PDA

View Full Version : SB 213-"Reintroduced Version of SB-59"



Barrettone
02-20-2013, 01:31 PM
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SB-0213

TheQ
02-20-2013, 01:32 PM
Second post FTW!

Barrettone
02-20-2013, 01:36 PM
Discussion begins here again, as the legislation has now been proposed and issued a new number.

zigziggityzoo
02-20-2013, 02:02 PM
I still say churches need to be amended out.

TheQ
02-20-2013, 02:16 PM
I still say churches need to be amended out.

Churches and hospitals were put in last time for a purpose -- because those are the two that made the most butthurt last time.

"Path of lesser resistance."

Realistically this bill is going to have an uphill battle as it is.

Roundballer
02-20-2013, 03:11 PM
On the whole this doesn't look too bad.
I don't like the way that the training certificates will now expire, but there are "exemptions" for certain "classes" of people.

We will have to see how it goes....

Tallbear
02-20-2013, 03:23 PM
I can see this being abused.........


page 6


15 AT HIS OR HER OWN INITIATIVE AND DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE LICENSING


16 AUTHORITY FROM REQUIRING AN APPLICANT IN WRITING TO PROVIDE


17 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT IS NECESSARY TO ADDRESS A SPECIFIC


18 DISQUALIFICATION SET FORTH IN THIS ACT AND IDENTIFIED IN A WRITTEN


19 NOTICE SENT TO THE APPLICANT UNDER SECTION 5(7).

TheQ
02-20-2013, 04:04 PM
On the whole this doesn't look too bad.
I don't like the way that the training certificates will now expire, but there are "exemptions" for certain "classes" of people.

We will have to see how it goes....


This was done to establish a standard. Some counties say they expire after a year.

5 year limit doesn't apply to renewals.

libertarian623
02-20-2013, 04:56 PM
Good work, thats a reasonable first step. Lets try to limit any BS getting added on.

jolari
02-20-2013, 05:15 PM
After a quick reading it looks like this bill does the following;

1) Allows school staff to carry on school property if licensed and if school board or superintendent says OK.
2) Causes class certificates to expire 5 years after the class is taken
3) Eliminates day care centers, stadiums, bars, 2500 seat entertainment facilities, college dorms and college classrooms from the PFZ restrictions.
4) Allows hospital administrators to ALLOW concealed carry.
5) Includes "Tazer" type devices as concealed weapons that are regulated by this statute.
6) Requires additional verbaige on the CPL class certificates
7) Eliminates the county gun boards and replaces them with State Police jurisdiction.

It appears the bill does not address open carry in PFZ zones unless I didn't see that some where. It also does not require additional training.

All in all, seems like an improvement on what we have now.

Roundballer
02-20-2013, 05:24 PM
This was done to establish a standard. Some counties say they expire after a year.

5 year limit doesn't apply to renewals.
I understood that, it just seems that making a statement that they DO NOT expire would be better.

I have not parsed this to the point where I could argue a point on this, there is just something having to do with a renewal, and a passed expiration that makes me believe that at some point a person may have to start all over from scratch. That is not right.

MrSmithMSU
02-20-2013, 06:14 PM
Would like to see something specific in there that would take away MSU, UM, and Wayne St. having special status in regards to pre-emption.

On principle I don't like schools and hospitals having the ability to opt out. I hope that plans are in place to bring this up again in, say, five years and say look, we have all this evidence that licensees are not dangerous, we need to eliminate the last of these zones.

I'm not comfortable with MSP being the licensing authority, but it does remove a layer of bureaucracy from the process and knocks the fees back.

I skimmed the whole thing and only focused on a few areas particularly. I didn't notice any changes that would change the way OC-ers are regarded under the law. That's a good thing.

But I do have a question about drop-off and pick-up of students at a school. It states that the parking lot exemption only applies if you are dropping/picking up a student "of the school" (I don't know how to do the cites, but it's page 58, line 25). Here's my situation: we Home School our kids, but our co-ops often rent public school facilities (like theaters). Are my kids considered "of the school" even though they don't attend, because we are renting the facility? If not, there are a lot of parents like me that could get dinged when they are in a school parking lot picking up their kids, unless there is some cover language added in that spot.

As it stands now I could grudgingly support it, but like has already been said, not if it gets all mucked up with crap we don't need.

king2517
02-20-2013, 06:22 PM
After a quick reading it looks like this bill does the following;

1) Allows school staff to carry on school property if licensed and if school board or superintendent says OK.
2) Causes class certificates to expire 5 years after the class is taken
3) Eliminates day care centers, stadiums, bars, 2500 seat entertainment facilities, college dorms and college classrooms from the PFZ restrictions.
4) Allows hospital administrators to ALLOW concealed carry.
5) Includes "Tazer" type devices as concealed weapons that are regulated by this statute.
6) Requires additional verbaige on the CPL class certificates
7) Eliminates the county gun boards and replaces them with State Police jurisdiction.

It appears the bill does not address open carry in PFZ zones unless I didn't see that some where. It also does not require additional training.

All in all, seems like an improvement on what we have now.
This bill is nothing but a big loop hole for ANTI-GUN to just say NO

Raggs
02-20-2013, 06:44 PM
How so, specifically?


This bill is nothing but a big loop hole for ANTI-GUN to just say NO

TheQ
02-20-2013, 10:17 PM
Would like to see something specific in there that would take away MSU, UM, and Wayne St. having special status in regards to pre-emption.

On principle I don't like schools and hospitals having the ability to opt out. I hope that plans are in place to bring this up again in, say, five years and say look, we have all this evidence that licensees are not dangerous, we need to eliminate the last of these zones.

I'm not comfortable with MSP being the licensing authority, but it does remove a layer of bureaucracy from the process and knocks the fees back.

I skimmed the whole thing and only focused on a few areas particularly. I didn't notice any changes that would change the way OC-ers are regarded under the law. That's a good thing.

But I do have a question about drop-off and pick-up of students at a school. It states that the parking lot exemption only applies if you are dropping/picking up a student "of the school" (I don't know how to do the cites, but it's page 58, line 25). Here's my situation: we Home School our kids, but our co-ops often rent public school facilities (like theaters). Are my kids considered "of the school" even though they don't attend, because we are renting the facility? If not, there are a lot of parents like me that could get dinged when they are in a school parking lot picking up their kids, unless there is some cover language added in that spot.

As it stands now I could grudgingly support it, but like has already been said, not if it gets all mucked up with crap we don't need.

MOC is working on university/college preemption -- "stay tuned"

TheQ
02-20-2013, 10:18 PM
After a quick reading it looks like this bill does the following;

1) Allows school staff to carry on school property if licensed and if school board or superintendent says OK.
2) Causes class certificates to expire 5 years after the class is taken
3) Eliminates day care centers, stadiums, bars, 2500 seat entertainment facilities, college dorms and college classrooms from the PFZ restrictions.
4) Allows hospital administrators to ALLOW concealed carry.
5) Includes "Tazer" type devices as concealed weapons that are regulated by this statute.
6) Requires additional verbaige on the CPL class certificates
7) Eliminates the county gun boards and replaces them with State Police jurisdiction.

It appears the bill does not address open carry in PFZ zones unless I didn't see that some where. It also does not require additional training.

All in all, seems like an improvement on what we have now.

Search "Sec 5o", it;ll be towards the end of the bill.

tarkataku
02-20-2013, 10:31 PM
What is the rationale behind class certificates expiring??? I see no value in this at all other than placing people in a situation where they will need to start over and pay for another class...... I did not see this coming.

FUBAR31
02-20-2013, 11:28 PM
I would have preferred schools having the option to opt "out" rather than "in". That way, it is already legal to carry in those places, and the administrators would have to do the work to make it illegal.

jolari
02-20-2013, 11:34 PM
Search "Sec 5o", it;ll be towards the end of the bill.
I looked through 5o again and it only addresses concealed carry not open carry. Where do you think it talks about open carry?

DP425
02-21-2013, 01:31 AM
Okay- so I see the county gun boards would go away and state police would take it over- does this basically mean that we would have to go to any state police post to take care of the license?




EDIT: I like the blanket change to PFZ's; no additional training required. This is a good direction to go- we chip away at most of them now, maybe in another few years we can eliminate the rest of them. So far I like this bill! I hope it's successful!

Roundballer
02-21-2013, 01:38 AM
I looked through 5o again and it only addresses concealed carry not open carry. Where do you think it talks about open carry?
It doesn't, it just gives an option of concealed. If there is no restriction named, there is no restriction. Open carry remains.

xmanhockey7
02-21-2013, 01:59 AM
Okay- so I see the county gun boards would go away and state police would take it over- does this basically mean that we would have to go to any state police post to take care of the license?




EDIT: I like the blanket change to PFZ's; no additional training required. This is a good direction to go- we chip away at most of them now, maybe in another few years we can eliminate the rest of them. So far I like this bill! I hope it's successful!
No. You still go to the county clerk. The county clerk then sends it to MSP if I understand it correctly.

Bronson
02-21-2013, 02:22 AM
I would have preferred schools having the option to opt "out" rather than "in". That way, it is already legal to carry in those places, and the administrators would have to do the work to make it illegal.

I'd agree, but as it stands it's a pretty good bill.

Bronson

durus5995
02-21-2013, 03:26 AM
Any chance you could get a clause that states you can carry concealed in a school if its used as a polling place regardless of what the administrator would say?

Also is this bill going to take 2 years to get out of committee like last time?

G22
02-21-2013, 07:59 AM
Any chance you could get a clause that states you can carry concealed in a school if its used as a polling place regardless of what the administrator would say?

I would like to know this as well. If this bill passes as is, would it trump current voting laws? Would it be legal for them to deny you access to your designated polling location if you were armed?


Also, I would like to know the rational behind the Tea Party's objections with the Secretary of State handling the process. Are they are OK with the State Police doing it? Agreeing to one State entity but not the other makes absolutely no sense to me.

Thanks

luckless
02-21-2013, 08:17 AM
I would like to know this as well. If this bill passes as is, would it trump current voting laws? Would it be legal for them to deny you access to your designated polling location if you were armed?


Also, I would like to know the rational behind the Tea Party's objections with the Secretary of State handling the process. Are they are OK with the State Police doing it? Agreeing to one State entity but not the other makes absolutely no sense to me.

Thanks
SOS is elected. We have no control over the MSP. Who do you think libertarians would prefer? MSP has been demonstrably anti-gun/anti-gunowner for, like, ever! If you trust the government you will be delighted with MSP's control of the process.

Shyster
02-21-2013, 08:17 AM
I am not in favor of this at all. There is no reason that a publicly-funded entity (i.e. a school district) should have the ability to deny my 2A rights.

hendo
02-21-2013, 08:27 AM
I am not in favor of this at all. There is no reason that a publicly-funded entity (i.e. a school district) should have the ability to deny my 2A rights.

Exactly!
How many of these entities will NOT opt out if allowed.

Unistat76
02-21-2013, 11:21 AM
I am not in favor of this at all. There is no reason that a publicly-funded entity (i.e. a school district) should have the ability to deny my 2A rights.

You could still OC in a school. I am in favor. It's better than what we have now, and I'd rather take something that has a chance of passing rather than a dream bill that will go no where. Snyder specifically had a problem with the last bill because of the school carry issue. If this is the price of getting something passed so be it.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

dab102999
02-21-2013, 11:29 AM
I am not in favor of this at all. There is no reason that a publicly-funded entity (i.e. a school district) should have the ability to deny my 2A rights.


I have been following these threads and have a question for you Shyster..with the opt in clause if a school chose not to opt in and a shooting happened on their ground would that put more clout to a lawsuit to be filed against that school for not allowing full protection of there grounds and students??

Shyster
02-21-2013, 12:43 PM
I have been following these threads and have a question for you Shyster..with the opt in clause if a school chose not to opt in and a shooting happened on their ground would that put more clout to a lawsuit to be filed against that school for not allowing full protection of there grounds and students??

That would be a pretty tenuous connection unfortunately unless a specific statute is enacted that would assign liability to an entity voluntarily establishing a PFZ.

dab102999
02-21-2013, 01:16 PM
Thank you. Just something that has been in my head. Still not for sure if i like this bill or not but at least it is baby steps .

Pyzik
02-21-2013, 01:39 PM
Just emailed the NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT AND GREAT LAKES committee members and asked them to pass favorably with no amendments to the house floor.

I personally think hospitals and churches should be removed as well as the school bit, but if this has a better chance of getting through with them mentioned then that's what it takes I guess. And we can go after more later.

Shyster
02-21-2013, 01:40 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that I have to disarm before I walk my 5 y.o. in to latchkey in the mornings. Each time I have to remove my gun from its holster and replace it increases the chance of an AD, not to mention the possibility of someone breaking into my car and stealing it (although I admit that is not a huge consideration at 7am in Riverview :) )

SADAacp
02-21-2013, 02:50 PM
Just emailed the NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT AND GREAT LAKES committee members and asked them to pass favorably with no amendments to the house floor.

I personally think hospitals and churches should be removed as well as the school bit, but if this has a better chance of getting through with them mentioned then that's what it takes I guess. And we can go after more later.

Schools and hospitals may be one thing, but churches...C'mon. Christ, 28.425o, already has a provision to allow CC with permission from the presiding official(s). Not only that, but most churches already have members who carry.

DEVIL DOG
02-21-2013, 02:50 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that I have to disarm before I walk my 5 y.o. in to latchkey in the mornings. Each time I have to remove my gun from its holster and replace it increases the chance of an AD, not to mention the possibility of someone breaking into my car and stealing it (although I admit that is not a huge consideration at 7am in Riverview :) )
+1000. I feel the same way when I go to my favorite bar for fish on Fridays. And I don't drink!

BOSS302
02-21-2013, 04:09 PM
I would have preferred schools having the option to opt "out" rather than "in". That way, it is already legal to carry in those places, and the administrators would have to do the work to make it illegal.

I agree, the same with hospitals and churches. Snyder asked for the ability to opt out. I don't see why we should offer more.

Other than that I suspect it's the best thing we can get him to sign. We need a more pro gun governor to get the big changes.

