MGO Opposes Senate Bill 0442

[Smokepole]

Michigan Gun Owners
Opposes
Senate Bill 0442



The Board of Directors of Michigan Gun Owners (a 501c3 Not for Profit)
opposes passage of SB0442 introduced by State Senator Mike Green (R-Dist.31).



Key Provisions:

SB442 takes something currently legal (Open Carry w/ a CPL in all CPFZ's listed in MCL 28.425o) and makes illegal and punishable all the way up to a 4 year felony.

Concealed Carry is only allowed when you ask for and obtain the exemption (by a $20 fee now, or free if you wait till your renewal).

We need to be progressing toward the elimination of CPFZ's and gaining Constitutional Carry, not regressing on our rights as listed in Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.


Michigan Gun Owners
P.O. Box 153, Dearborn Heights, MI 48127
David M Dellinger, 248-622-7090,
(ddellinger@migunowners.org)ddellinger@migunowners .org

[SADAacp]

Good news to start out a Monday.

[DEVIL DOG]

Green is a real bone head. He means well, but ..........tried talking to him last year at Cabela's & once he gets something in his head........

[luckless]

Contacted Green's office. I got the impression that he doesn't really care what I think about SB 0442.

Contacted my rep. He voted for all of the other crap that has gone up so I suspect he'll vote for this gorp, too.

Can't seem to get ahold of my senator. Maybe the office is closed today.

[Roundballer]

Contacted Green's office. I got the impression that he doesn't really care what I think about SB 0442.

Contacted my rep. He voted for all of the other crap that has gone up so I suspect he'll vote for this gorp, too.

Can't seem to get ahold of my senator. Maybe the office is closed today.
And that is how it should be. If you are not one of his constituents, he should pay no more attention to you as he would to a 15 year old telling him that school is boring.


Get a hold of YOUR rep and senator, tell THEM that you appose this legislation. It is best to do it in writing of some form, then there is a record that you did it.

[Shyster]

Contacted Green's office. I got the impression that he doesn't really care what I think about SB 0442.

Contacted my rep. He voted for all of the other crap that has gone up so I suspect he'll vote for this gorp, too.

Can't seem to get ahold of my senator. Maybe the office is closed today.
Mike Green is a lame duck who does not intend to pursue any further elected office. He doesn't really care what anyone thinks about SB 442 he is going to do what he feels is right, bottom line.

[luckless]

And that is how it should be. If you are not one of his constituents, he should pay no more attention to you as he would to a 15 year old telling him that school is boring.


Get a hold of YOUR rep and senator, tell THEM that you appose this legislation. It is best to do it in writing of some form, then there is a record that you did it.
I just wanted the jerk to know that I was contacting my rep and sen about his bad legislation. He may want to run for statewide office one day. I'll work hard against him if he has those aspirations.

He claimed the whole reason we got SB34 and 35 crammed down our throats is because it was what MCRGO and the NRA wanted. I guess there goes your theory about serving his constituents only.

[Jared1981]

It's a shame that he tries to be cute with the governor and ask for an exemption. This application of the bill completely screws visitors. Imagine if every state stopped recognizing your MI CPL? I remember some of the people who support this bill crying when Nevada dropped MI.

Do onto others....

[DrScaryGuy]

so... we're siding with the anti-gun people this time? I guess that works, since I just plain don't like how this new law would make things terrible, and anti-gun people think allowing guns in more places is terrible...

[Jared1981]

so... we're siding with the anti-gun people this time? I guess that works, since I just plain don't like how this new law would make things terrible, and anti-gun people think allowing guns in more places is terrible...

For starters, accidental exposure is a felony. Not even New York ever came up with something this bad.

[Roundballer]

I just wanted the jerk to know that I was contacting my rep and sen about his bad legislation. He may want to run for statewide office one day. I'll work hard against him if he has those aspirations.
Then you should have actually made the contacts with your people first, and then "copied" him with your views. You could also add to your comments that you would not support him in any of his possible future aspirations.


He claimed the whole reason we got SB34 and 35 crammed down our throats is because it was what MCRGO and the NRA wanted. I guess there goes your theory about serving his constituents only.
It is not a theory, it is the way things work. You as an individual, contacting him and not being a constituent, were ignored and rightfully so.

