FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk Topic: Reserve Officer benefits Goto page 1, 2  Next

Author    Post   untanglingwebs El Supremo 7098 A police officer, including a reserve police officer, is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act if the officer possesses the full authority of a peace officer and is regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of the state. A police officer who... Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:36 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCEALED WEAPONS: FIREARMS: LAW ENFORCEMENT: PEACE OFFICERS: POLICE: Application of Concealed Pistol Licensing Act's licensing requirement to police officer and reserve police officer Application of Concealed Pistol Licensing Act's gun-free zone restrictions to police officer and reserve police officer A police officer, including a reserve police officer, is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act if the officer possesses the full authority of a peace officer and is regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of the state. A police officer who is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, but who voluntarily obtains a concealed pistol license under that act, is not subject to the act's gun-free zone restrictions unless the officer is off-duty and is relying solely on the authority of that license. Opinion No. 7098 January 11, 2002 Honorable Christopher D. Dingell Honorable Ruth Johnson State Senator State Representative The Capitol The Capitol Lansing, MI 48913 Lansing, MI 48913 You have asked two questions regarding the treatment of police officers under the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act as most recently amended by 2000 PA 381. Your first question asks whether a police officer, including a reserve police officer, is required to obtain a concealed pistol license under section 6 of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act in order to lawfully carry a concealed pistol. The Concealed Pistol Licensing Act (Act), 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 et seq, regulates the possession and carrying of certain firearms. As originally enacted, section 6 of the Act created a county concealed weapon licensing board and granted to that board considerable discretion in determining whether to issue a license to carry a concealed pistol to individual residents of the county. 2000 PA 381 made substantial amendments to the Act and added numerous new provisions. Among these new provisions is a new section 5b(7) that now sets forth the specific qualifications a person must possess in order to receive a concealed pistol license and further provides that the county concealed weapon licensing board "shall issue" licenses to persons meeting all of those qualifications. Section 12a of the Act, as added by 1964 PA 216, has long provided that the licensure provisions of section 6 do not apply to various classes of persons, including peace officers who are regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision. That exemption is continued in the current version of the Act. As most recently amended by 2000 PA 381, section 12a of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that: The requirements of this act for obtaining a license to carry a concealed pistol do not apply to any of the following: (a) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States or of this state or a political subdivision of this state, who is regularly employed and paid by the United States or this state or of a subdivision of this state, except a township constable. [Emphasis added.] Thus, in order to come within the scope of this exemption, a person must be a "peace officer" and must be "regularly employed and paid" by a qualifying unit of government. The term "peace officer" as used in the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act refers to members of police forces of governmental units who have been given broad, general authority by law to enforce and preserve the public peace. People v Bissonette, 327 Mich 349, 356; 42 NW2d 113 (1950). Police officers of a police department of a political subdivision of this state possess such authority and are, therefore, "peace officers." 1 OAG, 1955, No 1891, p 72 (February 24, 1955); 2 OAG, 1958, No 3212, p 60 (February 21, 1958). Conversely, police officers who possess only restricted or special enforcement authority do not meet this standard and therefore do not qualify as "peace officers." People v Bissonette, supra; OAG, 1987-1988, No 6530, p 362 (August 5, 1988). The phrase "regularly employed" as used in section 12a of the Act has not been defined by the Legislature. The meaning of this phrase, however, was addressed in OAG, 1973-1974, No 4792, p 78 (August 27, 1973), which concluded that in order to be considered "regularly employed," a peace officer's work should be "substantial rather than merely occasional" and should form "at least a large part of his daily activity." Id, at 79. See also OAG, 1979-1980, No 5806, p 1055 (October 28, 1980). Under this standard, a regular police officer who is employed on a full-time basis clearly is "regularly employed" for purposes of section 12a of the Act. A more difficult problem is presented in the case of reserve police officers who are typically employed on less than a full-time basis. In such cases, it is necessary to address the factual issue of whether the individual officer in question is "regularly employed and paid" within the meaning of section 12a of the Act. OAG No 5806, supra, at 1054, considered the status of such reserve officers and concluded that, in order to be exempt from the Act's licensing requirement, a reserve police officer must first apply to the county concealed weapon licensing board to obtain a determination by the board whether the individual officer qualifies for the section 12a exemption. The board must determine, inter alia, whether the individual officer is "regularly employed," i.e., whether the officer performs substantial work that constitutes a large part of the officer's daily activity. OAG No 4792, supra. If the board finds that a particular reserve police officer is "regularly employed and paid" by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of this state, the officer is exempt from the Act's licensing requirements for carrying a concealed pistol. If, however, the licensing board finds that the reserve officer is not regularly employed and paid by one of such police agencies, licensure is required under the Act before the officer may carry a concealed pistol. OAG No 4792, supra, reached the same conclusion with respect to constables. It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your first question, that a police officer, including a reserve police officer, is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act if the officer possesses the full authority of a peace officer and is regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of the state. Your second question asks if a police officer who is exempt from the licensure requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, by voluntarily obtaining a license under that Act, becomes subject to the Act's gun-free zone restrictions, either while on or off duty. As noted in the answer to your first question, the Act clearly and unambiguously exempts