Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Advertise With MGO

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 120

Thread: SB 0584 & 0585 of 2017 Concealed carry in restricted places by certain individuals having completed additional training class

  1. #101
    Super Moderator G22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Macomb Co.
    Posts
    8,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    I would not say that WE are up against them. That is unless you want this piece of crap to pass. In the current situation, just let them spout their paranoid "blood in the streets" rhetoric and get this bill killed.

    Also, I am not going to, ever again, take that "we can fix it later" line. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED!
    It's only going on 17 years sheesh! Be patient!
    "The Constitution is NOT dead. It's just being held captive." anthonyt

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  2. #102
    MGO Board of Directors

    President mikeb32's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Westland
    Posts
    12,385
    Below is the Communication that We the Board sent:


    Dear Representative,


    On November 8, 2017, the Michigan Senate approved Senate Bill 584 by a vote of 25 to 12. As I am sure you are aware, this bill creates an exemption for individuals who possess a concealed pistol license (CPL) which would allow those who complete an additional eight hours of training to carry a concealed pistol in areas designated as pistol free zones (PFZ). While the Board and members of Michigan Gun Owners applauds the legislature’s decision introduce a bill which would allow CPL holders to carry concealed pistols in PFZ’s, we vehemently oppose the bill as a whole.
    SB 584 as passed by the senate would require CPL holders to complete eight hours of training, in addition to the training required to obtain a CPL, before being allowed to carry a concealed pistol in areas identified under Sec. 5o. CPL holders would then be required to ask for permission from the county clerk to obtain the exemption which would allow them to carry a concealed firearm in those areas. Our organization has yet to hear an explanation from any senator or representative as to how this proposal makes communities safer. Instead, our legislators are voting in favor of a bill which requires CPL holders, who are statistically one of the most law-abiding groups of people in the state, to jump through more hoops in order to exercise our Constitutional rights. Our organization has and will continue to encourage gun owners to take advantage of training opportunities, but we believe mandatory training to carry in certain areas does nothing to provide for our safety. We believe that an arbitrary law or rule does nothing to stop violent criminals from entering those areas with their own firearms. Laws only regulate the law-abiding and will not affect a criminal’s actions.

    Additionally, Michigan Gun Owners finds it abhorrent that the legislature is willing to trade one right for another. These bills would eliminate the right of CPL holders to openly carry their firearms in the areas identified in Sec. 5o. There is no compelling or factual argument regarding public safety that can be made in favor of eliminating open carry. Rather, this bill favors public perception over a gun owners’ right to choose the manner in which they can comfortably carry their firearm. Many gun owners openly carry their firearm due to convenience, disability which prevents from safely concealing, or comfort. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to apply this unnecessary provision to only a handful of locations. If it is safe to carry openly carry a firearm almost everywhere else in the state, there is nothing that would make it inherently unsafe in a small number of PFZ’s. It is troublesome to think that rights should only be exercised when done in a manner in which the majority agrees upon. Instead, the manner in which a lawful gun owner carries his or her weapon should be of no concern to the government as it is not a public safety issue at all.

    Finally, we support SB 586 and the revisions which more clearly define a local unit of government. In passing this bill, the legislature creates a stronger footing in preemption cases and will nearly eliminate the patchwork of administrative regulations around the state. While we believe that school districts are already local units of government and subject to preemption as defined in Capitol Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, we appreciate the legislative attempt to put this argument to rest.

    Michigan Gun Owners respectfully requests your opposition to SB 584 and your support of SB 586. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding our position on these matters. We look forward to working with you on a solution that protects the rights of all lawful gun owners while maintaining a safe environment for all.


    Michigan Gun Owners, Board of Directors


    A Special Thank You to Brent Bott, MGO Member, Active Duty U.S. Air Force, For again taking the Time to Draft this Statement for us. He Never Lets us down when We call on Colonel Bott!!.....Thanks Again, Brent.
    Last edited by mikeb32; 11-13-2017 at 10:43 PM.
    "Tell Me No Lies, I'll ask you No Questions"

    NRA Life Member
    MGO Member

    NRA RSO

    NRA CRSO
    MOC Member

    Unless otherwise noted, my posts represent my personal opinion, and are not an official position, opinion, or endorsement by MGO or the MGO BOD.

  3. #103
    Rochelle's argument is juvenile and stale.

    The "OK Corral" statement she makes is a lie. Simply look at every other state that allows similar laws and you will find that her statement holds no water.

    I get tired of people opposing things here in Michigan that have been legal in other states for years, on the grounds that it will lead to death and disorder. Yet in the other states where it has been legal, it has never been a problem.

    If something is legal in Nebraska and nobody has died from it, then it will be fine here in Michigan as well.

    People like Rochelle Riley really make me want to repeal the first amendment.

  4. #104
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    3,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeep olllllo View Post
    Rochelle's argument is juvenile and stale.

    The "OK Corral" statement she makes is a lie. Simply look at every other state that allows similar laws and you will find that her statement holds no water.

    I get tired of people opposing things here in Michigan that have been legal in other states for years, on the grounds that it will lead to death and disorder. Yet in the other states where it has been legal, it has never been a problem.

    If something is legal in Nebraska and nobody has died from it, then it will be fine here in Michigan as well.

    People like Rochelle Riley really make me want to repeal the first amendment.
    We just need 'common sense IT safety'. Ban high speed printing presses. Limit editorials to 10 characters maximum. Prohibit all media not available at the time the Constitution was drafted.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeb32 View Post
    Below is the Communication that We the Board sent:


    Dear Representative,


    On November 8, 2017, the Michigan Senate approved Senate Bill 584 by a vote of 25 to 12.

    ...etc...