MCRGO, NRA, MOC, GOA, MGO are all organizations that claim to speak for a certain number of people, based on their membership. They can rightfully claim a right to be heard. In comparing yourself contacting him to one of these orgs doing the same is absolutely comparing an apple to an entire arbor of grapes.

[DrScaryGuy]

For starters, accidental exposure is a felony. Not even New York ever came up with something this bad.

"...SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL ON THE PREMISES LISTED..." "...An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction..."
Felony for accidental exposure? What did I miss?

[Jared1981]

"...SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL ON THE PREMISES LISTED..." "...An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction..."
Felony for accidental exposure? What did I miss?


It progressively becomes a felony. Furthermore, some attorney's on this website routinely defend people where certain anti-gun cops lie and falsely arrest a person for CCW when open carrying. The same will happen in reverse.

Green has lost his mind with this bill. I don't see how the NRA would support this bill either as it also guts reciprocity.

[luckless]

Then you should have actually made the contacts with your people first, and then "copied" him with your views. You could also add to your comments that you would not support him in any of his possible future aspirations.


It is not a theory, it is the way things work. You as an individual, contacting him and not being a constituent, were ignored and rightfully so.

MCRGO, NRA, MOC, GOA, MGO are all organizations that claim to speak for a certain number of people, based on their membership. They can rightfully claim a right to be heard. In comparing yourself contacting him to one of these orgs doing the same is absolutely comparing an apple to an entire arbor of grapes.

I sincerely hope that, as a constituent, you'll have better luck with him. I just don't think he is interested in any progun opinion. The man seems absolutely tone deaf to anything but his own ambitions.

As for my people, they toe the line and claim MCRGO, not their constituent, speaks for me because Mike Green, not their constituent, says so. They don't listen any better to me, their constituent, than Mike Green does. I do, however, have good access to them.

Maybe they'll listen to me next time. Third time's the charm!

If you have any influence with his office, keep the pressure on! I'll keep working on my guys, too. FWIW

[G22]

I just wanted the jerk to know that I was contacting my rep and sen about his bad legislation. He may want to run for statewide office one day. I'll work hard against him if he has those aspirations.

He claimed the whole reason we got SB34 and 35 crammed down our throats is because it was what MCRGO and the NRA wanted. I guess there goes your theory about serving his constituents only.

You do know he serves as a board member for MCRGO right? If it was crammed down our throats, he's at least partially responsible for it, unless he unequivocally voted against it. Which I highly doubt.

[Mia'sUncle]

Okay so, having doctors and other professionals who would otherwise feel comfortable, like professors, in these locations with legal weapons really hurts the movement? You think that stopping a bad guy in a college won't help our position?

Right now, these people won't jeopardize their careers. After this, as long as they keep it hidden, we have many more advocates who may one day stop a bad guy. That's a big win. After said wins you seek constitutional carry. Now you give what VERY FEW people do in exchange for what many more will do. This is a HUGE WIN.

Yet, you think its not. Not much rational thought put into this.

This eliminates the "special class" of exemptions and creates a greater possibility for good to be done in the places where shootings actually happen. I support this 100 percent! You should too.

[SteveS]

"...SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL ON THE PREMISES LISTED..." "...An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction..."
Felony for accidental exposure? What did I miss?

The felony for accidental exposure applies if this is the 3rd time you intentionally display or openly carry in one of those places. An accidental exposure is not an intentional display.

[thamm]

Okay so, having doctors and other professionals who would otherwise feel comfortable, like professors, in these locations with legal weapons really hurts the movement? You think that stopping a bad guy in a college won't help our position?

Right now, these people won't jeopardize their careers. After this, as long as they keep it hidden, we have many more advocates who may one day stop a bad guy. That's a big win. After said wins you seek constitutional carry. Now you give what VERY FEW people do in exchange for what many more will do. This is a HUGE WIN.

Yet, you think its not. Not much rational thought put into this.

This eliminates the "special class" of exemptions and creates a greater possibility for good to be done in the places where shootings actually happen. I support this 100 percent! You should too.

Doctors and professors would still be covered by employee policies that most likely prohibit firearms, already.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

[Roundballer]

Okay so, having doctors and other professionals who would otherwise feel comfortable, like professors, in these locations with legal weapons really hurts the movement? You think that stopping a bad guy in a college won't help our position?