regularly employed peace officers from its licensing requirements. Accordingly, such officers need not obtain a license under the Act in order to lawfully carry a concealed pistol. Nothing in the Act, however, prohibits a police officer from voluntarily applying for and obtaining a concealed pistol license if that officer chooses to do so. Moreover, assuming that the officer meets all of the statutory requirements specified in section 5b(7) of the Act, the county licensing board "shall issue" a license to that individual. In these circumstances, the officer would then possess two separate and independent sources of authority for carrying such a concealed pistol: (1) the officer’s authority as a regularly employed peace officer; and (2) the authority conferred by the license issued under the Act. Your questions asks, in effect, whether the statutory restrictions attached to the latter source of authority might somehow modify or restrict the officer's separate authority as a peace officer. Specifically, you inquire about the effect of section 5o of the Act, as added by 2000 PA 381, which creates certain gun-free zones as follows: (1) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol . . . shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following: (a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a. (b) A public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency. (c) A sports arena or stadium. (d) A dining room, lounge, or bar area of a premises licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303. This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the premises. (e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility. (f) An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals. (g) A hospital. (h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university. The first step in ascertaining legislative intent is to look to the text of the statute. Piper v Pettibone Corp, 450 Mich 565, 571; 542 NW2d 269 (1995). Where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Legislature's intent must be carried out according to its plain meaning. Dean v Dep't of Corrections, 453 Mich 448, 454; 556 NW2d 458 (1996). In such instances, statutory construction is neither required nor permitted; rather, the court must apply the statutory language as written. Piper, supra, at 572. The gun-free zone restrictions described in section 5o of the Act, by their express terms, apply only to a person who is carrying a concealed pistol under the authority of a license issued under the Act. Nothing in the Act in any way indicates or suggests that the gun-free zone restrictions are to be extended to a police officer acting under his or her authority as a regularly employed peace officer, even if that officer has elected to apply for and obtain a concealed pistol license under the Act. Thus, as a practical matter, the application of these gun-free zone restrictions to a police officer would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the incident. If the officer is off-duty and chooses to rely solely on his or her concealed pistol license under the Act, the Act's gun-free zone restrictions applicable to that license would apply. But those restrictions plainly do not apply if the police officer, whether on or off duty, can and does rely on his or her independent authority to carry a concealed pistol as a peace officer regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision. It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your second question, that a police officer who is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, but who voluntarily obtains a concealed pistol license under that Act, is not subject to the act's gun-free zone restrictions unless the officer is off-duty and is relying solely on the authority of that license. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM Attorney General Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:38 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo 7113 A uniformed reserve police officer acting as an unpaid volunteer for a local police agency may carry an exposed, holstered pistol within the gun-free zones established by the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act; and if the officer is either a fully authorized "peace officer" or, alternatively, possesses a valid concealed pistol license issued under the... Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:39 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCEALED WEAPONS: FIREARMS: LAW ENFORCEMENT: PEACE OFFICERS: Reserve police officer carrying exposed pistol in gun-free zones established by Concealed Pistol Licensing Act Reserve police officer carrying exposed pistol in gun-free zones established by Michigan Penal Code. A uniformed reserve police officer acting as an unpaid volunteer for a local police agency may carry an exposed, holstered pistol within the gun-free zones established by the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act; and if the officer is either a fully authorized "peace officer" or, alternatively, possesses a valid concealed pistol license issued under the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, he or she may also carry an exposed, holstered pistol within the gun-free zones established by the Michigan Penal Code. Opinion No. 7113 June 28, 2002 Honorable Gary C. Peters State Senator The Capitol Lansing, MI Honorable Mary Ann Middaugh State Representative The Capitol Lansing, MI Honorable Larry Julian State Representative The Capitol Lansing, MI You have asked whether a uniformed reserve police officer acting as an unpaid volunteer for a local police agency may carry an exposed, holstered pistol within a "gun-free zone" established by the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. Your inquiry is governed by the interplay between two separate but related statutes, both of which regulate the possession of firearms. The Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 et seq, regulates the possession and carrying of concealed pistols. The Act prohibits persons from carrying a concealed pistol unless they have been licensed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Amendatory 2000 PA 381 made significant changes to the Act. Section 5b(7) sets forth specific qualifications a person must possess in order to receive a license to carry a concealed pistol and further provides that a county concealed weapon licensing board "shall issue a license" to an applicant who meets those requirements. The Act also provides that a person who is issued a license under the Act may carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state" except in certain designated classes of locations listed in section 5o of the Act. Those exceptions, commonly referred to as "gun free zones," include the following: a) A school or school property . . . . b) A public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency. c) A sports arena or stadium. d) A dining room, lounge, or bar area of a premises licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998 . . . . This subdivision shall not apply to an owner or employee of the premises. e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility. f) An entertainment facility [that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more] . . . . g) A hospital. h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university. [Section 5o(1).] Section 12a of the Act expressly exempts certain persons from the requirements of the Act, including: (a) A peace officer of a duly authorized police agency of the United States or of this state or a political subdivision of this state, who is regularly employed and paid by the United States or this state or a subdivision of this state, except a township constable. [Emphasis added.] Under the express terms of this section, a police officer or reserve police officer is exempt from the requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, including the prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon in a "gun free zone," but only if the officer (1) possesses the full authority of a peace officer, and not merely special or limited law enforcement authority; and (2) is regularly employed and paid for those services. See OAG, 2001-2002, No 7098, p 74 (January 11, 2002). Your inquiry does not specify whether the uniformed reserve officer in question possesses the full authority of a peace officer. You do, however, specify that the officer in question serves as an unpaid volunteer. Because the exemption contained in section 12a(a) is limited to officers who are "regularly employed," an unpaid volunteer officer is not exempt from the provisions of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act and is, therefore, prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol in a designated "gun free zone." OAG No 7098, supra. A plain reading of section 5o(1) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act discloses, however, that its prohibition applies only to the carrying of pistols that are "concealed." A holstered pistol carried openly and in plain view is not "concealed" and therefore does not violate the prohibition contained in that section. See, e.g., OAG, 1951-1952, No 1388, p 228 (April 18, 1951) ("Should they be so directed by their superior officers, auxiliary police while on duty may carry weapons openly, the prohibition in the Penal Code applying only to 'concealed' weapons."), Cf., People v Johnnie W. Jones, 12 Mich App 293, 296; 162 NW2d 847 (1968); and People v Kincade, 61 Mich App 498, 502; 233 NW2d 54 (1975). This, however, does not end the analysis of your question. The carrying of firearms in public is also restricted by the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.1 et seq. Section 234d of the Penal Code identifies certain "gun free zones" similar to those enumerated in section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act; within those specified zones, the possession of firearms is strictly prohibited, subject to limited exceptions. Specifically, section 234d(1) of the Penal Code provides that: (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. This language is significantly broader than that employed by section 5o of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act. By its express terms, section 234d(1) of the Penal Code applies to firearms generally, not merely to pistols, and applies to firearms whether concealed or not. Subsection (2) of this provision creates several specific exceptions to this prohibition, two of which are germane to your inquiry. It provides, in pertinent part that: (2) This section does not apply to any of the following: * * * (b) A peace officer. (c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon. Similarly, section 237a(4) of the Penal Code prohibits possession of a firearm in a weapon free school zone, a term defined in section 237a(6)(d) as "school property and a vehicle used by a school to transport students to or from school property." Like section 234d(2), the prohibition against possessing firearms in a school zone does not apply to a peace officer or to a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Section 237a(5). If a reserve officer qualifies as a peace officer, then the officer is exempt from the prohibition contained in sections 234d(1) and 237a(4) of the Penal Code concerning the possession of firearms on specified premises. If not, sections 234d(2)(c) and 237a(5)(c) of the Penal Code also exempt "[a] person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon." A license issued by a county concealed weapon licensing board under section 5b(7) of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act clearly satisfies the latter exemption. Thus, possession of such a license would enable a reserve police officer to carry an exposed, holstered pistol in the "gun free zones" described in sections 234d and 237a of the Penal Code. It is my opinion, therefore, that a uniformed reserve police officer acting as an unpaid volunteer for a local police agency may carry an exposed, holstered pistol within the gun-free zones established by the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act; and if the officer is either a fully authorized "peace officer" or, alternatively, possesses a valid concealed pistol license issued under the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, he or she may also carry an exposed, holstered pistol within the gun-free zones established by the Michigan Penal Code. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM Attorney General http://opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10188.htm State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General Last Updated 11/10/2008 16:49:34 Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:41 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo A more difficult problem is presented in the case of reserve police officers who are typically employed on less than a full-time basis. In such cases, it is necessary to address the factual issue of whether the individual officer in question is "regularly employed and paid" within the meaning of section 12a of the Act. OAG No 5806, supra, at 1054, considered the status of such reserve officers and concluded that, in order to be exempt from the Act's licensing requirement, a reserve police officer must first apply to the county concealed weapon licensing board to obtain a determination by the board whether the individual officer qualifies for the section 12a exemption. The board must determine, inter alia, whether the individual officer is "regularly employed," i.e., whether the officer performs substantial work that constitutes a large part of the officer's daily activity. OAG No 4792, supra. If the board finds that a particular reserve police officer is "regularly employed and paid" by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of this state, the officer is exempt from the Act's licensing requirements for carrying a concealed pistol. If, however, the licensing board finds that the reserve officer is not regularly employed and paid by one of such police agencies, licensure is required under the Act before the officer may carry a concealed pistol. OAG No 4792, supra, reached the same conclusion with respect to constables. Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:45 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo The Concealed Pistol Licensing Act, 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.421 et seq, regulates the possession and carrying of concealed pistols. The Act prohibits persons from carrying a concealed pistol unless they have been licensed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Amendatory 2000 PA 381 made significant changes to the Act. Section 5b(7) sets forth specific qualifications a person must possess in order to receive a license to carry a concealed pistol and further provides that a county concealed weapon licensing board "shall issue a license" to an applicant who meets those requirements. The Act also provides that a person who is issued a license under the Act may carry a concealed pistol "anywhere in this state" except in certain designated classes of locations listed in section 5o of the Act. Those exceptions, commonly referred to as "gun free zones," include the following: Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:49 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo A more difficult problem is presented in the case of reserve police officers who are typically employed on less than a full-time basis. In such cases, it is necessary to address the factual issue of whether the individual officer in question is "regularly employed and paid" within the meaning of section 12a of the Act. OAG No 5806, supra, at 1054, considered the status of such reserve officers and concluded that, in order to be exempt from the Act's licensing requirement, a reserve police officer must first apply to the county concealed weapon licensing board to obtain a determination by the board whether the individual officer qualifies for the section 12a exemption. The board must determine, inter alia, whether the individual officer is "regularly employed," i.e., whether the officer performs substantial work that constitutes a large part of the officer's daily activity. OAG No 4792, supra. If the board finds that a particular reserve police officer is "regularly employed and paid" by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of this state, the officer is exempt from the Act's licensing requirements for carrying a concealed pistol. If, however, the licensing board finds that the reserve officer is not regularly employed and paid by one of such police agencies, licensure is required under the Act before the officer may carry a concealed pistol. OAG No 4792, supra, reached the same conclusion with respect to constables. It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your first question, that a police officer, including a reserve police officer, is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Concealed Pistol Licensing Act if the officer possesses the full authority of a peace officer and is regularly employed and paid by a police agency of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of the state. Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:49 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Concealed Weapons Permit A new Concealed Pistol Law for Michigan became effective on July 1, 2001. Learn more about the following information at the Michigan State Police website. •Requirements to obtain a concealed pistol permit. •Concealed pistol application information. •Pistol safety training course. Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:56 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Concealed Pistol License Requirements A. State Requirements Applicants for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License must: 1. Be at least 21 years of age 2. Be a citizen of the United States or an immigrant alien lawfully admitted into the United States 3. Be a resident of the State of Michigan for at least 6 months prior to application. An applicant is a state resident if one of the following applies: •The applicant possesses a valid, lawfully obtained Michigan driver's license or state identification card •The applicant is lawfully registered to vote in Michigan •The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and stationed outside of Michigan, but Michigan is the home of record •The applicant is on active duty status with the United States Armed Forces and is permanently stationed in Michigan, but the home of record is another state Note: The 6-month residency requirement may be waived by the concealed pistol licensing board for new residents licensed by another state. 4. Have successfully completed a pistol safety training course 5. Not be subject to any of the following: •An order requiring involuntary hospitalization or alternative treatment •An order finding legal incapacitation •A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity 6. Not be subject to a conditional bond release prohibiting purchase or possession of a firearm 7. Not be subject to a personal protection order 8. Not be prohibited from possessing, using, transporting, selling, purchasing, carrying, shipping, receiving, or distributing a firearm under MCL 750.224f 9. Have never been convicted of a felony in Michigan or elsewhere 10. Have no felony charge pending in Michigan or elsewhere 11. Have not been dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces 12. Have not been convicted of one of the following misdemeanors in the 8 years immediately preceding the date of application: •Failing to stop when involved in a personal injury accident, MCL 257.617a •Operating while intoxicated, second offense, MCL 257.625(9)(b) •Drunk driving, commercial vehicle, MCL 257.625m(4) •Reckless driving, MCL 257.626 •Driving while license suspended or revoked, second or subsequent offense, MCL 257.904 •Operating aircraft while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance with prior conviction, MCL 259.185 •Hindering or obstructing certain persons performing official weights and measures duties, MCL 290.629 •Hindering, obstructing, assaulting, or committing bodily injury upon director or authorized representative, MCL 290.650 •Operating an ORV under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.81134(5)-(6) •Operating a snowmobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.82127 punishable under section MCL 324.82128(1)(b) or (c) •Operating a vessel under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense, MCL 324.80176 punishable under MCL 324.80177(1)(b) •Possessing a controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, or prescription form, MCL 333.7403. •Operating a locomotive under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance, or while visibly impaired, MCL 462.353(4) •Displaying sexually explicit matter to minors, MCL 722.677 •Assault or domestic assault, MCL 750.81 •Aggravated assault or aggravated domestic assault, MCL 750.81a •Breaking and entering or entering without breaking, MCL 750.115 •Fourth-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b •Accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes, MCL 750.145a •Vulnerable adult abuse, MCL 750.145n •Solicitation to commit a felony, MCL 750.157b •Impersonating a peace officer or medical examiner, MCL 750.215 •Illegal sale of a firearm or ammunition, MCL 750.223 •Illegal use or sale of a self-defense spray, MCL 750.224d •Sale or possession of a switchblade, MCL 750.226a •Improper transportation of a loaded firearm, MCL 750.227c •Failure to have a pistol inspected, MCL 750.228 •Accepting a pistol in pawn, MCL 750.229 •Failure to register the purchase of a firearm or a firearm component, MCL 750.232 •Improperly obtaining a pistol, making a false statement on an application to purchase a pistol, or using false identification to purchase a pistol, MCL 750.232a •Intentionally aiming a firearm