Dem gov who has signed a pro-gun bill.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          A quick check on google showed more Republicans vetoing 2A bills than Democrats signing.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Good–so what Dems signed pro-gun bills? BTW, you aren’t seriously arguing that Dems as a whole are better on guns than Republicans as a whole are you?

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          I don’t see what’s so good about that, but whatever. I didn’t look deep. Perhaps you could look it up since you’re so interested?

          BTW, you aren’t seriously arguing that Dems as a whole are better on guns than Republicans as a whole are you?

          You might have some interpretation problems if that’s what you derived from any of my posts. Unless you start with the bias that the only options are binary, then I can understand why you’d jump to that conclusion. You might want to shift your filter to an expanded view of politics beyond a binary system.

      2. avatar Model 31 says:

        Oh its happened, but if you really want to find something rare, look for pro-2A bill that was sent by a Democrat legislature and signed by a Democrat Governor.

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        Nobody is saying that Republicans are perfect. Democrats, on the other hand, are almost universally worthless on issues like taxes, freedom, border security, big government, EPA control, Obamacare, affordable energy, balanced budgets, gun control, etc.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          Then please send them to replace my Republicans who have done more to attack individual liberty than any Democrat here.

  9. avatar Rick says:

    I’m pretty sure that if CC passes both houses here in MO that Nixon will veto it and for pretty much the same reasons. Just like with Obama, we’ve got to wait another 22 months for someone else to take the seat in Jefferson City. Hopefully the lefty enclaves of KC and St. Lou will get out voted by the rest of the state.

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    The gun-grabber’s newest–would “shibboleth” work?–is apparently “police officer safety”.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      I believe the term you seek is canard .

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Well, I would consider a “canard” to involve a complete sentence– (as in “Tighter regulation of guns would increase officer safety.”). I was thinking more of a talismanic phrase that has emotional appeal but little to no relation to actual reality, to be trotted out and , well, waved like a bloody shirt, a’ la “for the children”.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      There is nothing “new” about police officer safety, sometimes I think they must all be “children” as well. That’s been going on for many years. When I was young, society expected police officers to risk their lives to save others, if necessary, that was their job! Now, the only expectation is that a cop might think about interfering in a crime is if the perp is unarmed and outnumbered 10 to 1.

  11. avatar Another Robert says:

    Had to check–yep, he’s a Dem. As per their usual procedure, the mainstream news outlet ID’ed the Republican politicos as such but failed to note Tomblin’s party affiliation.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    I find it hard to believe that a Democrat governor vetoed a pro-2A law. Tomblin must be a Republican.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Difficult to tell these days

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      My Republican governor veto’d a pro-2A bill.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        And for that you have my legitimate condolences. My Democrat Governor Jerry Brown (who I didn’t vote for) signs some anti-gun bills every year and vetoes others. My Democrat-supermajority state pushes scads of anti-gun bills every year. Feinstein and Pelosi (who I also didn’t vote for) are about as bad on guns as they come. The Democrat president (who I also didn’t vote for) would love to ban guns, but simply can’t get away with it.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          At least you have nice weather.

          I’m getting ready for Tornado season.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          That I do. We’re putting just put in a 40′ x 14′ patio cover which will have solar panels installed on top. The Mrs. and I are going to have margaritas (her specialty) under it. Way better than the overpriced crap in the bars. Current temp in Brea, CA: 73 degrees. Oklahoma has some good things going for it, though. Cheers.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          I would love to live in CA, but you know, the whole anti-gun and massive taxes and such.
          Wife is from there and wants to move back, until I remind her that her self-defense pistol is illegal there.
          Oh well, at least we can head off to her friend’s land outside the city and shoot on the weekends.


  13. avatar John Howes says:

    32-2, the public supports it…..and one man stops its passage. It’s clear that our politicians no longer represent the wishes of the people. Isn’t it his job to listen to the people?

  14. avatar F says:

    Weingarten, you left out a bit.

    “Despite speculation that he’d allow constitutional carry to become law without his signature, DEMOCRAT West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin wasted no time in vetoing…”

  15. avatar Grindstone says:

    The perceived safety of the armed agents of the state is worth more than the rights of the citizens.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Pretty much. Government has an inverted view on the proper flow of power.

  16. avatar Calvin says:

    Who are these cops that hate the Constitution and why haven’t they been fired for violating their oath of office?

    Wait … what? … A politician made a baseless assertion? Oh … well … nevermind then.

    1. avatar Revoke Consent says:

      Well .. as long as the police ” feel ” safer , that’s a plenty good reason to deny a basic right. After all , they got theirs. And all those FEES too.

  17. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    These governors get jerked around by the police, sheriffs, and state troopers all the time. It’s the same in Michigan. It’s disheartening.

  18. avatar Sian says:

    “Throughout my career, I have strongly supported the Second Amendment, as demonstrated by my repeated endorsements and high grades from the National Rifle Association.”

    Well that’s not going to be a problem for you anymore.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      They should just replace it with “Up to this point…”

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’ll be watching for my NRA mags, this should be in all bold face.

  19. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    This statist won in 2012 with a mere 50.49% of the vote!

    West Virginia was DEAD LAST in the nation in voter turnout in 2012, the ONLY state where less than half of eligible voters voted, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

    Elections have consequences, my friends. Next time, West Virginia, put down the remote, get off your butt, and go vote!

    1. avatar Tim says:

      Be careful what you ask for. The low turnout was what allowed WV to elect a Republican Senator (Capito), three Republican congressmen (McKinley, Mooney, Jenkins) and allowed the Republicans to take over the state senate and house for the first time in eight decades. Although the Republicans aren’t as conservative as they could be, they’re a darn sight better than the Democrats. JMAO

  20. avatar Almost Esq. says:

    PSA: Don’t vote for Democrats if 2nd Amendment issues are important to you. Their party is dedicated to the wholesale suppression of the fundamental rights present within it. Voting for a ‘pro-gun’ Democrat is a risky gamble that he won’t bow to party pressure and strip you of your rights.

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      I voted for the Democratic challenger for my state’s governor race. He had an A+ rating compared to the Republican incumbant’s A rating. Also, he voted Yes on a pro-gun bill that was vetoed by the Republican governor.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Which state and which bill?

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Pretty much every system has an anomaly or two on occasion. Anyone who thinks that in general, over the country as a whole, there is no difference between the parties on guns isn’t paying attention. Anyone who thinks Dems are better on guns is delusional.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:


          Well, it seems that I’m still extremely right wing and you are more on the left. We meet in the middle in terms of gun freedom and government accountability. Perhaps we’re not so different after all.

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          The real delusion is believing that Republicans are any less authoritarian than Democrats. Sure, they may be polar opposites on single issues, but Republicans have the TSA, DHS, NSA blanket email collections, Patriot Act, war in Iraq, theocratic laws, etc. on their heads. Republicans by and large cannot truly claim to be “small government” when they have had every bit of responsibility in the massive increase in government in the last few decades.

          Nobody is claiming Democrats are better on guns, not at all. But the to blanket claim Republicans are the best is just ignorant at best.

        4. avatar Grindstone says:

          @Accur81, I’m only considered “left” because I believe in true small government and not authoritarian, theocratic government that the GOP and so-cons push today. I’m a minarchist. Minimal government. Let people live their lives, whether they smoke pot, are gay, are christian, are black, white, whatever.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Grindstone: I wouldn’t have considered you as towards the left and, after reading your political auto-description, you still don’t strike me as someone I would consider to be on the left.

          That reads like classic liberal, with which I mostly resonate (T. Jefferson-esque). I don’t believe that the present day progressive left has all that much in common with classic liberals. The modern left is very much statist, IMHO.

        6. avatar Grindstone says:

          I know what you mean, John, but too many people don’t have that scope of education on politics. Everything is either a 1 or a 0 to a lot of them.

  21. avatar BlueBronco says:

    I hope they can over ride his Veto. Maybe even try to recall if W.V. has recall.

  22. avatar gsnyder says:

    Can’t get much more hypocritical. I support the 2A but do not support the 2A. Bona fide professional politician.

  23. avatar Jack says:

    What’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?
    (serious question)

  24. avatar Jeff Hunt says:

    I’m slightly confused. the word “regulated” is part of the 2nd Amendment, I need to take a driving test to legally drive a car, what is the issue with passing a safety course to conceal carry? As long as the process isn’t onerous or allow some bias as to who can obtain a permit, I see nothing wrong with a permit system. We had a chance to remove gun boards in MI in December, but some numbnut tacked on a provision that would allow those who had a PPO placed on them to still get a CPL. Hopefully we will get reasonable legislation that will allow unfettered concealed carry to those who get a permit- no exemptions for workplaces, schools and others.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      In the second amendment, the adjecrive “regulated” describes militia , not arms . And “shall not be infringed” applies to the natural and civil right to keep and bear arms, not to the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway.

      Further, state-mandated “safety” classes have absolutely no demonstrated efficacy toward furthering a compelling government interest.

    2. avatar rehafner says:

      Be careful of what you ask. If a government can require classes than that government can remove those classes leaving you in the tar pit as you will have no classes to attend to obtain your permit!

    3. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      We had a chance to remove gun boards in MI in December, but some numbnut tacked on a provision that would allow those who had a PPO placed on them to still get a CPL

      Please stop posting nonsense from the Demanding Moms talking points. This is not at all what happened. Even under the current law people with PPOs in Michigan can get CPLs, and in fact many have them. The way it works is that when a judge issues a PPO, he or she checks the boxes that shows the PPO restrictions. The person may be restricted from contacting/harassing someone at work, or by electronic means (email and texts), of from all in personal contact (makes it tough to exchange kids at visitation). There is also a box that can be checked stating the PPO recipient cannot possess firearms and/or obtain/retain a CPL. As long as that box isn’t checked, the person can possess and even carry guns.

      How this change came about is that one of the county gun boards asked for clarification of the current law. As written, in addition to the current disqualifiers (no felonies, no recent DUI, no recent reckless driving charge, and dozens of other disqualifiers) the gun boards also have a fuzzy discretionary power to deny a CPL if they think a person is a danger to himself, or is somehow determined by them to be an unsavory person because of things like maybe too many police contacts or maybe having a PPO. But a PPO is not an automatic disqualifier, and indeed it is not listed as one in the law. This fuzzy discretionary power was one of the things that was being abused by some counties. Some were even making up their own rules such as you have to take a four hour refresher CPL class for renewal which is not law. This is why the law was rewritten to eliminate our archaic county gun boards that were created in the 1920’s to prohibit blacks from obtaining CPLs. Look up Ossian Sweet.

      The bill was changed slightly and reintroduced this session as SB 34 was was recently signed into law by Gov. Snyder and the gun boards have now been eliminated beginning when the law takes effect at the end of 2015. If PPOs were automatic disqualifiers for possessing or carrying firearms, some cops would have been fired. That’s why, if someone in law enforcement gets a PPO or is denied a CPL, the law states that his agency has to be notified.

      It’s bad enough that the general public has no idea of the law and only knows what he or she reads in newspaper articles written by uninformed and often anti-gun newspaper writers or presented by TV talking heads. But for a POTG to spread those MDA talking points does a disservice both to the law and to gun owners.

  25. avatar rehafner says:

    In order to restore individual right Democrats must be removed from office. As demonstrated, Democrats are control freaks and any governor who takes advise from police to make decisions favors a police state. Dump Democrats!

  26. avatar Dave says:

    Yeah Pro Second Amendment…Right. Strongly supports the 2A he says. LOL BS. If he strongly supported the 2A he would have signed it. Just remember this people come next election cycle… ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. If he tells you something and does the opposite or that he supports something and acts the opposite. He is only telling you what you want to hear so he can be re elected. Under the definition of liar, it says see politician.

Leave a Reply to Nick Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email