Right now, these people won't jeopardize their careers. After this, as long as they keep it hidden, we have many more advocates who may one day stop a bad guy. That's a big win. After said wins you seek constitutional carry. Now you give what VERY FEW people do in exchange for what many more will do. This is a HUGE WIN.

Yet, you think its not. Not much rational thought put into this.

This eliminates the "special class" of exemptions and creates a greater possibility for good to be done in the places where shootings actually happen. I support this 100 percent! You should too.
This nothing but supposition and conjecture.

The bill exchanges one thing for another and make what is currently legal, illegal. This is a poor choice to make in the concept of "advancing" 2A rights.

I think we should stall this and see what works out with the law suits (which I think will be in our favor), and then offer concealment as an option, not a mandate.

Select your battles. Don't fight to "fix" this one, kill it. They have yet to "fix" anything that previously promised.

[partdeux]

The felony for accidental exposure applies if this is the 3rd time you intentionally display or openly carry in one of those places. An accidental exposure is not an intentional display.

Steve, as a lawyer I'm surprised you would say that...

Accidental exposure to you and I mean one thing. To an anti firearm prosecutor {cough, worthy, cough} means something completely different. Sure, could you beat a charge that I reached for something on the shelf and my shirt pulled up, probably... but now I'm paying for legal council for something that used to be completely legal.

[SteveS]

Steve, as a lawyer I'm surprised you would say that...

I can only go what the law plainly says. If we want to deal with conjecture, then I am sure we can come up with all sorts of possible prosecutions. If you are that worried about an anti gun prosecutor, then not carrying a gun may be the best option.

[Mia'sUncle]

Doctors and professors would still be covered by employee policies that most likely prohibit firearms, already.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

You don't know that. There are trusted people who would step up and employers who would make exceptions. There are workplaces that have no policy other than the current law. This is a win.

[Mia'sUncle]

This nothing but supposition and conjecture.

The bill exchanges one thing for another and make what is currently legal, illegal. This is a poor choice to make in the concept of "advancing" 2A rights.

I think we should stall this and see what works out with the law suits (which I think will be in our favor), and then offer concealment as an option, not a mandate.

Select your battles. Don't fight to "fix" this one, kill it. They have yet to "fix" anything that previously promised.

I don't care if the 200 or so OC advocates are out of luck. I care about the thousands of new and current cpl holders that will then be in the places bad guys shoot up. You should as well.

[luckless]

These bills seem to start good and then turn bad. Here, we are starting with a bad bill...

[Roundballer]

I don't care if the 200 or so OC advocates are out of luck. I care about the thousands of new and current cpl holders that will then be in the places bad guys shoot up. You should as well.
None of your hyperbole, supposition and conjecture about irrationally constructed scenarios, nor your directions of what I should care about, will have any effect on the rationales I will employ to discern the viability of this legislation to advance our reclaiming of our Second Amendment rights.

You appear to be lashing out with pure emotion as your only motivator.

[wizzi01]

I don't care if the 200 or so OC advocates are out of luck. I care about the thousands of new and current cpl holders that will then be in the places bad guys shoot up. You should as well.

Good thing that's only your opinion. Just like it's my opinion no one cares what you think.

[Mia'sUncle]

Fellas very few people oc. Fact. Very few.

Many many more cc. Many more would cc if they could. With this law they could. Cc outpaces OC in growth.

This law is good because it increases the statistics of the possibility of bad being stopped by good guys.

There's nothing emotional or opinionated about that. Think about it a little bit.

[luckless]

Fellas very few people oc. Fact. Very few.

Many many more cc. Many more would cc if they could. With this law they could. Cc outpaces OC in growth.

This law is good because it increases the statistics of the possibility of bad being stopped by good guys.

There's nothing emotional or opinionated about that. Think about it a little bit.

I think I am tired of Lansing crapping on the gun rights of some in favor of the convenience of others.

[bigt8261]

There are far more hunters than there are CPL holders, let alone CPL holders who actually carry. Why don't we just completely ban CC in turn for relaxing restrictions on hunting.

[Ricebrnr]

Fellas very few people oc. Fact. Very few.

Many many more cc. Many more would cc if they could. With this law they could. Cc outpaces OC in growth.

This law is good because it increases the statistics of the possibility of bad being stopped by good guys.

There's nothing emotional or opinionated about that. Think about it a little bit.

I thought about it a lot. I don't want to continue a precedent that portions off our rights. The antis already think they can nibble away at them until they're gone. Do we really want to encourage that?

[Mia'sUncle]

I thought about it a lot. I don't want to continue a precedent that portions off our rights. The antis already think they can nibble away at them until they're gone. Do we really want to encourage that?

I get it. I'm operating under the premise that one bad guy stopped in a university or other pfz let alone a few is an excellent launch pad for furthering the cause.

That's why I will support this. It allows good guys to be where bad guys murder.

[Roundballer]

Fellas very few people oc. Fact. Very few.
Not a "fact", this is just a speculation based on appearances. There are numbers that wear OWB, and don't pay any attention to whether it is covered or not. There are portions that wear IWB and treat it the same. I even have a friend that carries in his shirt pocket and cares little if it is covered or not. Then there are the "always covered" and the "never covered". A reliable enumeration of specifically "OC" can not be rationally obtained.


Many many more cc.
Again, just speculation. It would APPEAR that there are more, but if they are doing it right, you would never know.


Many more would cc if they could.
Not in evidence, have you done a study or a poll to find out what is in the minds of those that currently OC in places that they have to OC in to remain legal?


With this law they could. Cc outpaces OC in growth.
Granted, with a change in law. "could" is viable. It is just speculation what the result would be, or whether anybody would change their habits.


This law is good because it increases the statistics of the possibility of bad being stopped by good guys.
This is conjecture and speculation of the out come of a theoretical scenario.


There's nothing emotional or opinionated about that.
Anything that is not verifiable, all of the perceived conditions and speculation on out come is nothing but OPINION. And those opinions appear to be relayed with considerable amount of emotion. These are your "feelings".


Think about it a little bit.
Most of the posters here have thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that this is a bad piece of legislation. This conclusion is not based on speculation of any out come, it is based on the language of the proposed legislation. It is a bad bill.

[Mia'sUncle]

I think I am tired of Lansing crapping on the gun rights of some in favor of the convenience of others.

Well, this eliminates a special class in exchange for what some see as offensive firearms advocacy.

I would call this a win. Statistically this will greatly aid our cause. More armed good guys in the right places means positive press.

Supporting this will also help lawmakers see that the "in your " face stuff is to gain. We can still do it again just in a different way.however, we are willing to deal.

[Mia'sUncle]

Not a "fact", this is just a speculation based on appearances. There are numbers that wear OWB, and don't pay any attention to whether it is covered or not. There are portions that wear IWB and treat it the same. I even have a friend that carries in his shirt pocket and cares little if it is covered or not. Then there are the "always covered" and the "never covered". A reliable enumeration of specifically "OC" can not be rationally obtained.


Again, just speculation. It would APPEAR that there are more, but if they are doing it right, you would never know.


Not in evidence, have you done a study or a poll to find out what is in the minds of those that currently OC in places that they have to OC in to remain legal?


Granted, with a change in law. "could" is viable. It is just speculation what the result would be, or whether anybody would change their habits.


This is conjecture and speculation of the out come of a theoretical scenario.


Anything that is not verifiable, all of the perceived conditions and speculation on out come is nothing but OPINION. And those opinions appear to be relayed with considerable amount of emotion. These are your "feelings".


Most of the posters here have thought about it, and have come to the conclusion that this is a bad piece of legislation. This conclusion is not based on speculation of any out come, it is based on the language of the proposed legislation. It is a bad bill.

You're not going to change your mind. Fine. However the facts support my statements.

There are very few members of OC support groups. Many for cc. There are many cPl s issued every year. Few feel comfortable with oc. These are facts.

No prof, doctor, etc is going to oc. Some will cc. You can say aggressive things all you want. You are mistaken. This is a win.

Look at the forum /membership of mioc vs. Cpl issuance. Mioc is not a big thing but I thank them for getting this for us.

I support and supported them the entire time. Now is not the time to whine. It's a time to assert our willingness to deal now and in the future.