without malice, MCL 750.233 •Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice, MCL 750.234 •Possessing a firearm on prohibited premises, MCL 750.234d •Brandishing a firearm in public, MCL 750.234e •Possession of a firearm by an individual less than 18 years of age, MCL 750.234f •Intentionally discharging a firearm aimed without malice causing injury, MCL 750.235 •Parent of a minor who possessed a firearm in a weapon-free school zone, MCL 750.235a •Setting a spring gun or other device, MCL 750.236 •Possessing a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug, MCL 750.237 •Weapon-free school zone violation, MCL 750.237a •Indecent exposure, MCL 750.335a •Stalking, MCL 750.411h •Fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520e •Reckless, careless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in injury or death, MCL 752.861 •Careless, reckless, or negligent use of a firearm resulting in property damage, MCL 752.862 •Reckless discharge of a firearm, MCL 752.863a Note: The applicant must not have violated a law of the United States, another state, or a local unit of government of this state or another state substantially corresponding to a violation described above. 13. Have not been convicted of one of the following misdemeanors in the 3 years immediately preceding the date of application: •Operating under the influence, MCL 257.625 •Refusal of commercial vehicle operator to submit to a chemical test, MCL 257.625a •Ignition interlock device reporting violation, MCL 257.625k •Circumventing an ignition interlocking device, MCL 257.625l •Operating a commercial vehicle with alcohol content, MCL 257.625m(3) •Operating an aircraft under the influence, MCL 259.185 •Operating an ORV under the influence, MCL 324.81134 •Operating an ORV while visibly impaired, MCL 324.81135 •Operating a snowmobile under the influence, MCL 324.82127 •Controlled substances, MCL 333.7401 to 333.7461 •Operating a locomotive under the influence, MCL 462.353(3) •Disorderly person, MCL 750.167 •Embezzlement, MCL 750.174 •False pretenses with intent to defraud, MCL 750.218 •Larceny, MCL 750.356 •Second-degree retail fraud, MCL 750.356d •Larceny, vacant building, MCL 750.359 •Larceny, by conversion, MCL 750.362 •Larceny, defrauding lessor, MCL 750.362a •Malicious destruction of property, MCL 750.377a •Malicious destruction of real property, MCL 750.380 •Receiving stolen property, MCL 750.535 •Malicious use of telephones, MCL 750.540e Note: The applicant must not have violated a law of the United States, another state, or a local unit of government of this state or another state substantially corresponding to a violation described above. 14. Have not been found guilty but mentally ill of any crime and has not offered a plea of not guilty of, or been acquitted of, any crime by reason of insanity 15. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness 16. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment 17. Not be under a court order of legal incapacity in this state or elsewhere 18. Not be detrimental to the safety of his or her self or any other person if issued a Concealed Pistol License B. Federal Requirements Pursuant to MCL 28.426, a Concealed Pistol License may not be issued to a person prohibited under federal law from possessing or transporting a firearm. The federal requirements to possess or transport a firearm include that the applicant: 1. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (i.e. felony, or any misdemeanor punishable by more than 2 years) 2. Not be a fugitive of justice 3. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) 4. Not be adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution 5. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States 6. Not be discharged from the United States Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions 7. Not have renounced his or her citizenship 8. Not be subject to a court order prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury. 9. Not be convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Related Content •NICS Guide for Appealing a Firearm Transfer Denial PDF icon •Firearms Forms •Firearms Laws of Michigan Index (2013) PDF icon •Firearms Laws of Michigan PDF icon •MCOLES and the CPL Law •Firearms Identification Guide PDF icon •Public Notice of Intent to Dispose of Firearms •Carrying Under the Influence •Concealed Pistol License (CPL) Reports •Concealed Pistol Application and Instructions •Concealed Pistol License Renewal Information •Federal Firearms Laws •NCIC Gun Code Manual PDF icon •Michigan's Concealed Pistol Law - FAQs •Pistol Free Areas •Proper Conduct During Encounters with Police •Reciprocity Michigan.gov Home MSP Home Contact MSP State Web Sites Office of Regulatory Reinvention Spending & Accountability Policies Michigan News Michigan.gov Survey Copyright Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:59 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Michigan LEIN Reserve Officer Policy - Police Officers ... www.poam.net › Blog › POAM News RESCINDED-A reserve officer must be under the direct supervision of a certified law enforcement officer when accessing LEIN. Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:02 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Reserve Officers Now have full access to LEIN Home • Blog • POAM News • Reserve Officers Now have full access to LEIN Attention all LEIN Users: This correspondence is to inform you that a LEIN Policy update has recently been made. The following Reserve Officer Policy was rescinded on 8/27/10: RESCINDED-A reserve officer, when acting in a law enforcement capacity, must be under the direct supervision of a certified law enforcement officer when accessing LEIN. At the request of LEIN agencies throughout the state, this policy was revisited and as a result, rescinded. The LEIN Field Services Section will remain neutral on the topic of “direct supervision.” Therefore, agencies will be permitted to make agency-specific decisions regarding the use of reserve officers as it relates to LEIN use, as followed by the Michigan Commission of Law Enforcement Standards. If an authorized agency and its personnel, including LEIN certified reserve officers, are utilizing LEIN for the administration of criminal justice, they will no longer have “direct supervision” limitations placed upon them. As a reminder, all reserve officers must be initially trained and re-certified as any other LEIN users. 