Jack-w-1911
02-21-2013, 05:21 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that I have to disarm before I walk my 5 y.o. in to latchkey in the mornings. Each time I have to remove my gun from its holster and replace it increases the chance of an AD, not to mention the possibility of someone breaking into my car and stealing it (although I admit that is not a huge consideration at 7am in Riverview :) )
:yeahthat: Just good common sense; no matter where you live.

MP Miller
02-21-2013, 05:29 PM
It is absolutely ridiculous that I have to disarm before I walk my 5 y.o. in to latchkey in the mornings. Each time I have to remove my gun from its holster and replace it increases the chance of an AD, not to mention the possibility of someone breaking into my car and stealing it (although I admit that is not a huge consideration at 7am in Riverview :) )

Exactly!!

I can take my son to the park and push him on the swing while carrying and I'm father of the year.

If that swing set is on school land and not a park, I just became a felon.

xmanhockey7
02-21-2013, 05:54 PM
Exactly!!

I can take my son to the park and push him on the swing while carrying and I'm father of the year.

If that swing set is on school land and not a park, I just became a felon.
Do you have a CPL? If so then no you wouldn't be a felon.

langenc
02-21-2013, 07:33 PM
After the last 'failure' there was discussion on how to proceed w/ gun bills in the future.

I thought a very high majority thought that bill should be limited in their scope of coverage. The things mentioned in the above summary could be covered by 4 or more bills. Oh it was a good thought.

I still dont like the local co offices issunig-SoS all the way. Get a quality product and not so much BS along the way.

TheQ
02-22-2013, 01:55 AM
I would have preferred schools having the option to opt "out" rather than "in". That way, it is already legal to carry in those places, and the administrators would have to do the work to make it illegal.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?111841-Son-of-SB-59-Introduced&p=1901461#post1901461

TheQ
02-22-2013, 01:56 AM
I looked through 5o again and it only addresses concealed carry not open carry. Where do you think it talks about open carry?
It doesn't talk about OC -- that's the whole point!

Google MSP Legal Update 86, you'll understand.

TheQ
02-22-2013, 01:57 AM
Okay- so I see the county gun boards would go away and state police would take it over- does this basically mean that we would have to go to any state police post to take care of the license?




EDIT: I like the blanket change to PFZ's; no additional training required. This is a good direction to go- we chip away at most of them now, maybe in another few years we can eliminate the rest of them. So far I like this bill! I hope it's successful!


County clerks remain point of application and CPL printing.

TheQ
02-22-2013, 01:59 AM
I am not in favor of this at all. There is no reason that a publicly-funded entity (i.e. a school district) should have the ability to deny my 2A rights.


As this bill is written, they can't. But they can allow you to exercise them...

JJ1989
02-22-2013, 04:54 AM
Since no one else seems to be putting this together I'm going to connect the dots as I see them numbered.

1. There are certain areas who by default prohibit CC but can "opt in"
2. These areas have no control over OC by a person with a CPL

Conclussion? They allow CC or people will OC

RDak
02-22-2013, 06:55 AM
Since no one else seems to be putting this together I'm going to connect the dots as I see them numbered.

1. There are certain areas who by default prohibit CC but can "opt in"
2. These areas have no control over OC by a person with a CPL

Conclussion? They allow CC or people will OC

Yeah, that's kinda what I am getting out of it also.

I don't like the opt out but I still hope this bill passes. Maybe tweak it in the future if it does pass?

Raggs
02-22-2013, 07:39 AM
Right now the open carry a school with a cpl is considered by many a loophole, perhaps changing the wording so that OC in a school is more clearly allowed would be a good thing, that way the only course of action isn't suing a school district. And would also possibly pressure schools to opt in to CC to avoid those OC people


Yeah, that's kinda what I am getting out of it also.

I don't like the opt out but I still hope this bill passes. Maybe tweak it in the future if it does pass?

Leader
02-22-2013, 07:56 AM
From www.opencarry.org


i think it has to deal with preemption, and setting a precedent. If CCW in schools is legal in state law, but allowed to 'opt-out', that puts a ding in the preemption law, because the school districts could then pass a rule/law/whatever you wanna call it, that is more strict than state law. Then, if they can do it, why can't everyone else...
However, if it isn't legal by state law, unless the school allows it, we don't have entities making rules/laws that are stricter than state law, but gives those places the option to allow CCW if they choose to do so.

As much as I would like to make it as hard as possible for schools & hospitals to restrict carry, I agree this is the way to go.
I would like to see liability assigned to anyplace that voluntarily prohibits carry along with a release of ANY liability for the criminal acts of anyone on their property.

TheQ
02-22-2013, 03:30 PM
From www.opencarry.org



As much as I would like to make it as hard as possible for schools & hospitals to restrict carry, I agree this is the way to go.
I would like to see liability assigned to anyplace that voluntarily prohibits carry along with a release of ANY liability for the criminal acts of anyone on their property.


Money gets politicians elected.

If more money came from gun owners than the chamber of commerce, this might be able to happen.

Until then: hahaha. How was your dreams?

Leader
02-22-2013, 05:09 PM
Money gets politicians elected.

If more money came from gun owners than the chamber of commerce, this might be able to happen.

Until then: hahaha. How was your dreams?

It was a nightmare, Obama won AGAIN !!!!

SteakNEggs
02-22-2013, 06:56 PM
Since no one else seems to be putting this together I'm going to connect the dots as I see them numbered.

1. There are certain areas who by default prohibit CC but can "opt in"
2. These areas have no control over OC by a person with a CPL

Conclussion? They allow CC or people will OC

No, they will assume because they never allowed CC you can't OC or that they now have the option to ban OC and someone will get arrested and end up in jail and have to bail them selves out because of another ridiculous confusing law.

Is there a method in the bill for me to know which schools have opt'ed in? No? Has anyone thought this through? Another "bars with 51%" blah blah blah law....

FUBAR31
02-22-2013, 07:52 PM
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?111841-Son-of-SB-59-Introduced&p=1901461#post1901461

I may be missing your point on how this is relevant to my statement. I am not always the sharpest tool in the shed.

JJ1989
02-22-2013, 10:40 PM
Well all we need is clarification from MSP upon release of this bill that the laws do not allow for banning of OC - or put it in the bill, etc. No person can be prosecuted under a law that is unconstitionally vague. Basically - If the average person doesn't know what to do, if the police don't know what to arrest someone for then it's illegal to persecute someone under that law. If MSP says it's legal then obviously that test is not met if someone were to try and arrest you then you couldn't be persecuted. I'm not a lawyer but I think I could make that argument pretty clear in court even without one. Woe unto the entity who faces the counter lawsuit for wrongful arrest/persecution/etc. when you do have an attorney who finds a plethora of emotional damages inflicted by your misfortune at the hands of tyrants.

All that's a little bit messy but I think that's why they're also working on strengthening preemption as well. I'm all for the second amendment not because of some several hundred year old piece of paper - but because of that paper, the history behind it, and the history that continues to this very day and the truth of what we see is that today's history continues to validate everything the second amendment stands for with not a single draw back to society. Arm yourselves with knowledge too because it's a greater weapon than any firearm.

dhXPlCjr0Vw

DEVIL DOG
02-24-2013, 03:37 PM
So, does anyone know if this will languish in commitee, or will it be pushed through for a vote? The last was passed by an almost unanimous vote, until NERD vetoed it.
Seems to me better now than wait. Don't see much good coming from DC.

Leader
02-24-2013, 04:18 PM
So, does anyone know if this will languish in commitee, or will it be pushed through for a vote? The last was passed by an almost unanimous vote, until NERD vetoed it.
Seems to me better now than wait. Don't see much good coming from DC.

Pass it now & let him veto it.
Then pass it again without the limit on Cert's and pass it veto proof.

TheQ
02-24-2013, 04:18 PM
So, does anyone know if this will languish in commitee, or will it be pushed through for a vote? The last was passed by an almost unanimous vote, until NERD vetoed it.
Seems to me better now than wait. Don't see much good coming from DC.


Since it was referred to a Committee that Senator Green has contacts on, I'm confident it'll be heard.

Senator Green (Last I knew) chairs the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Appropriations. Therefor he holds the purse strings over Tom Casperson who chairs natural resources. I understand they have a good working relationship. Senator Green is also a member of the Senate Natural Resources committee.

damnyankee20
02-25-2013, 12:09 AM
In the D.C. vs. Heller Majority Opinion, we have a right to keep and bear arms outside the home (and Justice Scalia dices up precisely what keep & bear arms means). Last Friday, the State of Illinois lost its Federal Appeal to continue its ban on conceal carry.

I am questioning the unconstitutionality of We the People having to pay a tax (CPL) to exercise our Second Amendment based on this SCOTUS ruling that states We the People have the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. Our Founders didn't have to pay any tax, obtain any kind of license, or take any kind of class to carry their firearms in their pockets or outside their waistbands. In fact, my grandfathers in West Virginia had no such laws either. So why isn't this bill about Constitutional Carry? I'm just raising the question because I don't understand how CPL is constitutional.

For Gun Free Zones? Yeah, we know madmen target these purely for the perversion of controlling their victims. And, the D.C. vs Heller Majority Opinion also stated the right to keep and bear but not in "sensitive places" like "schools" and "churches". I'm OK with that because a good lawyer would win a case stating private property owners have Constitutional rights as well, and that includes the right to allow/exclude whomever they want on their private property - beit strangers who solicit or strangers with firearms.

Thank you for all that you do to support our Second Amendment rights. Keep calling/emailing your elected officials!

Barrettone
02-25-2013, 11:30 AM
I think it is best to see how this thing holds up as it runs through the Senate, the House, and then (hopefully the Govenor). After it is finalized, and sent to his office, we can critique the final product. Until then, it is all speculation at best. Let's see how the initial proposed legislation holds up, and reserve judgement until then...

Raggs
02-25-2013, 03:16 PM
Curious if we wait till it is on the way to the Governor isn't it a bit late for the gun owners to call the senators and reps and excert any pressure we can?


I think it is best to see how this thing holds up as it runs through the Senate, the House, and then (hopefully the Govenor). After it is finalized, and sent to his office, we can critique the final product. Until then, it is all speculation at best. Let's see how the initial proposed legislation holds up, and reserve judgement until then...

Barrettone
02-25-2013, 03:56 PM
Curious if we wait till it is on the way to the Governor isn't it a bit late for the gun owners to call the senators and reps and excert any pressure we can?

You can certainly try, but it has been my experience that these "modifications" happen in "real time", and the pressure needs to be applied BEFORE they enter the chamber to "do the nasty". Just my opinion.

YMMV

damnyankee20
02-25-2013, 05:50 PM
I think it is best to see how this thing holds up as it runs through the Senate, the House, and then (hopefully the Govenor). After it is finalized, and sent to his office, we can critique the final product. Until then, it is all speculation at best. Let's see how the initial proposed legislation holds up, and reserve judgement until then...

I'm good with that - for now. But there is urgency to implement Constitutional Carry while the political winds are in our favor. The Dems will be taking over again and we all know the secular-progressive bunch on the far-left would repeal the 2nd Amendment if they had their way...(I wish they would just move to France - they'd be happier there).

Tallbear
02-25-2013, 09:12 PM
You can certainly try, but it has been my experience that these "modifications" happen in "real time", and the pressure needs to be applied BEFORE they enter the chamber to "do the nasty". Just my opinion.

YMMV

Knowing the "process" on how these bills can/will get changed will help in the "grassroots activism" needed to keep them in our favor. Just letting them "run their course" is NOT the way to do that.

luckless
02-26-2013, 08:27 AM
I don't think we are going to get anywhere until we have some pro-gun leaders elected in Lansing. The Senate and Governor in particular. If these guys were honestly progun, we would have had a banner year in 2012.

Perhaps we should just concentrate on the 2014 election cycle. At the very least, we know that we can wait until the lame-duck session before any of this will get considered.

JJ1989
03-24-2013, 08:28 PM
I was thinking about this awhile ago. I really wondered why in 60+ years of accumulated data covering a plethora of nations why is that there has never been a case of someone using a firearm in self defense to stop a multiple victim public shooting where they missed and hit an innocent bystander.

Barretone wanted enhanced training because his personal opinion is that someone with a concealed pistol in a PFZ would go Rambo and try to stop the shooter and hit an innocent. While I agree that the possibility of an innocent person being hit is a real threat, I don't think it's very likely. He may be proactive, and I imagine most of the people on this board are proactive - but the rest of people really aren't.

It's not just because it's never happened before and that it would happen all the time if we eliminated PFZ's.

If people were that gung-ho about helping other people and stopping the bad guys the social issues we face in this country from racism, to economic inequality and exploitation of vulnerable populations would be fixed in less than a year.

People aren't going to do anything unless it affects them directly. It doesn't matter if you're discriminated against, starving for a meal, being mugged or shot - almost no one would be willing to help you because they aren't affected.

That's why no one has ever injured an innocent bystander in stopping a multiple victim public shooting in a self-defense situation, because if they drew and fired on the attacker it was because the guy was on top of them.

I believe that's the sad truth of our nature and in regards to equality/equal treatment/equal opportunity it's abysmal. Our problems exist due to the bad few and persist because the inaction of the many.

I then reason the 60% decrease in multiple victim public shootings in PFZ's due to allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons is because it's a deterrent to have people who can defend themselves. As I already mentioned - these Sandusky, Madoff, Lanza type individuals are looking for defenseless victims. The reason there's an 80% decrease in casualties must be because of the fluidity of movement in such a situation by the time the shooter has killed 20% of the victims he'd of otherwise killed he inevitably finds himself on top of an armed sheep who fires back.

DP425
03-26-2013, 07:36 AM
I was thinking about this awhile ago. I really wondered why in 60+ years of accumulated data covering a plethora of nations why is that there has never been a case of someone using a firearm in self defense to stop a multiple victim public shooting where they missed and hit an innocent bystander.


That is an awfully bold statement... so bold, I don't think you can back it up.

I recall reading an article about decision making under fire by a cop in california. This cop was off duty and found himself in the midst of robbery turned multiple victim shooting. The cop returned fire and was hit himself. But when the shooting stopped, one of the cop's bullets had hit a 2 year old. The rest of the story isn't really relevant to the topic at hand... point being, to say there has NEVER been a case of a self defense shooter in a multiple victim shooting hitting a bystander is wildly unrealistic and unsupported.

damnyankee20
03-27-2013, 06:32 PM
What is the rationale behind class certificates expiring??? I see no value in this at all other than placing people in a situation where they will need to start over and pay for another class...... I did not see this coming.

Exactly. And can someone point out to me where it says in either the 1689 Bill of Rights or the Founders' revision at our Revolution WHERE I need to pay for a class to exercise my natural right to keep and bear a firearm for "purposes of self-defence"???

JJ1989
03-28-2013, 01:16 AM
That is an awfully bold statement... so bold, I don't think you can back it up.

I recall reading an article about decision making under fire by a cop in california. This cop was off duty and found himself in the midst of robbery turned multiple victim shooting. The cop returned fire and was hit himself. But when the shooting stopped, one of the cop's bullets had hit a 2 year old. The rest of the story isn't really relevant to the topic at hand... point being, to say there has NEVER been a case of a self defense shooter in a multiple victim shooting hitting a bystander is wildly unrealistic and unsupported.

There NEVER has been a case. Let me note that all drug related shootings are not included - if you want to see the qualifications for multiple victim public shootings you can go back to my previous posts or read some of the work by john lott which is peer reviewed and his studies are refereed and no one has been able to prove him wrong in some 20 years. People have claimed to, but they were later themselves proved wrong.

Furthermore, the guy is a cop and as I've been told by police officers I work with if they observe something of that nature they're required to respond by departmental policy. Tell that to Warren in Warren vs. D.C. but I guess it just depends on where you are and what their policy is.

I'm talking about your average CPL holders. Would no one ever do it? I said that I believed they wouldn't. Could they? Yes but it hasn't happened yet (with the net effect of an injured innocent) and other places allow carry in these areas.

Has someone ever stopped a shooting and missed? Maybe, but I'm talking about multiple victim public shootings. There's a requirement for multiple, a requirement for public, and a requirement that it isn't a part of 80% of murders in the U.S. which are gang related - mostly drug gang.

DP425
03-28-2013, 01:46 AM
Has someone ever stopped a shooting and missed? Maybe, but I'm talking about multiple victim public shootings. There's a requirement for multiple, a requirement for public, and a requirement that it isn't a part of 80% of murders in the U.S. which are gang related - mostly drug gang.


Okay, so off duty cop doesn't count as well... Anything else you'd like to exclude? Only on the first friday of the month? Individual cannot be wearing red, orange, violet, green or pink?

When you start add qualifiers, of course at some point you can get the results you want. So lets see...

1) Not a cop, off duty or not
2) Cannot be drug or gang related (why? Is a law abiding citizen's response only important when it does not involve aggressors in drug and gang related crime?)
3) Must be public (I assume this means public property?)
4) Must me multiple victim (are we talking two or more? Or for the sake of ensuring the correct results, is it 5? Or 10?)

Is there anything I missed?

JJ1989
03-28-2013, 02:41 AM
Okay, so off duty cop doesn't count as well... Anything else you'd like to exclude? Only on the first friday of the month? Individual cannot be wearing red, orange, violet, green or pink?

When you start add qualifiers, of course at some point you can get the results you want. So lets see...

1) Not a cop, off duty or not
2) Cannot be drug or gang related (why? Is a law abiding citizen's response only important when it does not involve aggressors in drug and gang related crime?)
3) Must be public (I assume this means public property?)
4) Must me multiple victim (are we talking two or more? Or for the sake of ensuring the correct results, is it 5? Or 10?)

Is there anything I missed?

I didn't say it CAN'T be a cop, I said he was a cop and so that's probably why he responded.

Don't antagonize me with your ignorant reasoning - you're reminding me of my boss who thinks that because the African tribes captured those they didn't want who were in his words "dumb" and sold them to the slave ships that all the black people in America are ignorant and that's why they commit all the crime and steal and stuff - because they're all dumb. Really, I can't stand people who use such ignorant reasoning and I appreciate it if people did a little leg work researching before opening their mouth to offend someone else.

When we talk about multiple victim public shootings you need to define public and you need to define multiple. If I recall correctly it was two or more and there a list of areas defined that are public property and the purpose of which as I understood was to understand the people on shooting sprees. You can buy the book for under $15 and read it yourself if you'd like and there are lots of interviews on it. There's some thirty academic reviewed papers as well as a legal ruling in Illinois with lots of information summing them up. Gang related activity is not a nut job shooting spree. It is responsible for a majority of the crime. I could be wrong, I could be blowing smoke up your butt - but you have nothing but mindlessness anecdotes unless you do the research yourself.

Perhaps when Mr. Lott said that there's never been an incident of it happening he was talking about more than a person defending themselves in a multiple victim public shootings. However, in the discussion I was referencing the topic being discussed at that time was pistol free zones - which is the topic of this thread.

People think if you let guns into gun free zones there will be a ton of innocent people killed by cowboys who can't hit the broad side of a barn. Mr. Lott said that while it sounds like a serious concern there is no documented case of that happening. I was giving my speculations in the post you quoted me on as to possibly WHY it had never happened. The fact of the matter is a quarter of all school shootings are stopped by armed law abiding citizens. When you allow citizens to carry in these pistol free zones you see a reduction of these multiple victim public shootings by 60% and a reduction in the resultant casualties of those which do still occur by 80%.

DP425
03-28-2013, 03:11 PM
However, in the discussion I was referencing the topic being discussed at that time was pistol free zones - which is the topic of this thread.


I'm not trying to argue against allowing CPL's in PFZ's... don't think that is my point here. Rather the point is that making an argument that legally carrying citizens have never shot an innocent bystander while responding to a multiple victim shooting in what is generally a PFZ as backing to allow pistols in PFZ's... Is a little disingenuous don't you think?

Most shootings under the conditions you describe are IN PFZ's... and by definition... they are "pistol free". The "test" has been so narrowed that the subject pool itself is nearly non-existant. This isn't a true evaluation of the probability of an outcome.

A more realistic evaluation is simply how people respond to shootings in general. We simply do not have enough information under the terms discussed to make a determination... there for, the next best data would be CPL/CCW involved shootings in general.

JJ1989
03-29-2013, 01:43 AM
"There has been much fear about concealed-handgun permit holders accidentally shooting an innocent bystander when they stop these (multiple victim public shooting) attacks. This is a legitimate concern. Yet the evidence clearly demonstrates that in practice this is not a problem. Out of all the multiple-victim public shootings that have been stopped by permit holders, no one has identified a single such incident"(p. 325) John Lott More Guns Less Crime

Let me define mass public shootings too, this can be found on page 103, "A mass public shooting is defined as one that occurred in a public place and involved two more more people either killed or injured by the shooting. The crimes excluded involved gang activity; drug dealing; a holdup or a robbery; drive-by shootings that explicitly or implicitly involved gang activity, organized crime, or professional hits; and serial killings, or killings that took place over the span of more than one day. The places where public shootings occurred included such sites as schools, churches, businesses, bars, streets, government buildings, public transit facilities, places of employment, parks, health care facilities, malls, and restaurants" ([Read: primarily PFZS] Let me reiterate that in the interview to which I posted the link to earlier since the early 1950s not just in the U.S. but also in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand all but three mass public shootings have occurred in these places. Don't get it confused that the location is part of the criteria - it is not - but these were the places where they were found to occur.)

As you were - I looked up one of my previous postings - location is not part of criteria aside from it being somewhere public not a private home but private restaurants are included as they're open to the public. It's just note-able that a lot of multiple victim public shootings do happen in what we in Michigan define as PFZs but this is multinational data - and it includes any public area.

Furthermore, it includes two or more people who are merely injured the don't have to necessarily even be killed. For you to discredit my statement in the context I presented it, sir, is disingenuous especially without doing any research yourself.

Quaamik
03-29-2013, 10:44 AM
I was thinking about this awhile ago. I really wondered why in 60+ years of accumulated data covering a plethora of nations why is that there has never been a case of someone using a firearm in self defense to stop a multiple victim public shooting where they missed and hit an innocent bystander.
...............

There is a general over assumption with the "never" word.

First, "mass shootings" are rare. Statisticly so rare that its hard to draw conclusions from most of the data on them (even near universal data seems shakey when compared to the same data sets were no "mass shooting" occured).

"Multiple victim public shooting" is hard to define for an arguement. Do you include shootings where two or more shot it out and multiple people were hit? If so, how do you say no innocents were hit by someone using a firearm in self defense? What about instances where several people who were related were attacked and one or more fought back? What if no one but the attacker was injured - does it count if the attacker only intended to kill multiple people, but didn't succeed?

Do you assume anyone who was themselves committing a criminal act (be it drug or gang related, or merely carrying a firearm illegally) cannot be considered as using the gun in "self defense"? Reporting is often skewed by what the police and media want to portray. How likely is it that police would cover up a "shooter" being shot as a "suicide" rather than admit to a civilian stopping them? What about to shield said civilian from prosecution if they were illegally carrying? What about shielding such a civilian from an overzelous prosecutor? Or even just shielding the department from ridicule as to thier slow response?

Personaly, I think that there are a couple of very logical reasons (aside from miss reporting and coverups) why bystanders are seldom shot by an armed "private" individual in an event where someone trys to kill multiple people:

1) Private individuals are usually primarily interested in saving themselves. Discretion being the better part of valor, if they are not in the immediate vicinity when the shooting starts, they tend to round up the people they care about and shepperd them AWAY from the violence. They only respond if they are in the immediate vicinity of the shooter.

2) Mass killers are interested in body count, not a shootout. When confronted, they retreat if possible - likely to try to find more "easy" targets. If they find they are likely to be captured, they more often suicide or give up.

3) Very few mass killers pick large open areas. The guy who shot Giffords was the exception rather than the rule. So there usually isn't limitess space filled with crowds of people behind them.

4) Defensless people scatter and run from people who are shooting at them. Worst case, they get down and cower. A shot taken at an "active shooter" that misses is likely to hit nothing but empty air or inantimate objects.

5) Private individuals are typicly very aware of the liability of shooting an innocent. They don't have a department or goverment immunity to hide behind. They also are very aware of how little ammo they have and that assistance may be further away than they can wait for. So they are not going to shoot unless they are very sure of hitting the "shooter" or they have no choice but to try.

JJ1989
03-30-2013, 02:30 AM
There is a general over assumption with the "never" word.

First, "mass shootings" are rare. Statisticly so rare that its hard to draw conclusions from most of the data on them (even near universal data seems shakey when compared to the same data sets were no "mass shooting" occured).

We've had more than 70 in the U.S. alone, I'm not sure on the exact number but it was in a debate between Piers Morgan and Mr. Lott, then there was some other country with nearly 30 mentioned and a few here or there. I wouldn't consider 100 cases a small data pool. Of course the numbers I just quoted right now define a mass shooting as four or more people killed. In my previous post it was two or more people injured, killed, killed and injured, etc. so the numbers are larger but feel free to actually look something up for yourself if you don't believe me.

"Multiple victim public shooting" is hard to define for an arguement. Do you include shootings where two or more shot it out and multiple people were hit? If so, how do you say no innocents were hit by someone using a firearm in self defense? What about instances where several people who were related were attacked and one or more fought back? What if no one but the attacker was injured - does it count if the attacker only intended to kill multiple people, but didn't succeed?

It was defined as two or more people injured and or killed or some combination of the two which occurred in a place to be considered public. There were some specific exclusions I listed. If two people are "shooting it out" then they're probably not in a self defense situation.

Two or more people must be injured or killed by an attacker and a law abiding citizen stops it all in a place open to the public- the law abiding citizen in this scenario has never been documented in any case to have injured a civilian. The point of these statistics are that they discredit the entire argument for PFZs and keeping the Adam Lanza's out of them as well as law abiding citizens with guns because that's what has the country talking.

Do you assume anyone who was themselves committing a criminal act (be it drug or gang related, or merely carrying a firearm illegally) cannot be considered as using the gun in "self defense"? Reporting is often skewed by what the police and media want to portray. How likely is it that police would cover up a "shooter" being shot as a "suicide" rather than admit to a civilian stopping them? What about to shield said civilian from prosecution if they were illegally carrying? What about shielding such a civilian from an overzelous prosecutor? Or even just shielding the department from ridicule as to thier slow response?

Really?? What if unicorns were real and farted rainbows?

Personaly, I think that there are a couple of very logical reasons (aside from miss reporting and coverups) why bystanders are seldom shot by an armed "private" individual in an event where someone trys to kill multiple people:

They must injure at least two people. You can already carry walking down the street where it is expected that you can safely use a weapon. These public areas have been banned as PFZs probably because legislators felt the higher population density made law abiding citizens a danger to stopping these mass shootings. I've cited the statistics, lets go ahead and repeal PFZs because the truth is they only raise crime rates to include death tolls and injuries.

1) Private individuals are usually primarily interested in saving themselves. Discretion being the better part of valor, if they are not in the immediate vicinity when the shooting starts, they tend to round up the people they care about and shepperd them AWAY from the violence. They only respond if they are in the immediate vicinity of the shooter.

2) Mass killers are interested in body count, not a shootout. When confronted, they retreat if possible - likely to try to find more "easy" targets. If they find they are likely to be captured, they more often suicide or give up.

3) Very few mass killers pick large open areas. The guy who shot Giffords was the exception rather than the rule. So there usually isn't limitess space filled with crowds of people behind them.

4) Defensless people scatter and run from people who are shooting at them. Worst case, they get down and cower. A shot taken at an "active shooter" that misses is likely to hit nothing but empty air or inantimate objects.

5) Private individuals are typicly very aware of the liability of shooting an innocent. They don't have a department or goverment immunity to hide behind. They also are very aware of how little ammo they have and that assistance may be further away than they can wait for. So they are not going to shoot unless they are very sure of hitting the "shooter" or they have no choice but to try.

:facepalm: Your personal thoughts/beliefs have really told me and my facts/statistics. I now see the error in my way.


I had included my comments in green.

DP425
03-30-2013, 03:12 PM
I had included my comments in green.


100 incidences of high variable events, in terms of predicting statistical probability... is about the equivalent of zero.

Now, in how many of the 70 or so in the US... were actually stopped by an armed civilian? Even at 10% that would only be seven incidences.



I have a feeling that debating this with you is pointless. You fail to see the problem with your argument is in the fact that it is based on "research" lacking in depth. When there exists a lack of sufficient quantity of data, accuracy of results are given less credibility. The less quantity, the less credibility. It is understandable however that there is a lack of data considering the standards set to meet the benchmark for events that can be included. Typically when there is not enough data to come to a reliable conclusion (and this is in-fact the case here) under the specific conditions applied, those conditions are widened.

In other words, if there are only seven cases of four or more people killed, in a public place, in non-drug or gang related crime, by a legally armed civilian... we know that seven is not even close to a large enough number to get any sort of accurate predictability on outcome. Thus we must look at our qualifications and decide which qualifications are likely to have the least effect on outcome? We decide that inducing gang related crime will give decidedly skewed results. We also decide allowing to factor in police or illegally carrying civilians will make a considerable impact. So we are now left with location and number killed. So two models are done; one removing the limitation on location, the other, reducing the number of persons killed by the criminal. Reductions on persons killed would be done on a step basis until a number is found that gives a significant pool of data. Other perimeters can be induced as well- for example, we decrease the killed requirement to zero, but add a requirement of at least five or more bystanders and the criminal injuring at least one person.


Lets put it this way... if the government came out with a cancer vaccine and asked for a direct vote on making it mandatory for children entering first grade... But the details are that it was tried out on only 10 cancer free people... and found those 10 people were cancer free for five years after given the vaccine and in the same five year period, showed negligible adverse effects... Would you jump on board with a yes vote? Or would you say no? I'm guessing you'd demand a lot more research and a wider sampling pool.

JJ1989
03-30-2013, 09:42 PM
In other words, if there are only seven cases of four or more people killed, in a public place, in non-drug or gang related crime, by a legally armed civilian...

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills - because I've said multiple times what the criteria is and it is not four or more people killed by a legally armed civilian.

I've also said the data pool was larger than a hundred because the "100" was cited using more restrictive defining qualifications than the data about no one ever having shot an innocent stopping a multiple victim public shooting.

The data I've cited is from a world renowned statistician whose research has been used by the federal courts as evidence to nullify the Illinois carry ban and while people have tried to discredit him no one has ever credibly done so. No one ever having shot an innocent is a direct quote from him.

I may not be knowledgeable enough myself to articulate and discredit anything other than your reading comprehension but I really don't think your high school education qualifies you as a subject matter expert and especially with your lack of any kind of citation of a statistic or fact you have no place to even try and have this discussion.

I'd like you to go research just HOW many shootings there have been. Let me get you started with Israel and a few other places:

In Israel up to the 1970's there would be terrorists who took machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and synogogues and open fire. That doesn't happen anymore. Why? The Israeli's realized armed citizens could stop such attackers before the attackers could shoot many people. Previously, even large numbers of armed soldiers and police had failed to stop the attacks for a simple reason: terrorists have the option of deciding when to attack and whom to attack first. They would either wait for the police and soldiers to leave the area or shoot them first.

Currently, about 10% of Jewish Israeli adults are licensed to carry weapons, so determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombings. Prior to letting citizens carry concealed handguns, terrorist attacks on Israel were committed almost entirely with machine guns. Afterward, bombs were almost always used. The reason for the change was simple. Armed citizens can quickly immobilize a gun wielding attacker, but no one can respond to a bomber once the bomb explodes. Nevertheless, armed citizens do still stop some bombings before the bomb goes off. During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on all permitted citizens to carry their firearms at all times.

Multiple-victim public shooters, like terrorists generally, are kamikaze-like killers who seek to maximize carnage. Even if the killers expect to die anyway (and they mostly do), letting potential victims carry guns can help deter these crimes in the first place simply by reducing the level of carnage the killers believe they can inflict.

Consider the disturbed lone shooter who committed the Northern Illinois University Attack in February 2008. One thing was clear: six minutes proved too long. That's how long it took before police officers were able to enter the classroom. In those short six minutes, five people were murdered, and sixteen wounded. And six minutes is actually record-breaking speed for the police arriving at such an attack. At the Virginia Tech massacre the previous year, hours went by between the first attack and the killer's eventual suicide.

Shortly after the Northern Illinois University attack, five people were killed in the city council chambers in Kirkwood, MO. This was despite a police officer being present. In Kirkwood, as often as happens in these kinds of attacks, the police officer was the one killed first when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

There has been the Westroads Mall in Omaha, the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois, the theater in Colorado, and the school in Connecticut. These all have one thing in common: they took place in "gun free zones" where private citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that, in principle, let people carry concealed handguns. However, these states let private property owners ban guns provided they post clear signs. These malls were among the very few places in their state that posted such bans. Likewise, the slaughter at Virginia Tech and other public schools occurred in some of the few areas within their states where people were not allowed to carry concealed handguns. Notably, in the Trolley Square attack, an off-duty police officer fortunately carried a handgun- in violation of the ban- and shot the attacker before other officers arrived.

"When states pass right to carry laws the rate of multiple victim public shootings fall by 60%. Deaths from these shootings fall by 78%." (p. 323 [2010 data])

Overall, the problem with gun-control laws is not too little regulation, but rather that the regulations disarm law-abiding citizens. Consider a criminal who is intent on massacring people and then planning on taking his own life. He would unlikely be deterred by any penalties for violating gun regulations.

"Let's look at President Bush's revival of the Federal Air Marshal Program. This program for domestic flights started in 1970, but ended in the early 1990s. Evidence indicates that it worked well. There were thirty-eight hijackings in America in 1969, but in 1970 as the marshals were employed the number of hijackings fell into the twenties for each of the next three years, before finally declining to low single digits. Bill Landes research suggests the marshal program substantially contributed to this drop." (p. 326)

Bear in mind that there was a period of many years where pilots were required to carry hand guns and then they were later permitted to do so - all before the Federal Air Marshal Program was even enacted. Just like pistols in airplanes the fear of pistols in PFZs are unwarranted and only seem logical to those with an infantile mind.

DP425
03-30-2013, 10:41 PM
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills - because I've said multiple times what the criteria is and it is not four or more people killed by a legally armed civilian.

I've also said the data pool was larger than a hundred because the "100" was cited using more restrictive defining qualifications than the data about no one ever having shot an innocent stopping a multiple victim public shooting.

The data I've cited is from a world renowned statistician whose research has been used by the federal courts as evidence to nullify the Illinois carry ban and while people have tried to discredit him no one has ever credibly done so. No one ever having shot an innocent is a direct quote from him.

I may not be knowledgeable enough myself to articulate and discredit anything other than your reading comprehension but I really don't think your high school education qualifies you as a subject matter expert and especially with your lack of any kind of citation of a statistic or fact you have no place to even try and have this discussion.

I'd like you to go research just HOW many shootings there have been. Let me get you started with Israel and a few other places:

In Israel up to the 1970's there would be terrorists who took machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and synogogues and open fire. That doesn't happen anymore. Why? The Israeli's realized armed citizens could stop such attackers before the attackers could shoot many people. Previously, even large numbers of armed soldiers and police had failed to stop the attacks for a simple reason: terrorists have the option of deciding when to attack and whom to attack first. They would either wait for the police and soldiers to leave the area or shoot them first.

Currently, about 10% of Jewish Israeli adults are licensed to carry weapons, so determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombings. Prior to letting citizens carry concealed handguns, terrorist attacks on Israel were committed almost entirely with machine guns. Afterward, bombs were almost always used. The reason for the change was simple. Armed citizens can quickly immobilize a gun wielding attacker, but no one can respond to a bomber once the bomb explodes. Nevertheless, armed citizens do still stop some bombings before the bomb goes off. During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on all permitted citizens to carry their firearms at all times.

Multiple-victim public shooters, like terrorists generally, are kamikaze-like killers who seek to maximize carnage. Even if the killers expect to die anyway (and they mostly do), letting potential victims carry guns can help deter these crimes in the first place simply by reducing the level of carnage the killers believe they can inflict.

Consider the disturbed lone shooter who committed the Northern Illinois University Attack in February 2008. One thing was clear: six minutes proved too long. That's how long it took before police officers were able to enter the classroom. In those short six minutes, five people were murdered, and sixteen wounded. And six minutes is actually record-breaking speed for the police arriving at such an attack. At the Virginia Tech massacre the previous year, hours went by between the first attack and the killer's eventual suicide.

Shortly after the Northern Illinois University attack, five people were killed in the city council chambers in Kirkwood, MO. This was despite a police officer being present. In Kirkwood, as often as happens in these kinds of attacks, the police officer was the one killed first when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.

There has been the Westroads Mall in Omaha, the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois, the theater in Colorado, and the school in Connecticut. These all have one thing in common: they took place in "gun free zones" where private citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that, in principle, let people carry concealed handguns. However, these states let private property owners ban guns provided they post clear signs. These malls were among the very few places in their state that posted such bans. Likewise, the slaughter at Virginia Tech and other public schools occurred in some of the few areas within their states where people were not allowed to carry concealed handguns. Notably, in the Trolley Square attack, an off-duty police officer fortunately carried a handgun- in violation of the ban- and shot the attacker before other officers arrived.

"When states pass right to carry laws the rate of multiple victim public shootings fall by 60%. Deaths from these shootings fall by 78%." (p. 323 [2010 data])

Overall, the problem with gun-control laws is not too little regulation, but rather that the regulations disarm law-abiding citizens. Consider a criminal who is intent on massacring people and then planning on taking his own life. He would unlikely be deterred by any penalties for violating gun regulations.

"Let's look at President Bush's revival of the Federal Air Marshal Program. This program for domestic flights started in 1970, but ended in the early 1990s. Evidence indicates that it worked well. There were thirty-eight hijackings in America in 1969, but in 1970 as the marshals were employed the number of hijackings fell into the twenties for each of the next three years, before finally declining to low single digits. Bill Landes research suggests the marshal program substantially contributed to this drop." (p. 326)

Bear in mind that there was a period of many years where pilots were required to carry hand guns and then they were later permitted to do so - all before the Federal Air Marshal Program was even enacted. Just like pistols in airplanes the fear of pistols in PFZs are unwarranted and only seem logical to those with an infantile mind.


Okay there smart guy...

You want to talk reading comprehension?

-You gave statistics specifically for four or more people
-You vaguely mentioned two or more wounded, yet provided no statistics
-What you read is called an EXAMPLE.
-Taking the statistics YOU GAVE as the basis for the EXAMPLE, to demonstrate excessively narrowed perimeters.


Anyway, again... I don't know why you're preaching to us like we are against carrying. We are just trying to tell you that your "stats" for backing up expanded carry don't hold water.

Answer me one question...

How many incidences that fall under the two killed or injured standards have happened in the last 30 years? How many in which a legal civilian carry stopped the act?

JJ1989
03-30-2013, 11:21 PM
Answer me one question...

How many incidences that fall under the two killed or injured standards have happened in the last 30 years? How many in which a legal civilian carry stopped the act?

There have been none. This is what I've been saying from the beginning. When you define multiple victim public shooting as two or more people injured and or killed by the perp - that means he doesn't have to kill them, he can injure them or kill them or injure one and kill one or kill 50 or anything above 2 - in any of those which have happened in a public place..not in the last thirty years but going back all the way into the 1950s and not just in the USA - in the world, there has never been a documented case of a legal civilian responding with their lawfully owned firearm and injuring or killing an innocent.

The 100 number was just a number I pulled out from a more strict definition. I don't really feel the need to go out and do your research for you so I just pulled something else off the top of my head I recently saw.

I can tell you one thing though..this is from a peer reviewed book accompanied by refereed studies and in academic papers they can't be published if they mislead in the way you're talking about. Well, they can still be published, but not with the peer reviewed title. Studies, likewise, can't have the refereed title. Go to a database like General Onefile or Academic Onefile and you'll see in the advanced search you can select if you only want to see only results that are peer reviewed.

So my stats most definitely do hold water.



Anyway, again... I don't know why you're preaching to us like we are against carrying.
So why is it that you're for carrying? I'm for carrying because I've done my research and the facts and statistics tell me it can only be beneficial and not harmful. If tomorrow someone went out and shot an innocent bystander on accident when stopping a multiple victim public shooting I don't think that single incident would change my mind out of all the others..point is that the good FAR outweighs the bad. The reason the Illinois carry ban was overruled was because the government couldn't show even a single shred of credible evidence for "bad". If you're not even aware of the realities of the situation why are you for it? Is it because the constitution says so or because current law allows it? They both once allowed slavery to exist, they don't "make" anything right without justification through facts and statistics that are credible, transparent, and able to be reviewed by all academics backed by sound logic and reasoning based off of such.

DP425
03-30-2013, 11:56 PM
There have been none. This is what I've been saying from the beginning. When you define multiple victim public shooting as two or more people injured and or killed by the perp - that means he doesn't have to kill them, he can injure them or kill them or injure one and kill one or kill 50 or anything above 2 - in any of those which have happened in a public place..not in the last thirty years but going back all the way into the 1950s and not just in the USA - in the world, there has never been a documented case of a legal civilian responding with their lawfully owned firearm and injuring or killing an innocent.

Speaking of readin comprehension... Did I say anything in that question about the civilian responding having shot a bystander? The point still stands that the pool of data is extraordinarily small. And finally... 189-196 countries in the world and you make the statement that there has never been a documented case? Have you looked through ALL of the documents related to shootings in every country on earth?

The 100 number was just a number I pulled out from a more strict definition. I don't really feel the need to go out and do your research for you so I just pulled something else off the top of my head I recently saw.

I can tell you one thing though..this is from a peer reviewed book accompanied by refereed studies and in academic papers they can't be published if they mislead in the way you're talking about. Well, they can still be published, but not with the peer reviewed title. Studies, likewise, can't have the refereed title. Go to a database like General Onefile or Academic Onefile and you'll see in the advanced search you can select if you only want to see only results that are peer reviewed.

Then you should look a little harder... The Demigod of the pro gun movement... John Lott... has more statisticians objecting to his methodology than supporting it. I think you give a bit too much credit to academic papers and the process of peer reviews. Now, the fact that a lot of people question his methodology does not outright mean it's incorrect, but it is worth noting.

So my stats most definitely do hold water.
You can't even give me a ball-park number of shootings that meet your criteria in which a civilian responded.

So why is it that you're for carrying? I'm for carrying because I've done my research and the facts and statistics tell me it can only be beneficial and not harmful. If tomorrow someone went out and shot an innocent bystander on accident when stopping a multiple victim public shooting I don't think that single incident would change my mind out of all the others..point is that the good FAR outweighs the bad. The reason the Illinois carry ban was overruled was because the government couldn't show even a single shred of credible evidence for "bad". If you're not even aware of the realities of the situation why are you for it? Is it because the constitution says so or because current law allows it? They both once allowed slavery to exist, they don't "make" anything right without justification through facts and statistics that are credible, transparent, and able to be reviewed by all academics backed by sound logic and reasoning based off of such.
Actually, the driving force, and the main context to the the appellate court's ruling is based on the wording of the second amendment and the interpretation of Heller v DC.


Finally- my point... ONE MORE TIME...

There is a lack of significant data on civilian response to shootings as you describe to make any meaningful predictions on likely outcome.

The credible statistics are justified CPL shootings as a whole. Which are, in themselves... very good. What I'm telling you, and you are not getting... is that if you tell someone "in these ten cases, no innocent bystanders were shot", they are going to say... "Only ten cases to support your claim? Not credible!"



With that, I'm done here. It's obvious you are blinded by Mr Lott's statistics and how you are interpreting them; more people than myself have pointed to the flaws in basing an argument on a very small data pool, yet you are unable to address the main question of "how many incidences total that meet your criteria have been stopped by a legally carrying civilian?". Until you can come up with an answer to that question, you are without standing.


I'm bowing out and allowing this thread to get back on topic.

JJ1989
03-31-2013, 12:36 AM
The credible statistics are justified CPL shootings as a whole. Which are, in themselves... very good. What I'm telling you, and you are not getting... is that if you tell someone "in these ten cases, no innocent bystanders were shot", they are going to say... "Only ten cases to support your claim? Not credible!"


What about all of the shootings stopped by armed civilians that would have been mass shootings had the armed civilian not been there?


It's obvious you are blinded by Mr Lott's statistics and how you are interpreting them; more people than myself have pointed to the flaws in basing an argument on a very small data pool, yet you are unable to address the main question of "how many incidences total that meet your criteria have been stopped by a legally carrying civilian?". Until you can come up with an answer to that question, you are without standing.

Firearms are used around two million times a year in self-defense. It's impossible to know how many times out of those two million there would have been a mass shooting if an armed law abiding citizen could have been there to stop it.

Most of the time the armed civilian only presents the arm and it's already over. If the perp drops their firearm or turns tail and runs you're not authorized to chase them and gun them down. These mass shooters are notorious for even turning their own firearms upon themselves when facing armed resistance - they're cowards.

These things will really affect any kind of statistic.

The previous anecdote about a police officer shooting a civilian is misleading. I work with police officers and I was a marksmanship instructor in the Marine Corps. We all saw the 9 or something injured when New York Police went to stop the shooter by the statue of liberty. I myself have watched Marines with extensive rifle marksmanship training get a pistol after some basic pistol training and shoot the ground 15 yards in front of them.

I think the "title" be it "Marine" or "cop" makes some of these people overly confident of their actual skill ability. The State Police I know only qualify three times a year. The Marine Corps generally only qualified once a year. The best shooters I saw were those who went and purchased their own personal pistols and practiced extensively with them, they were the ones punching the black out at 5 and 15 yards with excellent groups at 25 yards. Although once they attained this skill level it did take relatively little upkeep to maintain it.

I also think that some situations are just all jacked up to begin with and there is no good option available. The maximum effective range of a 9mm FMJ was 50 yards and I'm sure it's less for hollow points. No armed civilian in the back of the theater in Colorado could have made any difference due to the limits of ballistics. Had he been in the front row, perhaps, but that requires the person to call upon some extraordinary courage to take action in an overwhelming situation.

I'd like to note that the military training is excessive for someone with a concealed pistol license. As I said before- presentation often ends the situation. They're also not the police or the military, they're really just there to protect themselves. If they felt so courageous and gung-ho about protecting other people they'd of probably joined the military or police already.

I've read about the people who have tried to discredit Mr. Lott and they were also discredited while Mr. Lott's work was reinforced.

I'm not saying it will never happen where a civilian injures a bystander, I acknowledge and so did Mr. Lott that it was a serious concern but that it was noteworthy to mention there was never a documented case of it happening.

JJ1989
03-31-2013, 05:30 PM
I thought this was something of interest. Extra training and extra costs is what Snyder wants for carry in PFZs? Sounds racist to me just as the current costs are racist whether intentional or not due to the socio-economic level of inequality.

tkgA6PWDlj8

JJ1989
04-01-2013, 04:14 PM
About civilians missing and hitting innocents. I wasn't looking for this, but stumbled across it.

"A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.""
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1993/11/14/are-we-a-nation-of-cowards.html

Leader
04-01-2013, 04:20 PM
About civilians missing and hitting innocents. I wasn't looking for this, but stumbled across it.

"A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.""
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/1993/11/14/are-we-a-nation-of-cowards.html

But that 's a permit holder INTENTIONALLY shooting an innocent.
Not shooting one by accident while preventing a mass killing.

JJ1989
04-02-2013, 04:42 PM
But that 's a permit holder INTENTIONALLY shooting an innocent.
Not shooting one by accident while preventing a mass killing.

No, it says 'mistakenly'. Police are more than five times more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent than a civilian using a firearm in self defense. Note that it does not say permit holder either and includes those without any training. It also doesn't say 'mass' and includes all self defense shootings in all places. You can read the cite.

I believe Mr. Lott found and inverse relationship between training time and crime up to 8 hours then the effect was reversed. More than 8 hours (one day) of training and crime starts to go back up because less people can attend.

Providing a low cost skills test in lieu I believe is a viable alternative. The test should Ppbe commensurate with the type of encounter one will typically find themselves in I.e. three to seven seconds, under 10 yards, and three shots. Just a basic skills test under those premise and a short written multiple choice over the legality of lethal force and appropriate use. This would be for a Cpl and PFZs would be eliminated. Total cost under $40. You provide your own firearm, ammo, and holster/purse/carry method that you will be using. Perhaps a short skills test over proper drawing per method of carry and safe firearms handling with recourse available for possible arbitrary denial from testing personnel.

JJ1989
04-03-2013, 03:03 AM
Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the "Safest State Award." http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm

Quaamik
04-14-2013, 03:34 PM
Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union—having three times received the "Safest State Award." http://www.statestats.com/dang9403.htm

And without having to prove a certain level of skill.

There is a big difference between verifying knowdege and safety and limiting based on skill.

A knowledge / safety based test: Show you know how to safely load / unload, not to point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot, when its legal to shoot and when its not. This weeds out people who don't know (or care) enough about learning their chosen weapon to be safe with it. It also weeds out people who don't know or understand what they are legally prohibited from doing.

Skill based test: Hitting a (arbitrary) target at an (arbritrary) range in an (arbitrary) time frame an (arbitrary) number of times. This assumes politicians sitting in a conference room can determine what is the minimum skill level needed to survive a violent encounter without posing a risk to others. It discriminates against the old, the inexperianced, the weak, the infirm, and the impaired. At higher skill level tests, it also discriminates against the poor (who cannot afford the practice needed to reach that skill level). The skill level agreed upon may not even relate to the likely situations the applicant may face.

How many would support having to re-certify every renewal to prove your skill level? What about yearly? What about if that skill level was higher - say at the level of the average IPSIC or IDPA competitor? Probably very few. So why support letting a politician decide what level of skill is appropriate for a 70 year old grandmother or a 21 year old young lady with health issues to master?

JJ1989
04-14-2013, 10:01 PM
And without having to prove a certain level of skill.

There is a big difference between verifying knowdege and safety and limiting based on skill.

A knowledge / safety based test: Show you know how to safely load / unload, not to point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot, when its legal to shoot and when its not. This weeds out people who don't know (or care) enough about learning their chosen weapon to be safe with it. It also weeds out people who don't know or understand what they are legally prohibited from doing.

Skill based test: Hitting a (arbitrary) target at an (arbritrary) range in an (arbitrary) time frame an (arbitrary) number of times. This assumes politicians sitting in a conference room can determine what is the minimum skill level needed to survive a violent encounter without posing a risk to others. It discriminates against the old, the inexperianced, the weak, the infirm, and the impaired. At higher skill level tests, it also discriminates against the poor (who cannot afford the practice needed to reach that skill level). The skill level agreed upon may not even relate to the likely situations the applicant may face.

How many would support having to re-certify every renewal to prove your skill level? What about yearly? What about if that skill level was higher - say at the level of the average IPSIC or IDPA competitor? Probably very few. So why support letting a politician decide what level of skill is appropriate for a 70 year old grandmother or a 21 year old young lady with health issues to master?

I concede a knowledge and safety test would be the most appropriate course of action. That is, unless we're just going to do the right thing and go with constitutional carry like Vermont. Just a few dollars to pay for the few minutes of time it takes a local officer to go over the 5-10 minute test with an individual and the cost of printing out a license. I'd say $20 is fair.

DEVIL DOG
04-18-2013, 10:34 AM
Now that the panic in DC is over, wouldn't this be a good time to
move forward on this bill? I mean it passed last year, & I think Snyder would
have signed it if not for Sandy Hook.

Leader
04-18-2013, 08:34 PM
SB - 59 was a BAD bill.

I ,and I believe most MI residents, don't want anything to do with what it became.

DEVIL DOG
04-19-2013, 01:57 PM
Guess I should read the whole bill. But I was under the impression this would be better than what we have now.

Roundballer
04-19-2013, 02:41 PM
Guess I should read the whole bill. But I was under the impression this would be better than what we have now.
Maybe, maybe not. This would move everything over to the MSP. It might not change anything, the Co. clerks are still there. If it had gone back to moving it to the SoS, with the MSP as the only "investigators", and removed the locals involvement in the STATE LICENSE process, it would have been better.

I feel that, at this point they are just placating us because they are sure the Gov won't sign it.

DEVIL DOG
04-19-2013, 03:23 PM
But it does do away with MOST pfz, right? I guess that's what is important to me.

Roundballer
04-19-2013, 04:07 PM
But it does do away with MOST pfz, right? I guess that's what is important to me.
It does do away with some PFZ's, but it places additional requirements, like getting permission, for others.

It drops the price of a renewal to $90, but it also puts an expiration date on the training certificate if you do not maintain a continuous valid license. It adds to some "special classes". It spells out that additional forms and fees are NOT allowed for anything, and requires an update of equipment.

There is both good and bad in this. On the whole, I don't know where I would stand in this. It is written like they are trying to placate the most number of groups, and not limiting it to a constitutional reasoning.

DEVIL DOG
04-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Yeah, I hate how they can take a simple bill & turn it inside out & upside down.
When Sen. Green first wrote SB59, I think it was just one sentence. Something like, " A bill to allow concealed carry anywhere in this state." And look how that ended up. So confusing, it sounds good when it's really BAD.

Roundballer
04-19-2013, 06:14 PM
Nope, the first SB 59 did away with the gun boards and moved it to the SoS. It was a simple enough bill.

THEN the PFZ stuff was added, and the SoS went away and everything came under the Sheriff, still no Board.

G22
04-22-2013, 09:05 AM
Nope, the first SB 59 did away with the gun boards and moved it to the SoS. It was a simple enough bill.

THEN the PFZ stuff was added, and the SoS went away and everything came under the Sheriff, still no Board.

When you lump all that stuff into one single bill you end up with a turd. Every time. And here we go again.

I don't understand why the people writing these bills FAIL to recognize that fact.

Take the bill and separate the issues into a couple smaller bills. Fight for what we can get passed without anti gun "compromise" amendments.

Leader
04-22-2013, 11:19 AM
When you lump all that stuff into one single bill you end up with a turd. Every time. And here we go again.

I don't understand why the people writing these bills FAIL to recognize that fact.

Take the bill and separate the issues into a couple smaller bills. Fight for what we can get passed without anti gun "compromise" amendments.

I believe that's the problem. They DO realize that all lumped together they have NO chance of passing it but one at a time many of the issues would make it.
And although he will NEVER admit it, Snyder is anti-gun and doesn't want any pro gun legislation on his desk.

DEVIL DOG
04-23-2013, 12:09 PM
I ran into Richard Leblanc last night. Asked him if he knew anything about the new bill. He said he talked to Sen. Green last week, & he said the bill didn't have much traction. Didn't expect any movement on it till after the next election.
Sooo......

G22
04-23-2013, 12:49 PM
I ran into Richard Leblanc last night. Asked him if he knew anything about the new bill. He said he talked to Sen. Green last week, & he said the bill didn't have much traction. Didn't expect any movement on it till after the next election.
Sooo......

Great! So more promises can be made to secure our vote, then reneged on later...

Second verse same as the first

TheQ
04-25-2013, 01:15 PM
I ran into Richard Leblanc last night. Asked him if he knew anything about the new bill. He said he talked to Sen. Green last week, & he said the bill didn't have much traction. Didn't expect any movement on it till after the next election.
Sooo......


We need a republican primary or a pro-gun Democrat to run against Snyder or nothing will change and King Snyder will continue to rule until 2018.

Leader
04-25-2013, 05:00 PM
We need a republican primary or a pro-gun Democrat to run against Snyder or nothing will change and King Snyder will continue to rule until 2018.


I'm not so sure of Snyders chances of being re elected or of finding a pro gun republican that can take it away from him.
In this state I don't hold out much hope for a pro gun Governor.

TheQ
04-26-2013, 12:15 PM
I'm not so sure of Snyders chances of being re elected or of finding a pro gun republican that can take it away from him.
In this state I don't hold out much hope for a pro gun Governor.


Then we need a 2/3rd pro-gun majority with some cojones.

DEVIL DOG
04-27-2013, 07:58 AM
I know there are some here that ended up not liking SB59, & I am not an insider by any means. But Leblanc told me the only reason Snyder vetoed the bill was it was too close to Sandy Hook.
If not Snyder then who? Virge? Snyder has p****d off so many Dems for other reasons, it is unlikely he will ever get elected again.
The "Celebrities" in Wayne County will come out in droves to make sure of that.
A Dem in Lansing right now would turn this state into another NY.
We need to blast Snyders office with phone calls, e-mails & letters to let him know how disappointed we are in his actions. If he chooses not to run, we need to get behind someone that has the cajones to stand for what we believe in.

Leader
04-27-2013, 11:37 AM
I know there are some here that ended up not liking SB59, & I am not an insider by any means. But Leblanc told me the only reason Snyder vetoed the bill was it was too close to Sandy Hook.
Snip...................................


If you put the ORIGINAL SB59 back up, I'll support it.
This abomination..... no way.

Kaeto
04-27-2013, 12:11 PM
I wish a person skilled in legalese would post a translation of what this bill is actually supposed to do.

Leader
04-27-2013, 07:13 PM
I'm sure not skilled in legalese but I'll give it a try....


Eliminates county gun boards and moves CPL’s to the State Police.
Makes it so you can’t use relatives as references nor anyone with the same address.
Says the clerk can charge a reasonable fee for pictures if you don’t supply one.
NO extra paperwork or forms.
Fee dropped from $105.00 to $90.00
REQUIRES a temp license mailed within 10 days if CPL is not issued within 45 days of fingerprinting.
CPL gets mailed to you.
Limits CPL class certs to 5 years.
Can renew within 6 mo of expiration .
Must renew within 5 years of expiration.
Exempts cops & retired cops, MP’s and other Fed LEO’s from training. You know, all the *SPECIAL PEOPLE* .
Schools *CAN* ok concealed carry.
Eliminate PFZ for entertainment facility seating 2500 or more
Hospitals can OK carry
Exempts more cops from PFZ’s

cmike
04-27-2013, 07:50 PM
Where is the text?

Leader
04-27-2013, 07:51 PM
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SB-0213

Post #1

Roundballer
04-27-2013, 08:23 PM
I'm sure not skilled in legalese but I'll give it a try....


Eliminates county gun boards and moves CPL’s to the State Police. Except it doesn't remove the County Clerk from the process.
Makes it so you can’t use relatives as references nor anyone with the same address.
Says the clerk can charge a reasonable fee for pictures if you don’t supply one. It also require that the license is either plastic, or laminated - no charge. No more paper licenses + $1.00 for laminating.
NO extra paperwork or forms.
Fee dropped from $105.00 to $90.00 The fee is only dropped for renewals, the other $15 will still be collected if you need to have your prints taken. It also requires that the Co. Clerk set up accounts and only uses their portion of the funds for administration, and technology upgrades for the processing of the licenses.
REQUIRES a temp license mailed within 10 days if CPL is not issued within 45 days of fingerprinting.
CPL gets mailed to you.
Limits CPL class certs to 5 years. And requires a lot more to be listed on the certificate, instructor & contact, name of the class, a couple of other things.
Can renew within 6 mo of expiration. That is already in the law, but it does give an automatic extension to those that are deployed when the license expires.
Must renew within 5 years of expiration.
Exempts cops & retired cops, MP’s and other Fed LEO’s from training. You know, all the *SPECIAL PEOPLE* .
Schools *CAN* ok concealed carry.
Eliminate PFZ for entertainment facility seating 2500 or more
Hospitals can OK carry
Exempts more cops from PFZ’s
It also messes around with how the "disqualifies" are worded.

And there are still no penalties for failure to meet the requirements of issuing in a timely manner. So the Co Clerk can still do what ever they want.

I would not support this as written.

cmike
04-27-2013, 08:57 PM
Post #1
Thank you.

pustulio
04-28-2013, 08:27 PM
Isn't this dead?

RDak
04-29-2013, 04:58 AM
Isn't this dead?

I don't know but it apparently hasn't moved since it was proposed from what I can see.

I might be wrong though.

shurhouse
04-29-2013, 05:34 AM
I don't know but it apparently hasn't moved since it was proposed from what I can see.

I might be wrong though.

Alive but resting.

Fishous
05-01-2013, 10:18 AM
You know what would be nice in this forum? A post when a bill is passed and signed by the Governor, or the title of the first post edited to reflect such. That would make it easier to keep up to date on changes.

Gibson
05-03-2013, 01:28 PM
You know what would be nice in this forum? A post when a bill is passed and signed by the Governor, or the title of the first post edited to reflect such. That would make it easier to keep up to date on changes.

I thought it was just me being new to the board, but it would be nice for the original thread title to have a "- SIGNED INTO LAW" or a "- VETOED" subject name change.

Alternatively, you could just open the link in the OP and scroll down the page to see the current status on the bill.

Just my $.02

TheQ
05-10-2013, 01:12 PM
Isn't this dead?
Dead? No. No bill dies until the legislative session ends (December, 2014).

Sleeping for an opportune time...maybe.

.40 Cal
07-29-2013, 06:20 AM
Well isn't it about time?

luckless
07-29-2013, 07:38 AM
Well isn't it about time?
Yes, but we will need a few pro freedom politicians in leadership positions. The governor hates us and the senate leadership doesn't care much for us either. The majority of the senate judiciary committee are real stinkers, too. Leadership in the house is not always dependable on gun owner rights.

Shyster
07-29-2013, 08:39 AM
Don't expect to see anything happen until December

DEVIL DOG
07-29-2013, 09:15 AM
Don't expect to see anything happen until December
Yep, & it's not too early to start bugging our folks in Lansing.

luckless
07-29-2013, 12:00 PM
Don't expect to see anything happen until December
2014?

langenc
07-29-2013, 11:06 PM
Yes, but we will need a few pro freedom politicians in leadership positions. The governor hates us and the senate leadership doesn't care much for us either. The majority of the senate judiciary committee are real stinkers, too. Leadership in the house is not always dependable on gun owner rights.


Do we have any lobbyists?? Or do we do it ourselves.

Good lobbying is not done w/ emails but face to face. Tell em what we want. And if they dont want that ask em WHY?

Divegeek
07-30-2013, 07:25 AM
We have volunteer part time lobbyists. I know some of them actually go to Lansing and meet face to face with our reps/senators.

Divegeek
07-30-2013, 07:25 AM
oops...double tap

luckless
07-30-2013, 02:04 PM
Unfortunately, the other side has paid lobbyists in Lansing. The most irritating part is that they are often elected officials or state employees and are, thereby, using our own tax dollars against us. We end up paying for our side and theirs.

TheQ
08-01-2013, 02:26 PM
Yep, & it's not too early to start bugging our folks in Lansing.

Phone calls are fine and dandy, but are of limited value until the Sponsor is ready to move the bill. It's in a committee he is on (Natural Resources). We he wants it moved, it will move.

He's biding his time.

TheQ
08-01-2013, 02:27 PM
Do we have any lobbyists?? Or do we do it ourselves.

Good lobbying is not done w/ emails but face to face. Tell em what we want. And if they dont want that ask em WHY?


We have volunteer part time lobbyists. I know some of them actually go to Lansing and meet face to face with our reps/senators.


Yep, some of us live in Lansing too. Sadly, I work an 8-5 job like many.

TheQ
08-01-2013, 02:28 PM
Unfortunately, the other side has paid lobbyists in Lansing. The most irritating part is that they are often elected officials or state employees and are, thereby, using our own tax dollars against us. We end up paying for our side and theirs.

Actually, there isn't a very organized anti-gun lobby in Michigan...

bobn
08-02-2013, 07:43 AM
Actually, there isn't a very organized anti-gun lobby in Michigan...

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the MSP. :)
Later, Bob

TheQ
08-02-2013, 07:49 AM
The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the MSP. :)
Later, Bob

The MSP isn't as bad as most people think. They are actually "neutral" on a few policy points "we" find favorable:

1. Expanding preemption to knives, etc.
2. Expanding preemption to public universities and colleges.
3. Eliminating Pistol Free Zones.

How do I know? I've talked to their lobbyist on many occasions.

DEVIL DOG
08-02-2013, 08:34 AM
If not for the Newtown tragedy, Snyder would not have vetoed, & this thread would be moot.
Flooding them with e-mails & phone calls won't hurt. Most have "coffee hours" at local businesses. Go there if you can & let them know how you feel.
We need to have another Rally in Lansing, but to get a big turnout, do it before it gets real cold.

TheQ
08-02-2013, 10:52 AM
1. If not for the Newtown tragedy, Snyder would not have vetoed, & this thread would be moot.
2. Flooding them with e-mails & phone calls won't hurt. 2a. Most have "coffee hours" at local businesses. Go there if you can & let them know how you feel.
3. We need to have another Rally in Lansing, but to get a big turnout, do it before it gets real cold.

1. This statement shows your ignorance of the situation. I have informati0n on a good source that Snyder would have veto'd it anyhow. In fact, he didn't even mention Newtown in his Veto letter but had concerns that schools would not be able to "opt-out" of concealed carry. He wanted Green to include language in the bill that would have basically weakened preemption by allowing publicly owned PFZs to ban guns. Green said no and went forward with the version without the language the Governor wanted. The Governor called Green on his challenge and veto'd the bill.
2. This is an excellent idea. I especially like #2a. I'd be willing to use our (MOC's) email list to get others to join these coffee hours, if someone local was willing to organize the gathering/effort.
3. It's being worked on. Rally 2.0 will have less (read: no) music and speakers but more time to talk to politicians.

Kaeto
08-02-2013, 11:07 AM
Senator Hopgood has the 'Coffee Hours' every month at various venues in his district.

TheQ
08-02-2013, 12:05 PM
Senator Hopgood has the 'Coffee Hours' every month at various venues in his district.

Pick one a week or two out and email me - PHofmeister@miopencarry.org

luckless
08-02-2013, 01:48 PM
The MSP isn't as bad as most people think. They are actually "neutral" on a few policy points "we" find favorable:

1. Expanding preemption to knives, etc.
2. Expanding preemption to public universities and colleges.
3. Eliminating Pistol Free Zones.

How do I know? I've talked to their lobbyist on many occasions.
The government has no business paying lobbyists to work against the will of the people. The MSP's history speaks for itself.

TheQ
08-02-2013, 02:55 PM
The government has no business paying lobbyists to work against the will of the people. The MSP's history speaks for itself.

How about their present? I outlined 3 things the MSP is in our corner on. Why focus on the bad history rather than the positive present/future?

Their lobbyist told me: We were wrong about shall issue and we have egg on our face from it. We think PFZ repeal is a policy decision that is best left to the legislature and therefore we are neutral.

DEVIL DOG
08-02-2013, 05:10 PM
1. This statement shows your ignorance of the situation. I have informati0n on a good source that Snyder would have veto'd it anyhow. In fact, he didn't even mention Newtown in his Veto letter but had concerns that schools would not be able to "opt-out" of concealed carry. He wanted Green to include language in the bill that would have basically weakened preemption by allowing publicly owned PFZs to ban guns. Green said no and went forward with the version without the language the Governor wanted. The Governor called Green on his challenge and veto'd the bill.
2. This is an excellent idea. I especially like #2a. I'd be willing to use our (MOC's) email list to get others to join these coffee hours, if someone local was willing to organize the gathering/effort.
3. It's being worked on. Rally 2.0 will have less (read: no) music and speakers but more time to talk to politicians.

#1. Not MY ignorance! I had a personal conversation with Richard LeBlanc.
He said that ONE of the reasons Snyder vetoed was Newtown. I'm sure there were other factors that contributed to Snyders ignorance.

luckless
08-03-2013, 07:55 AM
How about their present? I outlined 3 things the MSP is in our corner on. Why focus on the bad history rather than the positive present/future?

Their lobbyist told me: We were wrong about shall issue and we have egg on our face from it. We think PFZ repeal is a policy decision that is best left to the legislature and therefore we are neutral.
Neutral is a long way from "support".

Under what conditions will the MSP stay neutral?

What do they want in exchange for their neutrality?

We always have to give something up for the MSP to be "neutral". Does the MSP still demand to keep fingerprints of carriers tied up in AFIS? Why should all CPL holders be automatic suspects in every crime in the state of Michigan for the sake of the MSP? What other civil rights issues does the MSP express an opinion on? Their opinion shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

That all being said, I sincerely hope I am wrong. I hope you have found a pro-gun ally in the MSP and that the MSP has turned over a new leaf and is now in full support of our right to own firearms.

I have not had the positive experiences you have. I am willing to change my opinion when I see the results of this new pro-gun alliance with the MSP.

kryl
08-03-2013, 03:43 PM
The government has no business paying lobbyists to work against the will of the people. The MSP's history speaks for itself.

AMEN to THAT!

kryl
08-03-2013, 03:44 PM
I'm sure there were other factors that contributed to Snyders ignorance.

The big factor is that he is really a lib in masquerade.

DEVIL DOG
08-04-2013, 09:53 AM
The big factor is that he is really a lib in masquerade.
He has been a flop on so many fronts, I don't think there is one word that can discribe him. He has not been "GOOD" for me personally.

TheQ
08-05-2013, 02:46 PM
#1. Not MY ignorance! I had a personal conversation with Richard LeBlanc.
He said that ONE of the reasons Snyder vetoed was Newtown. I'm sure there were other factors that contributed to Snyders ignorance.

You spoke to a Democrat about why a Republican did something. Bless your heart. *smiles*

DEVIL DOG
08-06-2013, 02:18 PM
You spoke to a Democrat about why a Republican did something. Bless your heart. *smiles*

Considering my Rep & Senator are both Dems, who do you think I'm going to ask? Or would you rather I not speak to any of them? I never said this was my oppinion anyway, so why would you have an issue with ME for something another person said? Shoot the messenger, how cliche'.

Raggs
09-13-2013, 12:29 PM
So is the Bill still languishing?

Roundballer
09-13-2013, 01:14 PM
So is the Bill still languishing?
SB-0213 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%283vqlesmbwe0p54zhtzhbdd45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2013-SB-0213)

pustulio
09-14-2013, 11:49 AM
SB-0213 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%283vqlesmbwe0p54zhtzhbdd45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2013-SB-0213)
limbo

45/70fan
10-13-2013, 08:24 AM
The new version of SB 213 would:


Eliminate county gun boards, including the seat currently held by the MSP;
Place all authority over CPL’s with locally-elected, publicly-accountable county clerks;
Require the MSP to earn its large portion of the fee ($64) by conducting background checks;
Prohibit the MSP from making any recommendation regarding the issuance of a CPL;
Free up sheriff department resources to focus on public safety in local communities; and
Provide sheriffs with their current $15 portion for providing fingerprinting services on initial application

There will be another bill introduced that will deal with the issue of pistol free zones.


Mike Green is the author of Michigan's CPL legislation and has the support of gun groups, including the NRA and MCRGO. Sen. Green’s goal is to enhance the Second Amendment by making Michigan a true “shall issue” state and by bringing accountability and uniformity to the process. Free exercise of the Second Amendment should mean that no law-abiding gun owner should have to go before a board to get permission to exercise that freedom.

luckless
10-13-2013, 09:39 AM
The new version of SB 213 would:


Eliminate county gun boards, including the seat currently held by the MSP;
Place all authority over CPL’s with locally-elected, publicly-accountable county clerks;
Require the MSP to earn its large portion of the fee ($64) by conducting background checks;
Prohibit the MSP from making any recommendation regarding the issuance of a CPL;
Free up sheriff department resources to focus on public safety in local communities; and
Provide sheriffs with their current $15 portion for providing fingerprinting services on initial application

There will be another bill introduced that will deal with the issue of pistol free zones.


Mike Green is the author of Michigan's CPL legislation and has the support of gun groups, including the NRA and MCRGO. Sen. Green’s goal is to enhance the Second Amendment by making Michigan a true “shall issue” state and by bringing accountability and uniformity to the process. Free exercise of the Second Amendment should mean that no law-abiding gun owner should have to go before a board to get permission to exercise that freedom.
What will the background check consist of? Currently it is a LEIN report and a call to the references.

Leader
10-13-2013, 09:45 AM
The new version of SB 213 would:


Eliminate county gun boards, including the seat currently held by the MSP;
Place all authority over CPL’s with locally-elected, publicly-accountable county clerks;
Require the MSP to earn its large portion of the fee ($64) by conducting background checks;
Prohibit the MSP from making any recommendation regarding the issuance of a CPL;
Free up sheriff department resources to focus on public safety in local communities; and
Provide sheriffs with their current $15 portion for providing fingerprinting services on initial application

There will be another bill introduced that will deal with the issue of pistol free zones.


Mike Green is the author of Michigan's CPL legislation and has the support of gun groups, including the NRA and MCRGO. Sen. Green’s goal is to enhance the Second Amendment by making Michigan a true “shall issue” state and by bringing accountability and uniformity to the process. Free exercise of the Second Amendment should mean that no law-abiding gun owner should have to go before a board to get permission to exercise that freedom.

While this is better then what we have now, it still creates 83 different licensing agents that can & will interpret and administer the law the way they personally see fit.

Yes, if the SoS handled it we could still have one that is not gun friendly and tries to make things harder or impossible to get a CPL. In that case, we would only have ONE person to complain about & correct. MOST of the gun owners would be up in arms & the situation would be corrected quickly. With 83, 5 or 6 not doing their job doesn't get much attention and never gets fixed . Kind of like what we have now.

Walther
10-13-2013, 10:44 AM
While this is better then what we have now, it still creates 83 different licensing agents that can & will interpret and administer the law the way they personally see fit.

Yes, if the SoS handled it we could still have one that is not gun friendly and tries to make things harder or impossible to get a CPL. In that case, we would only have ONE person to complain about & correct. MOST of the gun owners would be up in arms & the situation would be corrected quickly. With 83, 5 or 6 not doing their job doesn't get much attention and never gets fixed . Kind of like what we have now.


+1

A CPL should be an endorsement on your driver's license issued by the SOS as far as I'm concerned. Driver's licenses used to be issued by county until someone got smart. Doesn't seem that far of a stretch they could show some intelligence again.

DV8r
10-13-2013, 10:58 AM
+1

A CPL should be an endorsement on your driver's license issued by the SOS as far as I'm concerned. Driver's licenses used to be issued by county until someone got smart. Doesn't seem that far of a stretch they could show some intelligence again.

Actually a CPL is a Right given to all by our Constitution through the Bill of Rights. And confirmed in our State Constitution.

The need for a permit or licensing system or agent of any type is there because we the people let our elected officials abuse their authority and strip us of our Rights little by little - piece by piece.
How long will it be before we haven't enough left to turn the tide and get our basic Rights back?

Or maybe it is too late because we are no longer the "moral and religious" people that John Adams stated our form of government was designed to serve and that our governmental philosophy is totally inadequate for any other kind of people.
Looking at the products of our public schools and universities of the last generation makes me think that it just may be too late anyway without a massive "Revival" soon.
:gavel:
:usa:
Every law written takes away more Freedom from some or from all!

Walther
10-13-2013, 11:47 AM
Actually a CPL is a Right given to all by our Constitution through the Bill of Rights. And confirmed in our State Constitution.

The need for a permit or licensing system or agent of any type is there because we the people let our elected officials abuse their authority and strip us of our Rights little by little - piece by piece.
How long will it be before we haven't enough left to turn the tide and get our basic Rights back?

Or maybe it is too late because we are no longer the "moral and religious" people that John Adams stated our form of government was designed to serve and that our governmental philosophy is totally inadequate for any other kind of people.
Looking at the products of our public schools and universities of the last generation makes me think that it just may be too late anyway without a massive "Revival" soon.
:gavel:
:usa:
Every law written takes away more Freedom from some or from all!

Yeah, thanks for the history lesson.

I am speaking within the context of our current laws and how this bill addresses them.

MP Miller
10-13-2013, 06:43 PM
+1

A CPL should be an endorsement on your driver's license issued by the SOS as far as I'm concerned. Driver's licenses used to be issued by county until someone got smart. Doesn't seem that far of a stretch they could show some intelligence again.

While not an endorsement on my DL my TN permit is applied for in the same building at the same time as my DL they even use the same photo. They have similar requirements but its a lot quicker to get than my MI CPL.

DV8r
10-13-2013, 07:06 PM
Yeah, thanks for the history lesson.

I am speaking within the context of our current laws and how this bill addresses them.
You are welcome.
Let me put it this way.
If we are making changes in law lets get something that gives our Rights back, rather than just transferring the "keepers" of our freedoms from one group of "overseers" to another.

langenc
10-13-2013, 07:20 PM
It is amazing how many think the infringements are just great!

langenc
10-13-2013, 07:28 PM
The big factor is that he is really a lib in masquerade.


Like maybe, a NERD.

The MSP is getting kicked around about 'neutral'. They may be neutral but as noted why should they even have an opinion. What do they say about 'free speech', etc etc??

The MSP may be neutral but only to the extent the NRED wants em to be.
Engler could have made MI a shall issue much sooner but he would not tell em to butt out on the gun board which should be eliminated.

They were set up to control a minority and now we are 'controlled' ie infringed.

langenc
10-13-2013, 07:33 PM
I ran into Richard Leblanc last night. Asked him if he knew anything about the new bill. He said he talked to Sen. Green last week, & he said the bill didn't have much traction. Didn't expect any movement on it till after the next election.
Sooo......


Sounds like a US Senate wannabe, a few yrs ago a SoS. She was going to do it 'after the election". I do understand that it never got done cause the (R)s didnt want to 'make her do it'. The (R)s so many vote for.

Walther
10-14-2013, 06:26 AM
If we are making changes in law lets get something that gives our Rights back, rather than just transferring the "keepers" of our freedoms from one group of "overseers" to another.


Ok, so what are you doing to further this cause?

gjgalligan
10-14-2013, 06:56 AM
+1

A CPL should be an endorsement on your driver's license issued by the SOS as far as I'm concerned. Driver's licenses used to be issued by county until someone got smart. Doesn't seem that far of a stretch they could show some intelligence again.

That idea (in red) was discussed at the start of shall issue. Many people did NOT want it on their driver's license. The idea of the DL being used to cash checks, ect would inform people of your cpl that had no reason to know it.
That is how the separate license came to be.

MP Miller
10-14-2013, 07:51 AM
That idea (in red) was discussed at the start of shall issue. Many people did NOT want it on their driver's license. The idea of the DL being used to cash checks, ect would inform people of your cpl that had no reason to know it.
That is how the separate license came to be.

You could put it on the back. The people cashing your checks also know your name, address and birthday, that's 2/3 the way to opening credit in your name.

DV8r
10-14-2013, 09:02 AM
Ok, so what are you doing to further this cause?
As much as I can.

One small thing anyone can do is join NRA and MGO.

Click - To join MGO: (http://www.migunowners.org/index.php?page=join):scholar:

Walther
10-14-2013, 08:50 PM
As much as I can.

One small thing anyone can do is join NRA and MGO.

Click - To join MGO: (http://www.migunowners.org/index.php?page=join):scholar:


Maybe one day, when you get your house in order.

DV8r
10-15-2013, 01:07 PM
Maybe one day, when you get your house in order.
It isn't my house, but you are welcome to make it ours and come help with that.

Raggs
10-15-2013, 01:49 PM
legislation still not moving?

Divegeek
10-15-2013, 02:19 PM
legislation still not moving?
There has been no change since February

TheQ
10-16-2013, 11:51 AM
While this is better then what we have now, it still creates 83 different licensing agents that can & will interpret and administer the law the way they personally see fit.

Yes, if the SoS handled it we could still have one that is not gun friendly and tries to make things harder or impossible to get a CPL. In that case, we would only have ONE person to complain about & correct. MOST of the gun owners would be up in arms & the situation would be corrected quickly. With 83, 5 or 6 not doing their job doesn't get much attention and never gets fixed . Kind of like what we have now.

You are preaching to the choir on my account.

Problem is GD F*^(($&*$^(CKING TEA PARTIES don't like you'd give this power to a State official and "take it away" from a local official/body.

TheQ
10-16-2013, 11:57 AM
Sounds like a US Senate wannabe, a few yrs ago a SoS. She was going to do it 'after the election". I do understand that it never got done cause the (R)s didnt want to 'make her do it'. The (R)s so many vote for.


Here's the fundamental problem. Why won't the Rs pass constitutional carry?

Well, a little known fact is the US Congress CAN outlaw abortion. Roe v. Wade said it was up to the legislative branch to determine when life begins. If the "fetus" was indeed a life, then the 14th amendment would protect it. So the solution? Pass a congressional act saying life begins at conception or some point. Clearly they could have done this early on in the Bush years.

Why didn't they do it? The Right to Life people vote republican. If they gave them what they wanted, they would have one less reason to vote Republican.

....and now you understand the problem a bit more.

G22
10-16-2013, 12:05 PM
Here's the fundamental problem. Why won't the Rs pass constitutional carry?

Well, a little known fact is the US Congress CAN outlaw abortion. Roe v. Wade said it was up to the legislative branch to determine when life begins. If the "fetus" was indeed a life, then the 14th amendment would protect it. So the solution? Pass a congressional act saying life begins at conception or some point. Clearly they could have done this early on in the Bush years.

Why didn't they do it? The Right to Life people vote republican. If they gave them what they wanted, they would have one less reason to vote Republican.

....and now you understand the problem a bit more.

Fact^

What could they possibly offer in exchange for your vote if they've already given you what you want?

So they lie...Tell you what you want to hear...Then renig on their pre-election promises.

Wash, Rinse, and Repeat the next election cycle.

MP Miller
10-16-2013, 12:53 PM
This is why I voted for Bob Barr in '08 and Gary Johnson '12

shoxroxice
12-16-2013, 02:30 PM
Still no movement with this?

langenc
12-17-2013, 12:02 PM
This is why I voted for Bob Barr in '08 and Gary Johnson '12


Yes and the lady that is running for US Senate (maybe) is the one that was going to get it to the SoS 'after the election' (about 6 or 7 yrs ago).


Posted by 'the Q-post 167--

Why didn't they do it? The Right to Life people vote republican. If they gave them what they wanted, they would have one less reason to vote Republican.


If you think that Right to lifers are going to all of a sudden start voting for (D)s after 'getting something they want' you dont know much about Right to Life politics/principles. Those that would were not real RTL in that case.

Jared1981
12-17-2013, 01:44 PM
Still no movement with this?


None, there probably wont be any with the governor either. Only Mike Green, Joel Johnson and a handful of others in the legislature actually care about 2A issues.

The governor would ban guns if he could so by magic wand and the republican leadership is spineless. They purposely passed SB 59 last year on the first day a bill would be eligible for a pocket veto. That explained everything last year.

Others have thrown out ideas how to help. I have, but I (and others will as well) was jumped on by one of those guys who average 5 to 7 posts A DAY on the forum so they don't have time for much else in life.

smac61
12-17-2013, 06:22 PM
Kind of a side question, what's the rationale for leaving hospitals PFZ's? (I don't anticipate many opting in)

I can't count the number of times I've had to go to "particular" hospitals at ungodly hours and am stuck with the choice of either not carrying or equally scary leave it in the car option. Often one can not pick the hospital or hours to mitigate the danger...

Jared1981
12-17-2013, 07:37 PM
Kind of a side question, what's the rationale for leaving hospitals PFZ's? (I don't anticipate many opting in)

I can't count the number of times I've had to go to "particular" hospitals at ungodly hours and am stuck with the choice of either not carrying or equally scary leave it in the car option. Often one can not pick the hospital or hours to mitigate the danger...

Because the medical association is very anti-gun and very powerful and vocal in Michigan. In fact, many medical unions/associations are anti-gun.

CharleyVCU988
01-02-2014, 11:50 PM
Because the medical association is very anti-gun and very powerful and vocal in Michigan. In fact, many medical unions/associations are anti-gun.

A shame, really, that I have to work with many of those types of physicians!:shake:

smac61
01-03-2014, 02:19 AM
The hospital thing really ticks me off as I have had to run to and from Henry Ford Hospital at ungodly hours in recent years. Had a car stolen from Valet 2 years ago. My only choice is leave it in the car or don't bring it at all. Not real comfortable with either option...

Jared1981
01-03-2014, 05:47 PM
A shame, really, that I have to work with many of those types of physicians!:shake:


I agree, what is more of a shame is that we have worthless republicans in Lansing, some 2A "advocates" with their own agenda. This is why hospitals wil continue to be PFZ's and if any gun bill actually makes it to Snyder's desk you can be sure that some of the "pro gun" people will sabatoge the bill like they have in the past couple of years.

langenc
01-06-2014, 08:52 PM
How many 'gun guys' have mentioned to their legislators, prefer face to face, that they want any gun bills passed??

Im having a rough time getting my reps townhall meeting schedule-"he is working on it"--now for 6 mo or more

luckless
01-07-2014, 06:54 AM
The republicans have a legislative "action plan". They have been bragging about how much they have achieved of their plan last year. The plan is so great that they are committed to working on its completion this year. There is nothing progun in their "action plan".

Quaamik
01-09-2014, 09:29 PM
The republicans have a legislative "action plan". ........... There is nothing progun in their "action plan".

What did you expect?

Who else will you vote for? Democrats?

The pro-gun establishment has already made it abundantly clear that they will back a "C" rated Republican, or sit out the race and endorse no one, before endorsing a Libertarian or US Taxpayer Candidate. So the Republican leadership knows they have a lock on our votes, so long as they don't do anything against us and throw us a crumb now and then.

I predicted this 10 - 15 years ago, that by wedding ourselves to the Republicans we would become irrelevant to them.

Kaeto
01-09-2014, 09:44 PM
How many 'gun guys' have mentioned to their legislators, prefer face to face, that they want any gun bills passed??

Im having a rough time getting my reps townhall meeting schedule-"he is working on it"--now for 6 mo or more

Every time I see Senator Hopgood at one of his monthly coffee hours I mention current gun bills.

MP Miller
01-09-2014, 10:43 PM
What did you expect?

Who else will you vote for? Democrats?

The pro-gun establishment has already made it abundantly clear that they will back a "C" rated Republican, or sit out the race and endorse no one, before endorsing a Libertarian or US Taxpayer Candidate. So the Republican leadership knows they have a lock on our votes, so long as they don't do anything against us and throw us a crumb now and then.

I predicted this 10 - 15 years ago, that by wedding ourselves to the Republicans we would become irrelevant to them.

Why would the GOP care about gun rights, when we vote for them anyway?

Exactly

45/70fan
01-10-2014, 02:42 AM
Why would the GOP care about gun rights, when we vote for them anyway?

Exactly

Considering the options the choices are 1. Vote for a democrat. 2. Not vote at all which would be a vote for a democrat. Both of which are definite votes against our gun rights, at least with the GOP there is hope.

Folks we did it to ourselves by not demanding better leadership and allowing the media to dictate the candidates available.

luckless
01-10-2014, 02:58 AM
Considering the options the choices are 1. Vote for a democrat. 2. Not vote at all which would be a vote for a democrat. Both of which are definite votes against our gun rights, at least with the GOP there is hope.

Folks we did it to ourselves by not demanding better leadership and allowing the media to dictate the candidates available.
We got more from Granholm than Snyder. There was bipartisan support for our cause, too. Now, we get more support from the dems than we do the republicans. They will have to end pistol registration to get my support in 2014. I have stopped calling my rep and senator. Their priorities are not mine and I am tired of their patronizing attitude. Just waiting for November, now.

kryl
01-10-2014, 07:47 AM
We must stop backing RINOs. It doesn't help enough. Their true colors have been shown when they won't go after Holder and the traitor-in-chief. They need to be out there every day in the press exposing them and I don't see the leaders doing it.

Quaamik
01-11-2014, 02:27 PM
Considering the options the choices are 1. Vote for a democrat. 2. Not vote at all which would be a vote for a democrat. Both of which are definite votes against our gun rights, at least with the GOP there is hope..............

That is what got us into this pickle.

There are more than two parties on the ballot. In fact, there are between 4 & 6 for many offices. In the primaries there is often more than one candidate (for the party out of power) for a given office. Even when there is a clear front runner for a given office, we don't have to vote for the expected winner. We don't have to vote for the one we assume has the best chance. That would be like voting for Obama because you thought Romney would lose.

Granted that many of the “third” parties don't get enough votes to win. For most higher offices, they don't get more than a fraction of the two big parties. But when the two big parties treat you like dirt and ***** respectively, what is there really to lose?

Picture the next governors election for Michigan. What if 30,000gun owners voted for the libertarian and another 30,000 voted for the Constitution party (both parties candidates usually support RKBA more than the GOP or Democrats)?

The 2010 results were:
Republican 1,874834
Democrat 1,287,320
Libertarian 22,390
Constitution 20,818
Green 20,699

The Libertarians and Constitution parties would both see their voting results more than double. They would dig deep into results looking for why, figure out that it was gun owners, and cater to us as much as possible. Democrats and Republicans would still be the top two vote getters by wide margins, but they would lose between 1.6% - 4.6% of their prior vote totals (depending on where those votes came from). They would notice that. They would also notice the same data as to what caused those voters to “stray”. They would then look hard at what it would take to bring them back.

Your afraid the Democrat might win? How? There was a 587,000 vote margin in the Republicans favor last time. Yet we got diddly squat (Granholm signed more pro-gun legislation than Snyder). Even better, what do you think the Republicans would do if the Democrats DID win, with an obvious huge vote increase going to pro-gun candidates? You think maybe both the Republicans and the Democrats might sit up and notice gun owners – with more than derision that is?

And if you don't think that 60,000 votes could affect the race, then how is it you think your 1 single vote will?

MP Miller
01-11-2014, 04:24 PM
That is what got us into this pickle.

There are more than two parties on the ballot. In fact, there are between 4 & 6 for many offices. In the primaries there is often more than one candidate (for the party out of power) for a given office. Even when there is a clear front runner for a given office, we don't have to vote for the expected winner. We don't have to vote for the one we assume has the best chance. That would be like voting for Obama because you thought Romney would lose.

Granted that many of the “third” parties don't get enough votes to win. For most higher offices, they don't get more than a fraction of the two big parties. But when the two big parties treat you like dirt and ***** respectively, what is there really to lose?

Picture the next governors election for Michigan. What if 30,000gun owners voted for the libertarian and another 30,000 voted for the Constitution party (both parties candidates usually support RKBA more than the GOP or Democrats)?

The 2010 results were:
Republican 1,874834
Democrat 1,287,320
Libertarian 22,390
Constitution 20,818
Green 20,699

The Libertarians and Constitution parties would both see their voting results more than double. They would dig deep into results looking for why, figure out that it was gun owners, and cater to us as much as possible. Democrats and Republicans would still be the top two vote getters by wide margins, but they would lose between 1.6% - 4.6% of their prior vote totals (depending on where those votes came from). They would notice that. They would also notice the same data as to what caused those voters to “stray”. They would then look hard at what it would take to bring them back.

Your afraid the Democrat might win? How? There was a 587,000 vote margin in the Republicans favor last time. Yet we got diddly squat (Granholm signed more pro-gun legislation than Snyder). Even better, what do you think the Republicans would do if the Democrats DID win, with an obvious huge vote increase going to pro-gun candidates? You think maybe both the Republicans and the Democrats might sit up and notice gun owners – with more than derision that is?

And if you don't think that 60,000 votes could affect the race, then how is it you think your 1 single vote will?
:yeahthat:

If you don't vote in the primary you are the problem.

A Vote for a RINO is a vote for a Democrat.

Walther
01-12-2014, 11:10 AM
Picture the next governors election for Michigan. What if 30,000gun owners voted for the libertarian and another 30,000 voted for the Constitution party (both parties candidates usually support RKBA more than the GOP or Democrats)?

The 2010 results were:
Republican 1,874834
Democrat 1,287,320
Libertarian 22,390
Constitution 20,818
Green 20,699

The Libertarians and Constitution parties would both see their voting results more than double. They would dig deep into results looking for why, figure out that it was gun owners, and cater to us as much as possible. Democrats and Republicans would still be the top two vote getters by wide margins, but they would lose between 1.6% - 4.6% of their prior vote totals (depending on where those votes came from). They would notice that. They would also notice the same data as to what caused those voters to “stray”. They would then look hard at what it would take to bring them back.

In a perfect world, yes. In this world, highly doubtful.

For these numbers to mean anything, you'd have to expect that there are enough gun owners in Michigan that will vote based on gun rights (not union rights, small business rights, etc.) to make a difference. I don't believe there are. How many gun owners vote democrat because their union tells them to, or because the media keeps telling them the dems are their only option?

The number of people in this states that would vote for a candidate beased strictly on gun ownershp is pretty small, and not enough to win an election.

kpearce
01-12-2014, 02:51 PM
There are a lot of anti-gun gun owners right on this site that vote Democrat every time. But while you throw out the numbers game the NRA has over 5 million members. If they all voted for a candidate it would be a landslide win for that person.

But sadly we are our own worst enemy for RKBA. The overwhelming majority of anti-gun gun owners are the hunters. They see no use for concealed carry or so called assault weapons.

Want proof? Just look at the people who stood in line to register ALL of their guns recently in Conneticut. Bet most of them were hunters. I am a hunter also for the record but I believe in all gun rights, I do not pick and choose.

Also for the record I am a one issue voter. I grill the candidates or research them for pro gun, pro liberty. The other stuff hasn't changed for years no matter which party is in power. I couldn't care less what letter is by their name. I look at their record.

I am currently out in LA with my 15 year old interviewing agents and managers for her acting career. The agents and managers want her headshots and resume. We want their business info as well as their resume of films, movies, shows, commercials...etc.

Should not vote for someone you know nothing about. Especially their past voting record.

Walther
01-13-2014, 01:26 PM
There are a lot of anti-gun gun owners right on this site that vote Democrat every time. But while you throw out the numbers game the NRA has over 5 million members. If they all voted for a candidate it would be a landslide win for that person. We're talking Michigan. There are not 5 million members in Michigan. But sadly we are our own worst enemy for RKBA. The overwhelming majority of anti-gun gun owners are the hunters. They see no use for concealed carry or so called assault weapons. Bullcrap.


Want proof? Just look at the people who stood in line to register ALL of their guns recently in Conneticut. Bet most of them were hunters. I am a hunter also for the record but I believe in all gun rights, I do not pick and choose. I'm a hunter too. So far that's 2 of us, or 100% opposite your position. Moreover, you can't say "want proof" and then "bet" most of them were hunters. Yeah, I want proof, so provide it.

.

Wow.

WelshAmerican
02-10-2014, 04:19 AM
[QUOTE=Jared1981]Only Mike Green, Joel Johnson and a handful of others in the legislature actually care about 2A issues. [QUOTE]
After an email, I was convinced that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Rick Jones (R-24) was a friend of the gun-owner. Am I wrong?

luckless
02-10-2014, 07:15 AM
[QUOTE=Jared1981]Only Mike Green, Joel Johnson and a handful of others in the legislature actually care about 2A issues. [QUOTE]
After an email, I was convinced that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Rick Jones (R-24) was a friend of the gun-owner. Am I wrong?
Have you noticed a flurry of pro2A legislation flowing from the committee? Don't ask him if he is for gun rights, every politician says they support the Second Amendment. Ask what gun legislation he is working on. Ask him who our opposition is to the specific items you want to see passed. A friend will tell you where to apply the political pressure to get progun laws passed. Or, you will be told that he is busy working on the budget blah blah blah. Then you can ask him how he has so much time to work on the non budget items that made it out of his committee. Then ask how they had time to pass HB 4715, 4716 and 4717. I don't know if he is anti gun but he did sponsor toy gun control and his committee sat on a lot of good gun law last term.

45/70fan
02-10-2014, 12:21 PM
Rick Jones is no friend of gun owners! Sen Green had to take Sb 59 out of judiciary and get it before agriculture committee to get it passed and before the full Senate. This took so long it allowed the govenor time to find a reason to veto it - Sandy Hook.

SADAacp
02-10-2014, 01:22 PM
Rick Jones is no friend of gun owners! Sen Green had to take Sb 59 out of judiciary and get it before agriculture committee to get it passed and before the full Senate. This took so long it allowed the govenor time to find a reason to veto it - Sandy Hook.

I don't think he vetoed the bill due to Sandy Hook. IIRC, he vetoed the bill because he didn't want the badgeless folks to carry, especially OC, at public schools and public hospitals without them not having a say in the matter.

45/70fan
02-10-2014, 07:21 PM
I don't think he vetoed the bill due to Sandy Hook. IIRC, he vetoed the bill because he didn't want the badgeless folks to carry, especially OC, at public schools and public hospitals without them not having a say in the matter.

That is probably true but he had to have an excuse after all of the negotiations his staff and Sen Green ' s staff held to get something acceptable for the governor, once that was achieved the governor had to have an excuse because he couldn't just veto it outright. He apparently thought it was a face saving way to get out of something he didn't want in the first place but was being pushed by some political forces he didn't want to betray after that person supported his agenda to raise taxes. In the end he betrayed his supporters but got his tax increase first. I think that is called dirty politics.

Leader
02-10-2014, 08:39 PM
But SB-59 was totally destroyed before it ever got to the Governor.

He did us a favor by not signing it.

45/70fan
02-10-2014, 10:02 PM
But SB-59 was totally destroyed before it ever got to the Governor.

He did us a favor by not signing it.

that maybe but regardless Jones and Snyder have shown their colors.

Roundballer
02-10-2014, 11:04 PM
that maybe but regardless Jones and Snyder have shown their colors.
And so has Randy Richardville.

45/70fan
02-12-2014, 01:44 PM
And so has Randy Richardville.

true

45/70fan
02-19-2014, 09:00 AM
Not a posting on SB728 and 790 so far??

Tallbear
01-16-2015, 12:08 PM
SB 0213 of 2013 (PA 0516 of 2014)
Weapons; licensing; concealed weapons licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/31/2014 ASSIGNED PA 0516'14 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

PhotoTom
01-16-2015, 12:14 PM
SB 0213 of 2013 (PA 0516 of 2014)
Weapons; licensing; concealed weapons licensing boards; eliminate, and transfer duties to department of state police. Amends secs. 1, 4, 5, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m, 5o & 8 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 et seq.); adds sec. 5x & repeals sec. 6a of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.426a).
Last Action: 12/31/2014 ASSIGNED PA 0516'14 WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT

Ummm…

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?285168-Senate-Bill-0789-(2014)&p=2543571&viewfull=1#post2543571

This is a clerical error…the actual act has something to do with restaurant worker training…
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SB-0730