[Roundballer]

You're not going to change your mind. Fine. However the facts support my statements.

There are very few members of OC support groups. Many for cc. There are many cPl s issued every year. Few feel comfortable with oc. These are facts.

No prof, doctor, etc is going to oc. Some will cc. You can say aggressive things all you want. You are mistaken. This is a win.

What "FACTS"?

Your suppositions only, and only you think that this is a "win".

[Mia'sUncle]

What "FACTS"?

Your suppositions only, and only you think that this is a "win".

Read the last edit on my post. There are facts that show expanded cc a win.

Look at the forum /membership of mioc vs. Cpl issuance. Mioc is not a big thing but I thank them for getting this for us.

I support and supported them the entire time. Now is not the time to whine. It's a time to assert our willingness to deal now and in the future.

For the record statistics aren't conjecture. They are scientific measuring devices. They point to probable outcomes.

[dmd7765]

You're not going to change your mind. Fine. However the facts support my statements.

There are very few members of OC support groups. Many for cc. There are many cPl s issued every year. Few feel comfortable with oc. These are facts.

No prof, doctor, etc is going to oc. Some will cc. You can say aggressive things all you want. You are mistaken. This is a win.

Look at the forum /membership of mioc vs. Cpl issuance. Mioc is not a big thing but I thank them for getting this for us.

I support and supported them the entire time. Now is not the time to whine. It's a time to assert our willingness to deal now and in the future.

This is not a win! Add the option to CC without giving something up, thats a win. If we continually give up something with new each bill, we will never get to the end of the rainbow, because there will always be something that we are seeking

[Mia'sUncle]

This is not a win! Add the option to CC without giving something up, thats a win. If we continually give up something with new each bill, we will never get to the end of the rainbow, because there will always be something that we are seeking

Our constitutional carry legislators committed political suicide. They brought disrepute to their ideas even further.

This is a win and I hope it passes. That's where I stand. In a while, after some good guy in pfz wins we assert further need. This will help the cause in the end. That's how I see it. That appears very reasonable too me.

It appears to me that a more radical worldview will only cause the willingness to deal to pass. These people are eliminating law enforcement privilege. That's them giving a lot.

If the bill gets to the point where it includes public institutions being able to eliminate cc, its no good. As far as I know, it's good now.

[Roundballer]

Read the last edit on my post. There are facts that show expanded cc a win.

Look at the forum /membership of mioc vs. Cpl issuance. Mioc is not a big thing but I thank them for getting this for us.

I support and supported them the entire time. Now is not the time to whine. It's a time to assert our willingness to deal now and in the future.

For the record statistics aren't conjecture. They are scientific measuring devices. They point to probable outcomes.

Can you point us to some of these "statistics"? All that I am seeing is still just claims, no actual, factual data.

And this bill is still a piece of crap that trades away the legal for the promise of advancement.

[bigt8261]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it's relevant here too.


Why do people keep looking at political landscapes as they are at that time when making decisions that will have ramifications for decades?

Look back 1 year ago and ask yourself if you thought we would be where we are today. MCRGO certainly didn't. They said that "PFZs" were untouchable this legislative session, until OC in schools became an issue. Now we have a school in Michigan that is going to allow OCers who show their CPL to be free in the school just like any other parent AND they are PROUD of it. No one expected that. Heck, two years ago most people still thought that guns were completely banned in schools.

We all know that 442 will be a lame duck bill, just like all of Green's bills are. Don't look at how things are today, look at how things will be later.

[bigt8261]

Let me try putting it another way. I think everyone agrees that we are talking about this BECAUSE of OC in schools, and without it, 28.425o would be out of reach.

To anyone that agrees with that statement, why would you now want to ban the very thing that is making what you call "progress" possible?

Look at what SB 59 '12 asks for in exchange for OC compared to what SB 442 '15 now asks for in exchange for OC. There is a drastic difference and there is nothing to suggest that the trend won't continue.

[Roundballer]

Let me try putting it another way. I think everyone agrees that we are talking about this BECAUSE of OC in schools, and without it, 28.425o would be out of reach.

To anyone that agrees with that statement, why would you now want to ban the very thing that is making what you call "progress" possible?