5 Responses to Reserve Officers Now have full access to LEIN Brian Earle October 25, 2010 at 12:13 pm This is a major issue, and all departments need to be concerned with this. Giving reserves full access to LEIN is the first step in attempting to allow reserves to take over job responsibilities that use to be exclusive to full time officers. Management will try to justify the reserves doing jobs that full time Officers have traditionally done by saying the reserves will only do “jobs that Officers don’t like doing” such as impounding abandoned vehicles or taking calls for service on stolen vehicles. Once they get their foot in the door they will push the envelope to try to expand the use of the reserves. Further, there is no set standard on how a reserve is “hired’. Some departments go through a strict evaluation on the prospected reserve officers, and other departments use the reserve program for political appointment or to generate funds. Potential reserves may donate money to a department in order to become a reserve, and may even obtain certain rank depending on the amount donated or their political affiliation. This creates potential homeland security issues as well. This change in the LEIN policy is a direct threat toward our jobs and our security and it needs to be addressed. corporal frank wood October 27, 2010 at 8:11 pm giving any type of reserve office access to LEIN is just wrong when you consider the restrictions other civilians have and the rules that are to be adhered to when using LEIN. the use of reserve deputies and reserve officers has been a pratice use by police chiefs and county sheriff’s to intimidate duly sworn deputies and officers because they know that a reserve officer will do anything and say anything and pay anything to stay in the uniform and is given free reign at times knowing they have different rules that apply to them. LEIN use is serious business for you have access to a persons entire life and that type of information has no business in the hands of civilian persons and wanna be cops, a political appoinment does not make you a cop and give you access to the most secure network in our line of work LEIN is for cops and is to be used by cops as one of our most important tools of the trade just like a gun and police radio. using reserve deputies and cops hurts sheriff and police unions alike and now more than ever we must protect all of our jobs that are for sworn cops only. Mike Abernathy October 31, 2010 at 12:11 pm In regards to Mr. Earle, I understand your point and agree with your philosphy. But I also would like to make a point. Reserve Officers in the State of Michigan are becoming a very important part of Community Service and Protection. With the fact that many Law Enforcement Departments are cutting jobs or in fact have their doors closed. The need for Voleenter Service providers is very important. The Reserve Offices need to have property training and they need to have the proper informantion and equipmnet to do the work they are performing. Many Reserve Officers have abundent Law Enforcement Experience. Much as I do, and I am not the exception. My department has about a dozen Reserve Officers and we have a very high standard that is held in order to become a member. We train and certify as a certified officer does. And we donate our time to the department, buy all of our own equipment and donate much of the deparments equipment. We maintain the departments vechicals for the most part also. Michigan is always behind the times when it comes to police officer and reserve officer training and requirments and how and who is certified in what capacity. As for your remarks on a homeland security issue and money donations getting someone a postion. That’s would be a dirty law enforcment agency that needs some inter affairs action. We may agree to disagree on much of this subject but in the end we need law enforcment and for the most part anyone that wants to serve the citizenship is good in my book. And I am sorry for the fact that I just can’t see me giving up my well paying job to become a full time certified officer and give up more then half my annual just doesn’t make sense to me. I will contiue to serve and protect and train and do everything I can to be part of the solution and help fix the problem. And sir you can be assured I will I back up and be the best partner you could ask for. thank you Dorothy November 11, 2010 at 12:17 pm I would love to volunteer as a Reserve Officer…! Officer B April 20, 2011 at 1:45 am All of this doom and gloom from the first two responding on here is unfortunate. There seems to be a line drawn between local PD and Sheriff’s reserves. As far as Reserve Deputy Sheriff’s go, they have different responsibilities in Michigan than local police reserves of municipalities do. But regardless, with respect to LEIN, Reserve officers have been using LEIN since LEIN existed; all this does is clear up some red tape and make the ability of the Reserve officer to use it just less of an administrative headache. Reserve officers are not, at least in my experience trying to “steal” jobs; as Frank Wood points out: this type of information has “no business in the hands of civilian persons and wanna be cops…” I couldn’t disagree with you more, Frank, and I think it’s a rash characterization to assume all reserve officers are “wannabe” anything. Granted, some are but the vast majority are not. And most dispatchers or LEIN clerks *are* civilian, with some notable exceptions. Reserve officers are important to effective community policing, giving an agency additional manpower, and providing support to full time staff members. Granted, reserve officers in Michigan are doing more and more because of our economic situation, but that’s not their fault. I believe that reserve officers should be licensed by MCOLES the same as full time officers are. Most states in our Union license their reserve officers, and Michigan is far behind the times in that regard. The legal “grey area” that exists with reserves in the state does need to be addressed though sadly I don’t think its going to be a priority for our legislature for the foreseeable future. HOT ISSUE The House Overwhelmingly Passed HB 5097 97-12 Legislative The House Overwhelmingly Passed HB 5097 97-12 From Legislative Director Kenneth E. Grabowski: On Wednesday, Representative Walsh… Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:05 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo As Oakley Michigan is coming more into the public spotlight, the use of reserve officers there appears to be an aberration. The community of Frankenmuth is shown to have an excellent reserve officer program, one that is restricted to applicants that reside within the community they serve. Oakley has been called a "rogue" police department by some media sources. With 100 reserve officers for a population of 290-300, these officers reside outside the community and reside all over the state. Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:11 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Proposed Michigan law would give state oversight of reserve police officers Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com By Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com Follow on Twitter on August 07, 2014 at 4:20 PM, updated August 08, 2014 at 7:23 AM Barry Township Police Reserve Academy Barry Township Chief of Police Victor Pierce talks to his class during the Barry Township Police Reserve Academy class at the Barry Township Hall in February 2013. (Matt Gade | MLive.com) SAGINAW, MI — A bill set for debate on the Michigan Senate floor would give a Michigan agency oversight of reserve police officers. Senate Bill 411, introduced by Tonya Schuitmaker in June 2013, was passed through the committee on judiciary in a little more than a week after it was introduced along with Senate Bill 412. Schuitmaker, R-Antwerp Township, said the part of the bill that gives the the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards was included at the request of MCOLES and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of Michigan. Schuitmaker said that part of the bill is intended to keep reserve officers in check from going above and beyond the scope of their allowed duties. The bill states MCOLES may propagate rules for "minimum standards and procedures for reserve officers." Recent police reserve related news includes a controversy over the use of a reserve police force in Barry County. A village meeting was held Monday, Aug. 4, to discuss the issue after some residents complained that his 34-member reserve force is unnecessary for a township of roughly 3,300 people. A special meeting is set for Thursday, Aug. 7, for a personnel review of Police Chief Victor Pierce. In Saginaw County in July, MCOLES and the Michigan Attorney General’s Office began an investigation of the village of Oakley, several months after a Saginaw News series revealed the village was being dropped from its insurance coverage through the Michigan Municipal League. Oakley Chief of Police Robert Reznick operates a police force with about a dozen certified officers and about 100 reserve officers in the village of about 300 in southwest Saginaw County. The league cited reasons for the insurance termination including the Oakley Police Department’s lack of cooperation in the league’s risk management efforts. MCOLES Director David Harvey has said the investigation is looking into the village of Oakley’s police licensing practices and to see if the reserve officers are going outside the scope of their duties. He could not comment further on the investigation. Similar concerns and complaints are also coming from elsewhere in the state, Schuitmaker said. “As (financial) reserves get tight, more municipalities are using reserve officers as regular police officers,” Schuitmaker said. “It creates a dangerous gray line.” Oakley's Chief of Police, Robert Reznick, accepted a police chief job in Jackson County's Waterloo Township and is assembling a reserve officer force there. Currently, no state agency has oversight of reserve police officers. MCOLES currently sets rules and standards for regular police officers. Local municipalities and police chiefs are in charge of setting the rules for their reserve officers, according to MCOLES. Under current Michigan law, reserve officers do not have the same powers as police officers, which are certified under MCOLES. The bill package would also instruct MCOLES to update standards for certified police officers. If passed, the bill package would also remove some loopholes for the state to obtain information to investigate police officers, Schuitmaker said. Schuitmaker serves Michigan's 20th State Senate District, which includes Kalamazoo County and Paw Paw and Antwerp townships in Van Buren County. — Brad Devereaux is a public safety reporter for MLive/The Saginaw News. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and Google+ Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:17 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Small-town police chief quits amid uproar over armored carriers, tactics 10:48 PM, August 7, 2014 Barry Township Police Chief Victor Pierce resigned Thursday and said through his counsel that he would not be available for comment afterward. / Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press By John C. Sherwood Gannett Michigan DELTON — Barry Township’s embattled police chief, Victor Pierce, resigned his post tonight during a public meeting called to consider his job performance. The announcement came more than 2½ hours into the meeting, which was marked by two closed sessions of the board. The police chief, 56, was under fire regarding his use of armed reserve officers and equipment such as Humvees and two armored personnel carriers. Some accused the department of using excessive force in recent arrests. A member of Pierce’s legal team read the announcement to about 150 community residents and leaders, taking some in the crowd by surprise and pleasing others. Some applauded. Pierce said through his counsel that he would not be available for comment afterward. “Thank you, Victor!” one person called out. At least two women left the meeting at Delton Kellogg High School in tears. One woman was heard to say to another in an angry voice, “I hope you’re proud of yourself.” Members of the Barry Township Board of Trustees subsequently voted unanimously to accept Pierce’s resignation. Pierce’s public statement said in part that he was grateful to those who had supported him, but that “it is now clear to me that my effectiveness as a leader of this department and as a law-enforcement liaison to the township board has diminished.” Board members said a transition process was in place and would be announced Friday. Pierce would not speak to reporters before or after the session. Pierce hired and trained nearly 40 reserve officers for his department, which has four full-time officers and patrols a community of less than 4,000. It operates out of one room at its Delton station. Some of Pierce’s critics called for a Michigan State Police investigation. After a closed session that lasted nearly two hours Monday night, the board said State Police had investigated individual complaints and concluded Pierce and his department had committed no criminal wrongdoing. The controversy has drawn broad interest from regional media outlets, and camera crews from TV stations were positioned in and around the auditorium. There were no overt shows of support or anger against Pierce during tonight’s meeting, and the signs that had been seen at a meeting earlier in the week weren’t obvious Thursday night. At one point, however, Pierce received a hug of support from two-year resident Elizabeth Wetherbee. “I have seven children and I want to know that my children can walk down the street and be perfectly safe,” Wetherbee told the Battle Creek Enquirer. “I want them to be able to play in my front yard, and without the police people can do whatever they want to do. … The chief protects my kids.” Wetherbee said she had gathered 60 signatures on a petition in support of Pierce, and that she had gathered them in just one day. “I really don’t know the chief,” she said. “He shakes hands with everybody. He’s a friendly guy. He’s never been unprofessional. His officers have never been unprofessional.” Wetherbee said she even had been stopped by the police. “I was in the wrong,” she said. “My wife was raped and murdered right here in Delton” in 1970, said lifelong Delton resident Shirley Woods. “There were things that the state hasn’t been willing to work with me on.” Woods said that, in contrast, Pierce has earned his respect as a law enforcer. “People around here, we haven’t had the respect and appreciation and the coverage. Chief Victor has been here not that very long, but what he’s done already — certain individuals had their way here for too long. It’s just those few that want to buck him, for whatever reason. … They’re getting their feet stepped on.” Woods said he has expressed his support of Pierce to members of the township board. The public meeting had been moved to the high school and the meeting rescheduled from Tuesday to Thursday after trustees failed to post a notice of the earlier meeting in time to meet state requirements. At Monday’s meeting, Pierce defended the department’s large reserve force, citing possible threats of terrorism or mass shootings. He also spoke of a growing drug problem in the community. John C. Sherwood is a reporter for the Battle Creek Enquirer. Call him at 966-0698. Follow him on Twitter at @jcsherwood. Enquirer reporter Jennifer Bowman contributed to this report. Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:23 am  untanglingwebs El Supremo Christopher Chekosky Aug 14, 2014 I have serious concerns about Senate Bill 411. I think it is a disturbing bill coming from a politician who knows little or nothing of reserve law enforcement. The bill itself removes reserve police officers (and a number of other types of officers like State Police Motor Carrier Officers) as law enforcement officers. They become nothing. And that's baffling. As a reserve police officer, I went through a training academy a local community college where most police academies are; I was on probation for a year while I completed field training at my department; I preform all the same tasks my full-time partner does. The only difference is I do it for free and I am not commissioned by MCOLES. But take away my status as a LEO (law enforcement officer)? To hell with that. But this is what Senate Bill 411 does. The bill itself reads more like the unions wrote it and not Tonya Schuitmaker. It's a knee-jerk reaction to two goof-ball reserve operations (Barry and Oakley) and does NOT reflect the really well run, well trained operations that a MAJORITY of police operations have and have had for decades without ANY problems. In fact, most the concerns the bill addresses are already implemented state-wide, such as uniform differences, etc. I wouldn't mind MCOLES oversight...I think that's a good way to ensure training standards are universal (which they need to be), but we also need licensing of reserve officers as commissioned peace officers (the same in many states). This bill in its current form will basically destroy reserve operations by removing their classification and turning us into basically useless statues who will look good but have no ability to do a thing. I've spent 8 years working as a volunteer police officer. I have chased people, fought with people, been shot at, attacked, threatened, and called every name in the book. I have seen the very worst human kind has to offer, most stuff average people will never see. I do stuff on a regular basis most people would take a million dollars to go do. And I do it for $0. This bill attacks the very nature of what we as men and women of reserve law enforcement are. And the bill should be opposed at all costs in favor of more sensible action. Analyze This One Aug 8, 2014 It's time to bring these "hobby cops" under closer supervision and require higher training standards. Perhaps these township departments should be eliminated and deputies assigned to the townships instead. grrapids Aug 8, 2014 I'm surprised that the journalists covering this and the other story (Barry Twp) on reservists have failed to mention a very big reason why this explosion in reserve deputies is going on. From what I recall, anyone who holds a reserve deputy designation can carry a concealed pistol in areas that a CPL holder cannot. It's a very slick way to get an 'all access pass' to conceal carry for the low low cost of paying off the police chief to be a reserve officer. Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com Aug 8, 2014 @grrapids That aspect of the story has been covered. Read about it here: http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/04/oakleys_100_reserve_officers_c.html ExtraCrunchySaginawSid Aug 8, 2014 I, and others, commented on this "perk" in stories about Oakley months ago. Brad included it in a story and it became obvious to many that may be the main reason these folks "donated" money to become a reserve officer. As far as I know, this special carry permit extends beyond the Village limits, making it very valuable indeed. msusnicknel Aug 8, 2014 Freep is reporting he (pierce) has resigned. http://www.freep.com/article/20140807/NEWS06/308070218/barry-township-police-chief-quits Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com Aug 8, 2014 @msusnicknel Thanks for the info. Yes, Pierce resigned last night, a few hours after this story published. Here is the MLive coverage: http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/08/barry_township_police_chief_vi.html Sheila Aug 8, 2014 If done right, a reserve officer program can be an asset to a community. If it is done like a frat house or social club, it is detrimental. It is all in how it is managed and handled. Brad Devereaux | bdeverea@mlive.com Aug 8, 2014 @Sheila indeed, there are many different types of programs out there. Thanks for the comment. townster Aug 8, 2014 Victor Pierce, like nearly all of his 'Reserve Deputies', is a power crazed buffoon. These guys make Barney Fife look like an FBI Agent. Along with his brother power freak Robert Reznick and his 'reserves', Pierce and his posse are a valid argument for the passage and signing of Senate Bill 411 ASAP. Small minded idiots with a gun, badge, and enhanced powers are a real threat to our society, nearly as bad as criminals are. leghorn Aug 8, 2014 Glad to see the state step in. Most reserve programs in the state probably are good but this will help removing the few bad apples that need culling. Ignacio Aug 8, 2014 Thank goodness. That creep that is now at Waterloo and at Oakley needs a leash. zackwest Aug 7, 2014 I thought reserve officers can be fired for anything. They are nothing but NEP's Non Essential Personnel. Remember one story in Ottawa County. A guy joined the sheriff reserves spent $1500 on his gun and uniforms. Acted like an idiot and looked forward to "slam dunking tickets" he got fired before he even got to wear his uniforms. Another reserve got cocky with a sergeant. That reserve later rear ended a different sergeants patrol car - he was given a choice. Write himself a ticket or get fired. So just wondering? whats the fuss? Reserves are so disposable and can be fired at the Sheriff's or Chiefs or Constables pleasure. HaroldRzny Aug 7, 2014 @zackwest Got another for you. A reserve also a fireman decided to give light and siren rides at a field party. It got busted by the state police. The reserve pulled out his tin, state cops called Rozemary (Ottawa County Sheriff) and asked if so and so was a reserve on his department - Rozemary responded "he was" Another reserve was accessing the LEIN to look up license plates on good looking chicks - he got kicked off the reserves and fire department he was working at. Another reserve disrespected the Undersheriff the offending reserve got put on duty for notifying next kins in fatal accidents and assigned to pick up shells at the firing range for a month or get terminated. Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:33 am    Display posts from previous:   All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

Jump to: Select a forum Local News and Politics----------------Open chatFeed BackReal Estate For SalePolitical TalkTigersVehiclesPistonsVehicles for partsThe Flint JournalRed WingsGarage SaleMichigan Professional Soccer TeamsPolitical JokesWantedFlint Sirens Women's Rugby ClubThe Bob Leonard ShowMiscellaneousGenesee County PatriotsFlint City Derby Girls / Flint River Floaters Roller Derby TeamThe Flint Generals Flint Facts----------------Did you know?

Goto page 1, 2  Next <  Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules: You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum