August 4, 2023

It’s that time again – time for me to renew my Concealed Pistol License (CPL) in Michigan. Another $115 down the toilet (government renewal fee). Also, another chunk of change and several hours wasted to sit in the state-mandated training classes. All to simply continue to do what I already do every day; exercise my right to carry a concealed firearm when I go off my property without being harassed and punished if ever confronted by police (e.g. traffic stop). This is the unfortunate experience shared by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Michiganders every year.

Of course to first obtain a CPL in Michigan, one must have already completed these actions, along with getting fingerprinted by the Michigan State Police (another small fee) and more. Nationwide, 27 states have already passed constitutional carry laws or otherwise have permit-less carry that allows a law-abiding citizen to exercise their rights without this hassle. Jumping through the Michigan hoops one time to obtain a CPL is annoying enough, but continuously complying every few years to renew it becomes expensive and ridiculous.

One may think at this point, “Suck it up, buttercup, you want to exercise the right, pay the fee and assume the responsibility for complying with the regulations.” Ok. Nevermind that this manner of thinking is fundamentally at odds with the American conception of a rights-based society, but it also neglects our duty to continuously critique and review government actions and requirements for necessity and efficiency. The US Supreme Court has ruled Americans have a right to bear arms at home and on their person away from home (with certain restrictions and regulation that is objective and can be up to the state), indicating states shall issue permits to do so (cannot force individuals to show proper cause and decide at their discretion whether the permit is necessary). SCOTUS did not deem permits/licenses themselves an infringement contrary to the Second Amendment. This may never be the case, but this does not mean citizens cannot argue within their states for removal of the permits altogther in favor of constitutional carry or for reasonable reform. A review of Michigan CPL requirements, their intent, and the execution of the existing process reveals the entire scheme is an unnecessary burden on gun owners and provides little real benefit to the People.

Michigan has not always been transparent about how it uses the fees it collects from CPLs. Michigan citizens have pushed the state and even sued to get more information about the constantly rising fees, some of the highest in the nation. A percentage of the money generated from the fees charged for Michigan CPLs goes towards the processing of the CPLs themselves. This much would be logical – if there is legitimacy and value in the issuing of CPLs in the first place (debatable and discussed below). Most of the money generated by these fees however does not go towards the processing of the CPLs, rather it goes towards creating an annual CPL report and “support systems.”

What does the annual CPL report continuously show? It shows year after year that CPL holders are extremely law-abiding. It shows the data presented in the report itself is redundant. It shows that CPL requirements do little, if anything, to prevent any gun crime. And it shows that each year Michigan residents are essentially robbed of over $10 million in fees.

The Concealed Pistol Licensing Annual Report dated October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022 begins with stating the number of permits issued during that time period (156,590). This is part of the current total number of permits currently issued, which is somewhere around 756,000. Michigan has a population of approximately 10 million, of which about 6.9 million are over 21 years old (minimum age to acquire a CPL in the state). That means around 11% of the adult population over 21 in Michigan has a CPL. Estimates of firearm ownership by adults per household in Michigan vary, but likely range anywhere between 35-50%. While Michiganders are free to open carry their firearms, due to the severe stigma against the practice (it is also not considered very tactical these days), many gun owners likely choose to not carry firearms due to the restrictions on concealed carry in Michigan when they otherwise would choose to exercise the right. In the interest of ensuring the realization of fundamental and Constitutional rights, we ought to ensure citizens are able to exercise them as easily as possible.

The report then indicates the number of applications disqualified (3,101), licenses suspended (2,999), and licenses revoked (1,922) during this time period. The primary reason for all three of these actions is misdemeanor charges brought upon the applicant/licensee. This is a small fraction of the total applications/issued licenses reported and is the first indication that CPL holders are an extremely law-abiding group, which is in line with trends nationwide. But even more important is the realization that the issuing of CPLs plays little role in reducing crime committed with firearms, as it is apparent from the data that the vast majority of said crime in Michigan where an arrest is made and/or a conviction occurs is committed by people other than CPL holders. Would any of this change if Michigan ceased to issue CPLs? That is unlikely. It seems a stretch to assume the majority of the people that are getting away with violence criminal activity have taken the responsibility to comply with the extensive requirements of the CPL process too. This means law-abiding citizens bear the brunt of the burden funding their own inconvenience with these CPL fees.

To get an idea just how little impact the CPL process has on crime in Michigan, we can match up the crime data in the CPL report to the data for the state overall. We could do this with all of the crimes presented in the report CPL holders allegedly committed, but probably the most pertinent is homicide data and aggravated assault data. The Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center 2021 Crime in Michigan Annual Report contains the statewide crime data we need.

Per the CPL report referenced above, six CPL holders had licenses suspended upon homicide convictions during the year. That number is pale in comparison to the total homicides (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) in Michigan for 2021 (746), as well as the total of these offenses confirmed and/or likely to have been committed with a concealable firearm (550 or less) according to the Michigan State Police. If the intent of the CPL scheme in Michigan is to reduce homicide and gun crime, it appears extremely misplaced. Even among the six CPL holders convicted of homicide in 2021, there is no data in the reports to confirm whether or not they used a concealed firearm to carry out the crime. Certainly if the crimes were premeditated, a law prohibiting concealment would be unlikely to deter them or anyone else anyhow, as the willful intent to violate homicide laws suggests similar intent would apply to concealed weapons laws.

Aggravated assault data tells the same story. The Michigan State Police reported 37,649 assaults and non-fatal shootings in 2021 (not including domestic violence charges). A handgun/concealable firearm was likely used in approximately 35% of these cases. The CPL data reveals less than 150 licenses have been suspended due to licensees being convicted of similar charges. As with the homicide data, it is unknown how many firearms/concealed firearms were used in the cases leading to these convictions, however it is apparent Michigan is not suffering from aggravated assault primarily because of lawful gun owners with CPLs concealing weapons on a day to day basis. A higher percentage of licenses would be getting suspended if this were the case. It must also be pointed out that a conviction precludes the license suspension, and it is the conviction that removed gun rights from truly dangerous individuals anyhow. Further licensing will not stop individuals with ill intent acting despite legal prohibitions on them.

The report also indicates the CPL database is referenced by law enforcement millions of times per year for “officer safety” (during investigatory stops/traffic stops, etc), but given that it is those without a CPL that are cause for the most concern, this appears to be a frivolous action and a redundant one. A criminal history check is much more useful than a CPL check for such reasons and the latter is dependent upon the former when it comes to revocation of CPL licenses. Also, as indicated above, officers in the 27 constitutional carry states are capable of relatively comparable function without reference to said CPL data. A check for a CPL is no guarantee someone with one is armed, nor is it a guarantee someone without one is unarmed. As it concerns officer safety, an officer would be better served by starting under the assumption everyone may be armed and acting accordingly than to rely upon a CPL check and the word of the person being detained. This makes a CPL check by officers redundant at best.

We know from analysis of the aggregate data that there is little discernable difference in crime rates between states that have constitutional carry and those that do not. Some studies actually suggest increasing concealed carry rates helps reduce crime and victimization. The Crime Prevention Research Center filed an amicus brief on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that summarizes the academic research on the topic. “A survey of the empirical academic regression literature finds that 25 studies have found that Right- to-Carry laws reduce violent crime, 15 studies find either small benefits or no significant effect, and 12 find that Right-to-Carry laws increase violent crime. Additionally, the 12 studies that find increases suffer a systematic error to varying degrees: they tend to focus on the last 20 years, and fail to consider that the states which passed concealed carry laws in that time period have stricter rules and less permit growth than other states that they are being compared to. So their findings that crime rose in such states is consistent with permit holders reducing crime. A survey of academics who publish empirical peer- reviewed research on guns also finds that most believe that Right-to-Carry laws reduce crime.” At any rate, and regardless of the end result, acting to bring official practices more in line with fundamental rights is the appropriate course of action. Just as one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so too do citizens have fundamental rights as a default, they only lose them via punishment if they willfully act to abuse them and harm others. Our policy ought to reflect this and not penalize or inconvenience people for innocently exercising their rights because of merely perceived risks.

The lack of benefit and the excessive burden of the CPL process call into question the appropriateness of the fees. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) provides a great summary of the purpose of government fees and lists some factors for decision-makers to consider when authorizing and determining the scope of them. To summarize, “State and local governments use charges and fees to help fund services. When certain services provided especially benefit a particular group, then governments should consider charges and fees on the direct recipients of those that receive benefits from such services. However, many governments provide subsidies to various users for policy reasons, including the ability of residents or businesses to pay. Well-designed charges and fees not only reduce the need for additional revenue sources, but promote service efficiency.”

The CPL is not really a “service” anyone asked for, therefore funding it is not providing any value to anyone that actually uses it (other than insofar as it helps Michigan citizens comply with the reciprocity laws of other states). The laws that authorize and detail the CPL process exist for the purpose of allowing citizens to not be penalized for exercising the rights they already possess. Furthermore, the process is extremely inefficient and wasteful. We can see from the rough breakdown of the use of the collected fees presented in the annual CPL Report that less than half of the collected fees go towards “services” authorized directly by law, with a larger share going towards vague “support systems.” We can also see there is a large variation in the cost per application among the various counties, and in all the counties the total cost per application is much less than the total charged to each applicant. Even if it is politically impossible at the moment to eliminate CPLs in Michigan (Democrats are in charge), there must be room for improvement to lower costs to Michigan gun owners.

If safety and education is a priority for lawmakers looking to ensure Michigan citizens responsibly carry firearms and comply with the laws, the production and distribution of training materials would make for a better use of funds than the upkeep of redundant databases and reports, slow clunky processing, excessive requirements, and constant license renewals. State-mandated training sessions at private venues are also expensive; while many people may benefit from such training, a free or low-cost state resource would be a valuable alternative, especially for low-income residents that wish to responsibly exercise their rights. Criminals are going to use guns for illegal purposes regardless, let’s not continue to needlessly punish law-abiding people for desiring to protect themselves and others.