Look at what SB 59 '12 asks for in exchange for OC compared to what SB 442 '15 now asks for in exchange for OC. There is a drastic difference and there is nothing to suggest that the trend won't continue.
I also don't think that this is the time to be messing with this. First, let's get settled case law from both of the school law suits. If the courts come down on our side, it is a real bargaining tool to get the CPFZ removed (if they want us to conceal).

[bigt8261]

I also don't think that this is the time to be messing with this. First, let's get settled case law from both of the school law suits. If the courts come down on our side, it is a real bargaining tool to get the CPFZ removed (if they want us to conceal).

I completely agree. That and adding an enforcement mechanism to preemption.

[Mia'sUncle]

Can you point us to some of these "statistics"? All that I am seeing is still just claims, no actual, factual data.

And this bill is still a piece of crap that trades away the legal for the promise of advancement.

Mioc membership and cpl issuance is easy to find. Those are very good numbers to create statistics from.

And statistically speaking armed people in pfzs will make a difference if there is a murderer and they are there. Maybe you just can't accept that. Okay, fine. But those are valid factual analysis and they're easy ones to produce for yourself.

On the case law issue you have me thinking. Also I dually note that the bill is dead in the water. I just think guys who want all or nothing get nothing.

The progressives have it right in that a little at a time is a good strategy. Eventually the tide turns.

Giving up pfz is HUGE for them. Huge.

[Mia'sUncle]

I completely agree. That and adding an enforcement mechanism to preemption.

Important.

[Roundballer]

Mioc membership and cpl issuance is easy to find. Those are very good numbers to create statistics from.
There is a base conceptual failure here. One does not "create" statistics. And the membership numbers for MOC is not a source for the numbers of OCers. The MOC members are people that support OC, not necessarily those that OC or even carry at all, and not all OCers are members of MOC. And the CPL issue numbers only provide the count of the number of people that have been issued CPLs. Some people have CPLs so that it is easier to buy/sell/trade pistols. Neither of these sources will provide what you are looking for.


And statistically speaking armed people in pfzs will make a difference if there is a murderer and they are there. Maybe you just can't accept that. Okay, fine. But those are valid factual analysis and they're easy ones to produce for yourself.
The plural of anecdote is not data. Simply saying "factual analysis" does not make what you are alluding to true.


On the case law issue you have me thinking. Also I dually note that the bill is dead in the water. I just think guys who want all or nothing get nothing.
Okay, in this case, NOTHING is what is needed. Duly noted.


The progressives have it right in that a little at a time is a good strategy. Eventually the tide turns.

Giving up pfz is HUGE for them. Huge.
The problem is that this type of bill, and the last few, GAVE AWAY more than what is gained.

They do it in this manner:

BAN ALL auto rifles with detachable magazines, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, flash hiders, has any appearance of a military issue rifle. Then they "settle" for just a portion. Ban all auto rifles with pistol grips and flash hiders.

Then they go after the capacity of the magazines.

We need to slam them with bills that demand two things, then "negotiate" dropping one of them, without trade off.

[Mia'sUncle]

Statistics are created dude. That's not negotiation. We need good press and positive attitudes. Good talk.

[Roundballer]

Statistics are created dude.
Dude, learn what the word means. Statistics are not created, they are the result of the analysis of data. You don't just pull them out of the air. You have to start with VALID data.

sta·tis·tics
stəˈtistiks/
noun
noun: statistics

the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

That's not negotiation.
That is exactly the kinds of "negotiation" that they practice. Look at the '34 NFA. They wrote a bill that took EVERYTHING except bolt action rifles and break action shoguns. Then they negotiated it back to just the NFA items that we have today. Then they came back with GCA '68 and that had to get negotiated back to just the creation of the FFL and all that went with it. Then they came up with the AWB '94 and negotiated it back to have a sunset clause, but we still have the NICS check. Do you see the pattern? It is the same kind of negotiating that we need to do, in the other direction. We can start here at the State level.

There is an analogy about a cake out there somewhere that shows how this gun control thing has gone.


We need good press and positive attitudes. Good talk.
Yes, we need good press, and we need to get the truth out. But we don't need to trade one thing for another like in this bill.

[RDak]

I agree 100 percent Roundballer...........never concede anything to the anti gunners.

