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<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Page 9 of 46 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 453
  1. #81
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Roseville, MI
    Posts
    1,401
    Jeff,

    Thank you for introducing yourself. As to the things you listed:

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    ......... We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.
    If public institutions can "opt out" it guts preemption and we start down a road where every city has thier own rules as to whether they honor CPLs. If the State of Michigan insists certain public institutions be out of bounds for carry, then force them to list those. Any other way and we face death by a thousand cuts trying to fight every city council, every school board and every county seat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools.
    Let me get this straight. Your proposing 3 levels of CPLs now? Four if you count that fact of the various "exempted classes" we already have?
    1) basic CPL
    2) Enhanced CPL needing additional training (more money)
    3) extra special enhanced CPL with added training and a favor from the sherriff
    4) "exempted classes" such as retired cops, PIs and such.

    1st off, the school issue was the latest line of excuses from the govenor. He does not support carrying in the "pistol free zones" and likely never will. We should plan on having to get the support needed to override a veto, and pushing the legislature to act early enough thatthey have time to do so.

    2nd, taking schools out of the equation gaurantees that we will NEVER be able to carry in a school (open or concealed). The govenor will not sign it and most of the legislature will not support it without addressing the loophole that allows OC with a CPL. We may be able to keep that in PFZs where we changed the law to be able to carry concealed. We are highly unlikely to keep it in a PFZ where its been reinforced that we still can't carry. Asking the sherriffs permission is a joke. They are unlikely to grant that without a "official" reason (such as for a school superintendant or school security with the permission of the school board). For us mere mortals, and for teachers who want to carry, the answer will always be "NO" (unless you have deep pockets and your sherriff is willing to trade favors for donations - somethign that was not uncommon before shall issue).

    3rd, I don't know about anyone else, but I cannot suport ANY push or ANY bill that allows someone in the government to exercise "may issue" again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.
    I agree the bill should take the legal liabilities away from the sheriffs department, provided they meet the requirements in the law. Legal and financial liabilities should be in place if they fail to issue in a timely fasion, if they fail to perform the duties required to issue licenses, or if they add local requirements to it.

    The "legal liabilities" related to granting the exemptions for school zones you propose are a red herring. Sheriffs may use them as a smokescreen, but the reality is they are not going to support your average CPL holder carrying in a school zone anyway. They have a different mindset. A cop with a gun is good and safe no matter what and a private person is a shooting waiting to happen.

    To give an example of the mindset difference, I saw an incident at a local high school football game. A couple of kids, joking with an officer outside the game made as if to climb the fence to get in. He partially drew his sidearm at them. To him it was a joke. To me (behind and to his side), and to the kids, it was less funny and somewhat more serious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

    Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Thanks,

    Jeff LaFave
    Legislative Director
    MGO President
    if you think it is best to take an incremental approach, we can do that in much better ways. Examples:

    - Go after individual PFZs instead of all of them.
    - Clarify that the Church PFZ is only the buildings, not the parking lots and Church owned property.
    - Remove Churches and Day Cares from the "automatic" PFZ and make them PFZs only if they post at each and every entrance.
    - Take the wind out of companies that ban firearms by pushing a bill that your car is an extension of your domicile and what is in it, out of sight, they cannot prohibit. They can either let you park on company parking lots or not, but they can't search your car or fire you for whats in it.
    - Propose a school PFZ exemption for teachers and staff that work in the school district and parents with students enrolled in the district only.
    - Propose that if the school is the location for voting for the area, the school grounds and voting area of the school is not a PFZ on election day. If the school district doesn't like it, they can have the kids stay home that day.

    There are other ideas as well.

    (please forgive the spelling / typos)

  2. #82
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Roseville, MI
    Posts
    1,401
    As it stands, re-introducing the same bill as passed last year, re-passing it, and working to get enough votes to override a veto is (IMHO) the best option. While the bill is not perfect (especially about the OC provision) it has the benifit of already having been voted on and approved by a majority.

    If it has to be modified to get past the legislature with a veto proof majority, then (if needed) remove schools and leave them as a PFZ AND ALSO remove the anti OC provisions. That still allows local districts to hire security and arm them, and forces the legislature to address the schools later if they want to prevent OC with a CPL there.

    Rienforcing that schools are still PFZs AND prohibiting OC with a CPL in schools and the other PFZs AND requiring additional training to carry in the other PFZs gives up too much. I would not support it, would not contact my legislators to support it and would write them to politely ask they torpedo it.

  3. #83
    I think we should add a piece like the IL conceal carry bill, where any place (public or private) where someone with a CPL isn't allow to carry the owner is liable if something happens to a CPL holder.

  4. #84
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    S.W. lower
    Posts
    383
    If this passes and i take advanced class to carry in p.f.z. who has a right to see that cirtification??? How will this apply to out of state c.p.l. holders??

  5. #85
    MGO Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw MI
    Posts
    3,565
    Another comment...

    Each and every legislation that gun owners/carriers support needs to have a solid foundation in the actual RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

    And there should never be any confusion concerning the simple fact that a "carry permit" is NOT the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

    I would suggest that all those involved in the legislative arena of supporting gun rights keep in mind.....

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    and to remember that a "permit" is NOT a "right".

    And to never ever strengthen the "permit system" by compromising away the "right"...not even in the smallest degree.

  6. #86
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    934
    I concur with those who call for smaller, incremental bills that do not involve criminalizing any gun rights we currently possess. If a bill is so big it requires going along with criminalizing currently legal gun rights, it is too big.

    I further concur with those who call for not upfront throwing in concessions such as extra training. It is poor negotiation skill to come to the table with the enemy, with your concessions already given to them. You come to the table with what you want, and you make them pay blood (in the form of giving you more of the rights you want) to get concessions from you. And the concessions do not involve criminalizing what rights we currently legally possess.

  7. #87
    Why not allow the schools to opt out instead of in? That's what Snyder asked for. Why give him more.

  8. #88
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    339

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    It's basically about the NUMBER of bills presented that are gun related. Schneider does not want to appear to be "gun happy", so they are trying to consolidate the legislation, as that is supposedly more palatable to him. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the groups determination as a whole.
    I've looked this man in his eyes face to face and seen in them at times how timid and uncertain he can, on occasion, feel. After all, he is just a man like any of the rest of us and puts his pants on one leg at a time just as we do. There is nothing wrong with moments of feeling timid or uncertain yet we must not let our feelings affect our judgement. Though, while I'm certain that he understands it is his job to lead this state, sometimes in our moments of internal uncertainty we may falter to do the right thing and just need a little proverbial push from our fellow pants-wearers to put us back on the correct path. It's not a matter of being gun happy or not, it's a matter of doing what is best for this state and the people he bears responsibility for.

    If that means he has to stand up on his podium and recite and cite the true facts that the media twists and refuses to report, and at the same time denounce the media for doing those things when explaining his decisions, then that is what he must do. Not only as governor but as a man. If that means he must endure the berating he will receive from the special interest groups and elitist who twist the truth for unknown reasons then that is what he must do.

    It's time to put your pants on gentlemen, because it is us, and more importantly the aforementioned 5-6 people sitting in the room drafting the bills, who are responsible to correct the path of our leader and do what is right ourselves as well. If our founding fathers had decided to sacrifice what is right in order to ensure a more palatable deal was reached with England then we would still be a colony.

    I propose we all send a copy of a book which is one of the only peer reviewed and credible on the entire topic to remind Governor Snyder of who he answers to and that we care he makes knowledgeable, factual, and logic based decisions in the best interest of the people.

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less.../dp/0226493660

    Amazon limits the number of words in a gift message so you can order the book for yourself then you can repackage and include as a note something along the lines of:

    "Dear Governor Snyder,
    I was disheartened by your previous rejection of SB-59 based on your disagreement about a public entity opt out option. This book is one of the only peer reviewed and credible on the topic as well as part of the longest continuous study. All other peer reviewed and credible studies come to the same conclusions the most pertinent of which is that Pistol Free Zones only increase the amount of crime.

    As the governor it is your duty to act on logic and reason alone. Therefore, I am asking you to take ownership of the situation and take corrective action for your previous misstep. Pass legislation that the only credible evidence has shown creates a safer environment - guarantee it for the public, by the public, and in the public.

    Sincerely Your Constituent,
    <Your Name>"

    Governor Snyder's address is:

    Governor Rick Snyder
    P.O. Box 30013
    Lansing, Michigan 48909
    Last edited by JJ1989; 01-19-2013 at 06:55 PM.

  9. #89
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by partdeux
    I might accept the no OC in PFZ, but I won't accept opt out by any entity, including schools.
    I might accept opt out (weakening of preemption), but I won't accept extra training required just to cross an imaginary line (the ability to CC into PFZs).

    I might accept restrictions on black rifles, but I won't accept restrictions on my hunting rifles.

    I might accept a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, but I won't accept prohibition of my revolvers.

    This is how they will divide and conquer us if you let them.

  10. #90
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, MI
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrettone
    Schneider does not want to appear to be "gun happy", so they are trying to consolidate the legislation, as that is supposedly more palatable to him.
    No, he realizes that if gun-rights bills are small, focused, and tightly tailored, they are much harder for him to water down or defeat. Because if they are small, it's harder for him to get his anti-gun compromises swallowed by the sponsors. Also, smaller bills are more easily formally or informally tied to other legislation he or his allies desperately want.

    The large packages are easier for him to get the anti-gunners ginned up about and give him an excuse to veto, or to get the sponsors to swallow a "little bit" of compromise and criminalize some increment of currently legal gun rights.

    You guys have got to be smarter than this guy. He's really smart, and he will take every chance to take bites out of our gun rights every chance he gets.

    Go tight, go focused, and go aggressive with tieing our bills to things he and his cronies want. If you play his game, of course he's going to beat you at it.

Page 9 of 46 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... 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