# CCW Refresher classes



## single shot (Nov 18, 2004)

I live in Macomb County and want to take the refresher class to renew my CCW. Whose doing them and is someone teaching during the week?


----------



## tallbear (May 18, 2005)

A refresher class is NOT required to renew your CPL. 

If you would like to take one anyway, check www.migunowners.org under the training section. Many qualified instructors post classes there.


----------



## Hemidan (Jul 27, 2007)

tallbear said:


> A refresher class is NOT required to renew your CPL.
> 
> If you would like to take one anyway, check www.migunowners.org under the training section. Many qualified instructors post classes there.


Like tallbear said,its not required if your renewing but if it has expired then you will probadly need to take it again.
But you can call Double Action(on Dequinder) they use to offer the classes.


----------



## Flash (Jan 17, 2006)

I recall the last renewal I had, that I needed to sign a statement on the renewal application or at the time of pickup that I had participated in recent renewal training. I did not have to provide proof of said training, just a signature.

1. obviously a person could say they had renewal training and not actually had it.
2. they could self study, thus answer the question semi-accurately.
3. they could take a formal renewal class and answer the question legitimately and with evidence to show for it, should the documentation ever be needed (as in a trial).


Most gun ranges have NRA certified instructors who could perform some measure of "renewal" training. Plus the access to the range provides evidence of your proficiency. I always keep and file a sample of my targets, with date, time and location.


----------



## tallbear (May 18, 2005)

The statement that you signed on the renewal app. was that you "reviewed" the law and in the previous 6 months spent a " number" of hours firing your firearm. Nothing about training. You "may" be asked for a reciept for the range time. If it was done at gun club range, no reciept would be issued.

Anyone that has not done those two things (range time and law refreshing) should consider taking a refresher course from a "qualifed" instuctor.




Flash said:


> I recall the last renewal I had, that I needed to sign a statement on the renewal application or at the time of pickup that I had participated in recent renewal training. I did not have to provide proof of said training, just a signature.
> 
> 1. obviously a person could say they had renewal training and not actually had it.
> 2. they could self study, thus answer the question semi-accurately.
> ...


----------



## costanza (Nov 7, 2006)

Wayne County does (or at least did) require a CPL renewal course. Even if they did not, it is still a good idea to be current with any recent changes. A bit of extra practice never hurt anyone either! The people in my CPL renewal course definitely needed to learn to shoot.


----------



## tallbear (May 18, 2005)

Wayne County "NEVER" required a refresher course. I can give the phone numbers of all the Gun Board members if you'd like to ask them. 




costanza said:


> Wayne County does (or at least did) require a CPL renewal course. Even if they did not, it is still a good idea to be current with any recent changes. A bit of extra practice never hurt anyone either! The people in my CPL renewal course definitely needed to learn to shoot.


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

Counties, townships, and towns can not make up their own requirements for CCW. This is state law, and the requirements are the same state wide. Questions on CCW come up from time to time and the information varies from truth, to opinion, to flat out wrong. Perhaps because I never quite got the hang of taking an anomynous person's opinion over the internet to keep me out of handcuffs or costing me undue expense and trouble in such matters, I prefer to see it in black and white for myself (no offense). So, lets put this one to rest. Please click on the link below to the Michigan State Police website. And if you look on the right side of the page, there is are links to the laws for your review, so when you sign under penalty of law that you reviewed them, you may have an inkling of what your doing. 

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10955--,00.html


----------



## Flash (Jan 17, 2006)

As I stated in my original post, to meet this requirement:


For an individual licensed after July 1, 2001, and subsequently *applying for a renewal:*

Pistol safety training course is not required

*Applicant shall present a statement signed by the applicant certifying that he/she has: *

*Completed at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training course and has at least 1 hour of firing range time in the 6 months immediately preceding the renewal application*

_1. obviously a person could sign and state they had renewal training and not actually had it.
2. they could self study, thus answer the question semi-accurately.
3. they could take a formal renewal class and answer the question legitimately and with evidence to show for it, should the documentation ever be needed (as in a trial).
_
​


----------



## costanza (Nov 7, 2006)

Well, I took a renewal course-apparently misinformed. And no, I won't take you up on the offer to contact the gun board members. I am glad I took the course. First, I always enjoy a chance to shoot and talk guns. I was able to learn about recent law changes and did learn a bit. Most of all, I was shocked to find out how poor the CPL holders performed on the range. Some couldn't hit the paper, let alone the center of the target. If your life, or an innocent bystander's life, depends on your shot placement, I hope you've practiced.


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

BR549 said:


> Questions on CCW come up from time to time and the information varies from truth, to opinion, to flat out wrong. Perhaps because I never quite got the hang of taking an anomynous person's opinion over the internet ....


Understandable but if you have been actively following the Shall Issue situation since the late 1990s then you will know that Mike"Tallbear"Thiede is not a nameless, faceless, and anonymous person. And, you will know that he does not present opinion but instead tells us what the law actually is. BTW, Mike is more familiar with the laws regarding the "Shall Issue CPL" than some of the police department commanders, Sheriffs office commanders, and some county prosecutors.

It is well worth the time spent to go to the web site and message board mentioned in Mike's signature file and spend several hours browsing through the information there.


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

alex-v said:


> Understandable but if you have been actively following the Shall Issue situation since the late 1990s then you will know that Mike"Tallbear"Thiede is not a nameless, faceless, and anonymous person. And, you will know that he does not present opinion but instead tells us what the law actually is. BTW, Mike is more familiar with the laws regarding the "Shall Issue CPL" than some of the police department commanders, Sheriffs office commanders, and some county prosecutors.
> 
> It is well worth the time spent to go to the web site and message board mentioned in Mike's signature file and spend several hours browsing through the information there.


I singled out no one, nor was I talking about just this thread, so I'm perflexed over the reason for the post. I happen to agree with what tallbear said, and you quoted out of context. I will stand by my statement about reading the information for myself, and anyone who doesn't is simply lazy along with lying on the app.


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

BR549 said:


> I singled out no one, nor was I talking about just this thread, so I'm perflexed over the reason for the post. I happen to agree with what tallbear said, and you quoted out of context. I will stand by my statement about reading the information for myself, and anyone who doesn't is simply lazy along with lying on the app.


I thought that you were attacking Mike and the years he and many others put into the effort to get the "Shall Issue". He has countered every piece of mis-information on this thread because he has been there at the forefront of the changes in Michigan law.


----------



## Flash (Jan 17, 2006)

Flash said:


> *Applicant shall present a statement signed by the applicant certifying that he/she has: *
> 
> *Completed at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training course and has at least 1 hour of firing range time in the 6 months immediately preceding the renewal application*


Does anyone have any case history on what constitutes _"...at least 3 hours of review of the pistol safety training course._.."?

Does this mean self study? or formal review? If self study, how does one measure "3 hours"? Historically "hours" (as in credits)alludes to some formal classroom event. However, I certainly do not have any case law to reference. If, "3 hours of review" has been ruled to be a formal classroom event, then it appears that Tallbear was mistaken. If it merely means 3 hours at the kitchen table reviewing the laws, then the lawmakers writing this could have been much more clear on their intent, and Tallbear would be correct. ​


----------



## Deep River (Jun 29, 2005)

> If it merely means 3 hours at the kitchen table reviewing the laws, then the lawmakers writing this could have been much more clear on their intent, and Tallbear would be correct.


It does, they should have been, and he is.

There is no case law to support or deny this as there has never been any court cases in this matter at all.

Nor to my knowledge has anyone ever been asked to prove range time.

That being said, if someone renewing their CPL has not kept up on current changes in the CPL laws, a class would not be a bad idea and would cover any question of the 3 hour review.

When the time comes (and it will be soon) for me to renew, I will review the laws myself and sign the disclaimer with a clear conscience. No worries.

As for the range time, if a CPL holder doesn't get to the range at least once a month for practice, they are doing themselves and the ones they mean to protect a grave disservice IMO.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Deep River said:


> It does, they should have been, and he is.
> 
> There is no case law to support or deny this as there has never been any court cases in this matter at all.
> 
> ...


This is correct. I am not aware of anyone being denied a license or being charged with lying on their application for renewal, therefore caselaw is nonexistent on this subject.

Absent that, I would go with what the statute says. 



> Completed at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training course and has at least 1 hour of firing range time in the 6 months immediately preceding the renewal application.


A review of the training course could mean a class, self-study course, or sitting down and reviewing the materials on your own. If the legislature had meant a class, they would have said "class" or "instruction," just like they did in MCl 28.425j:



> Sec. 5j. (1) A pistol training or safety program described in section 5b(7)(c) meets the requirements for knowledge or training
> in the safe use and handling of a pistol only if the program consists of not less than 8 hours of instruction and all of the
> following conditions are met:
> (a) The program is certified by this state or a national or state firearms training organization and provides 5 hours of instruction
> ...


----------



## Flash (Jan 17, 2006)

Deep River said:


> It does, they should have been, and he is.
> 
> There is no case law to support or deny this as there has never been any court cases in this matter at all.
> 
> Nor to my knowledge has anyone ever been asked to prove range time.


I suspect that the case law will then come when someone defends themselves, is charged with a violation, uses their CCW permit and the renewal of it as evidence of their knowledge, then gets challenged regarding their "review hours" by competeing counsel. If one were to use the "self study" method as their fulfilling the "*at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training **course"*, then I would encourage them to document the date, time, location and material, of said review. To be kept of course with their other evidence of competency.


----------



## Deep River (Jun 29, 2005)

Flash said:


> I suspect that the case law will then come when someone defends themselves, is charged with a violation, uses their CCW permit and the renewal of it as evidence of their knowledge, then gets challenged regarding their "review hours" by competeing counsel. If one were to use the "self study" method as their fulfilling the "*at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training **course"*, then I would encourage them to document the date, time, location and material, of said review. To be kept of course with their other evidence of competency.


Agreed.


----------



## BR549 (Feb 5, 2006)

Since the range time and safety course review are on the honor system, I *suspect *the so called requirement was put in during the usual back door politicing in order to smooth someones ruffled feathers and get them to go along with the rest of it. If nothing else, it at least get us to think about it now and then (like now). Heck, you could darn near put down 1/2 hour with this thread.


----------



## SteveS (Mar 6, 2003)

Flash said:


> I suspect that the case law will then come when someone defends themselves, is charged with a violation, uses their CCW permit and the renewal of it as evidence of their knowledge, then gets challenged regarding their "review hours" by competeing counsel. If one were to use the "self study" method as their fulfilling the "*at least three (3) hours of review of the pistol safety training **course"*, then I would encourage them to document the date, time, location and material, of said review. To be kept of course with their other evidence of competency.


Most case law is from the appellate level. A court may be persuaded by a decision at another circuit court, but they are not bound by that decision, as they would be by a higher court. If a person shoots someone, they will likely be charged with murder (if they are charged with anything). I doubt they will be charged with violating a renewal requirement. While the issue of whether their 3 hours of review was from a class or 'self-study' may come up, I don't see how it will be grounds for an appeal. Therefore, an appellate court will not even address that issue.

Realistically, the best scenario for a review would come from a person who is denied their renewal based on their training and sued. I think further training is a great idea, but I think some of you people are making this law into something that it is not. Personally, rather than a refresher course, I'd take some kind of advanced concealed carry. There are some good trainers that post over at MGO.


----------