    Michigan Gun Owners, Board of Directors

    Mike, Is it possible to use the basis of this message with changes for other organizations?? Would like our local gun club to send this to our Rep.

    Bob T.
    SHR&GC Webmaster
    MI_XD
    SW Michigan
    ----I can finally be Proud of America, again! ----
    ---- What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not Understand?"-----

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post
    We just need 'common sense IT safety'. Ban high speed printing presses. Limit editorials to 10 characters maximum. Prohibit all media not available at the time the Constitution was drafted.
    MI_XD
    SW Michigan
    ----I can finally be Proud of America, again! ----
    ---- What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not Understand?"-----

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post
    We just need 'common sense IT safety'. Ban high speed printing presses. Limit editorials to 10 characters maximum. Prohibit all media not available at the time the Constitution was drafted.
    So true. Well said!

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeb32 View Post
    Below is the Communication that We the Board sent:


    Dear Representative,


    On November 8, 2017, the Michigan Senate approved Senate Bill 584 by a vote of 25 to 12. As I am sure you are aware, this bill creates an exemption for individuals who possess a concealed pistol license (CPL) which would allow those who complete an additional eight hours of training to carry a concealed pistol in areas designated as pistol free zones (PFZ). While the Board and members of Michigan Gun Owners applauds the legislature’s decision introduce a bill which would allow CPL holders to carry concealed pistols in PFZ’s, we vehemently oppose the bill as a whole.
    SB 584 as passed by the senate would require CPL holders to complete eight hours of training, in addition to the training required to obtain a CPL, before being allowed to carry a concealed pistol in areas identified under Sec. 5o. CPL holders would then be required to ask for permission from the county clerk to obtain the exemption which would allow them to carry a concealed firearm in those areas. Our organization has yet to hear an explanation from any senator or representative as to how this proposal makes communities safer. Instead, our legislators are voting in favor of a bill which requires CPL holders, who are statistically one of the most law-abiding groups of people in the state, to jump through more hoops in order to exercise our Constitutional rights. Our organization has and will continue to encourage gun owners to take advantage of training opportunities, but we believe mandatory training to carry in certain areas does nothing to provide for our safety. We believe that an arbitrary law or rule does nothing to stop violent criminals from entering those areas with their own firearms. Laws only regulate the law-abiding and will not affect a criminal’s actions.

    Additionally, Michigan Gun Owners finds it abhorrent that the legislature is willing to trade one right for another. These bills would eliminate the right of CPL holders to openly carry their firearms in the areas identified in Sec. 5o. There is no compelling or factual argument regarding public safety that can be made in favor of eliminating open carry. Rather, this bill favors public perception over a gun owners’ right to choose the manner in which they can comfortably carry their firearm. Many gun owners openly carry their firearm due to convenience, disability which prevents from safely concealing, or comfort. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to apply this unnecessary provision to only a handful of locations. If it is safe to carry openly carry a firearm almost everywhere else in the state, there is nothing that would make it inherently unsafe in a small number of PFZ’s. It is troublesome to think that rights should only be exercised when done in a manner in which the majority agrees upon. Instead, the manner in which a lawful gun owner carries his or her weapon should be of no concern to the government as it is not a public safety issue at all.

    Finally, we support SB 586 and the revisions which more clearly define a local unit of government. In passing this bill, the legislature creates a stronger footing in preemption cases and will nearly eliminate the patchwork of administrative regulations around the state. While we believe that school districts are already local units of government and subject to preemption as defined in Capitol Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, we appreciate the legislative attempt to put this argument to rest.

    Michigan Gun Owners respectfully requests your opposition to SB 584 and your support of SB 586. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding our position on these matters. We look forward to working with you on a solution that protects the rights of all lawful gun owners while maintaining a safe environment for all.


    Michigan Gun Owners, Board of Directors
    I think I, and plenty of others, would agree, that perhaps, the worst part about this legislation, is entirely ignored; the issue with a messy carve out from preemption for universities, and the factually incorrect language used to do it. This is the worst part because it's wide ranging, guts the entire concept of "Field Pre-Emption", creates a patchwork of different laws across the entire state, and ensures YEARS of lawsuits to get the horribly messy language ironed out. And this issue wasn't even mentioned in the letter.

    As far as the pre-emption bill, I'm not so sure that's a positive either. It's been pointed out a couple times before, that as you make that legislation more and more specific, noting exactly who is covered, it will continue to lend more and more support to the side contending that "field pre-emption" was not the intent, and if they wanted a certain segment pre-empted, they'd have listed it. Take for example, this legislation specifically mentioning primary, secondary schools, and community college districts, yet it does not mention universities. It's not a very difficult argument to make, that having listed the order of schooling all the way from primary, up to community college, if they intended to also pre-empt universities, they would have said so. Combine that with the bill this is being partnered with, specifically giving a university carve out, and you end up with the theory of "Field Pre-Emption", going away. All it takes is one case to take the whole thing down.

    The proper way to handle the pre-emption bill would have just been the simple words "The state is supreme and has field pre-emption on all matters of firearms regulation and law". Adding more and more entities, becoming more and more focused, isn't going to help in the long run.

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Leader View Post
    Many many at the free press know guns are legal at/in the capital but you see they let it be printed anyway.
    An outright lie given too the unknowing public advances their agenda with no consequences.
    Or maybe they are just stupid. They are still looking for “the open carry law”

  10. #110
    Administrator PhotoTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    20,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
    Or maybe they are just stupid. They are still looking for “the open carry law”
    LOOPHOLE…!!! It's the open carry LOOPHOLE!!

    Sheesh…I'll bet you don't even realize that you can get a pit-bull attachment for your AR-15 either!!

    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter