The Active-Duty Firearm Standard is a mandate for all Michigan law enforcement agencies. What this means for Michigan law enforcement administrators is that officers must meet the standard at least once annually. Agencies should register the training in the MITN system so compliance can be easily tracked and recorded. For help registering the training in MITN view the User Guide once logged into the system. You will also be asked to report on compliance during each Annual Registration process.
The Active-Duty Firearm Standard has been a work in progress for several years. Discussions regarding a standard began in conjunction with policy considerations on implementing the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA). A key consideration in developing this standard was its potential to positively impact officer safety and survival. In the development process, a significant amount of time was spent looking at problems occurring in actual officer-involved shootings. Our research verified what experts in Michigan and across the nation have already said. There are gaps between what is often stressed in firearms training, e.g. static marksmanship, and the actual challenges that officers face in dynamic, often close quarter, life threatening assaults.
Mandatory reporting regarding compliance with the Active-Duty Firearm Standard began January 1, 2010, as a part of the Annual Registration process. Agency operators completing the annual registration process through MITN will be asked to assure compliance on behalf of the agency for every officer appearing on the agency roster. This will occur by way of a single "check off" box. However, this training should be registered in the MITN system so accurate records of compliance of each officer are permanently documented.
The system also features a mechanism for tracking of training. Agencies and/or training consortia may find this extremely useful not only for the purpose of tracking compliance with this standard but for tracking all agency training.
What to do with failures:
Officers who have not been able to meet this standard need special attention. The responsibility for providing remedial attention rests with the employer. In some circumstances, such as the development of a medical condition, an officer may not be able to comply, despite remedial efforts. Under these circumstances, agencies should consider re-assigning such an officer to a non-enforcement capacity until the problem can be resolved.