They will never stop and making concessions of any kind to them is a fool's errand IMHO.

This Bill is not good enough and if it fails it won't bother me at all.

[luckless]

I agree 100 percent Roundballer...........never concede anything to the anti gunners.

They will never stop and making concessions of any kind to them is a fool's errand IMHO.

This Bill is not good enough and if it fails it won't bother me at all.
Please, be sure to tell your senator.

[wizzi01]

Fellas very few people oc. Fact. Very few.

Many many more cc. Many more would cc if they could. With this law they could. Cc outpaces OC in growth.

This law is good because it increases the statistics of the possibility of bad being stopped by good guys.

There's nothing emotional or opinionated about that. Think about it a little bit.

Where are your stats coming from? How many hunters have to open carry? Also, just because someone had a CPL doesn't mean they carry. I know it's crazy to let people carry how they want and when they want.

[Ricebrnr]

Maybe this will help explain:

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|COMPROMISE|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control |<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|COMPROMISE|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control |<<<<<<<<|COMPROMISE|>>>>>>>|Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control |<<<|COMPROMISE|>>>| Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control |<<<|>> >| Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?
Gun control | Gun Rights

Why don’t you/those gun nuts just compromise?....
Get the picture?

[wizzi01]

I just don't understand these anti 2a people on gun forums. I think you need to be on du.com miasuncle.

[Mia'sUncle]

I just don't understand these anti 2a people on gun forums. I think you need to be on du.com miasuncle.

I think you're right. Is that where they want more good people with weapons in pistol free zones to help when bad people murder people?

Because this is the site where people who open carry don't want hundreds of thousands of potential concealed carriers to be able to have their weapons in pistol free zones. To me, that is not helping gun rights.

I suppose facts and further extending the opportunity for a much larger group of weapon carrying individuals isn't that important to people who feel their way through life.

[Ricebrnr]

I think you're right. Is that where they want more good people with weapons in pistol free zones to help when bad people murder people?

Because this is the site where people who open carry don't want hundreds of thousands of potential concealed carriers to be able to have their weapons in pistol free zones. To me, that is not helping gun rights.

I suppose facts and further extending the opportunity for a much larger group of weapon carrying individuals isn't that important to people who feel their way through life.

I think the point you are missing is if you have something already, someone takes some of it from you, then offers you back a little of it in exchange for something else of yours, how would anyone consider that a win?

If rights are binary, you have them or not then restricting anything about them is already a "compromise". A compromise sold by anti gunners and gun owners that its for the "greater good". That argument has worked too often already, problem is then they move the goalpost. Its another compromise they want and another and another.

At some point you have to realize what the end game is. At some point you have to realize "compromise" is both sides win by both losing a little but this game has been stacked and only we lose rights.

I don't open carry myself, I don't have the fortitude for it but I'll be damned if I trade anymore gun rights away even ones I have no use for. Its a losing proposition in the long run...for us all.

[Mia'sUncle]

I think the point you are missing is if you have something already, someone takes some of it from you, then offers you back a little of it in exchange for something else of yours, how would anyone consider that a win?

If rights are binary, you have them or not then restricting anything about them is already a "compromise". A compromise sold by anti gunners and gun owners that its for the "greater good". That argument has worked too often already, problem is then they move the goalpost. Its another compromise they want and another and another.

At some point you have to realize what the end game is. At some point you have to realize "compromise" is both sides win by both losing a little but this game has been stacked and only we lose rights.

I don't open carry myself, I don't have the fortitude for it but I'll be damned if I trade anymore gun rights away even ones I have no use for. Its a losing proposition in the long run...for us all.

No one is taking. They are offering the opportunity to enlarge the number of folks in pfzs exponentially.

They are allowing you the opportunity to offer many many more people do what they cannot. I for works sake cannot oc. I can cc. I cannot OC in a university for class, I can cc.

It's the same thing just NO OC IN PFZ. You can OC in the woods. Anywhere else.

Fellas, this is GOOD. Wake up. Its a change. You are gaining thousands, Tens of thousands! mioc proponents need to change their method of carry in PFZ'S ONLY (like 200 of them). Thousands of others can carry there after this with no alterations.

My God why is it hard to see the benefit here?

[Jared1981]

The problem is that Mike Green originally said he was going to write a bill to simply swap OC for CCW in schools. Then when this bill came out it does much more and criminalizes OC in a bunch of places ONLY IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE.

The ethical question people should be asking MCRGO is why the avoid responsibility for this poorly written garbage of a bill. All criticism of the bill online on their FB page was met with vague answers claiming they would inquire into the reasons.

They claim that they had to see what the bill before they decided to support it; however, it was their own BOARD MEMBER who wrote the bill. So all the off lining on criticism wasn't done in honesty.

This is double speak. It's their bill, their board member/senator wrote the bill and went beyond the simple school swap that he originally told the press he would do.

This is critically important because they have board members of their organization who are in the senate and if I'm not mistaken, one of them is the senate majority leader. They have a severe conflict of interest in this matter and their decisions to support or push bills are clearly predicated on some of their board members political careers.

They are free to do this; however, I think it's unethical, dishonest, and it does a great disservice to those of us who support 2A issues. Also, this isn't the first time they have done this.

[bigt8261]

All criticism of the bill online on their FB page was met with vague answers claiming they would inquire into the reasons.

Assuming it wasn't summarily deleted and the commenter blocked.

[Jared1981]

Assuming it wasn't summarily deleted and the commenter blocked.

True, I was referring to when they were claiming they "didn't know" the details of the bill and that they were going to reserve support for the bill until they read the language.

[Smokepole]

The problem is that Mike Green originally said he was going to write a bill to simply swap OC for CCW in schools. Then when this bill came out it does much more and criminalizes OC in a bunch of places ONLY IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE.

The ethical question people should be asking MCRGO is why the avoid responsibility for this poorly written garbage of a bill. All criticism of the bill online on their FB page was met with vague answers claiming they would inquire into the reasons.

They claim that they had to see what the bill before they decided to support it; however, it was their own BOARD MEMBER who wrote the bill. So all the off lining on criticism wasn't done in honesty.

This is double speak. It's their bill, their board member/senator wrote the bill and went beyond the simple school swap that he originally told the press he would do.

This is critically important because they have board members of their organization who are in the senate and if I'm not mistaken, one of them is the senate majority leader. They have a severe conflict of interest in this matter and their decisions to support or push bills are clearly predicated on some of their board members political careers.

They are free to do this; however, I think it's unethical, dishonest, and it does a great disservice to those of us who support 2A issues. Also, this isn't the first time they have done this.

Well written, but "ethics", and MCRGO, are words in contrast.

[Jared1981]

Well written, but "ethics", and MCRGO, are words in contrast.

Thank you for the kind words. I hope they change their ways. I really value some of the work MCRGO has done, especially one of their lawyers, I have a lot of respect for him. So I don't want to be perceived as a mudslinger.

It just needed to said so people understand this. One of the executive members criticized MOC (which he has every right to do) for opposing the latest 425o carve out by Rick Jones in Senate Bill 53. Originally it seemed to be that they were just neutral and being practical; however, it was really because one of their bigwig members (Rick Jones) wanted the bill to cater to special interests.

So that was another example of putting special interests and their board members political careers ahead of 2A rights. Now something of similar nature is happening again here with SB 442. It's very disheartening and I've never seen anything like this in the 15 years I have been involved in gun politics around the country.

The fact remains that whenever the NRA or any other gun group pushes for a LEO exemption or a carve out, they are also getting something else in return for everyone else; however, we have gotten NOTHING for all these carve outs. If MCRGO put principle before board members political careers, we would have been able to end carve outs or start having enough influence to get something in return for all these carve outs and special back room deals.

[SADAacp]

No one is taking. They are offering the opportunity to enlarge the number of folks in pfzs exponentially.

They are allowing you the opportunity to offer many many more people do what they cannot. I for works sake cannot oc. I can cc. I cannot OC in a university for class, I can cc.

It's the same thing just NO OC IN PFZ. You can OC in the woods. Anywhere else.

Fellas, this is GOOD. Wake up. Its a change. You are gaining thousands, Tens of thousands! mioc proponents need to change their method of carry in PFZ'S ONLY (like 200 of them). Thousands of others can carry there after this with no alterations.

My God why is it hard to see the benefit here?

You are aware the majority of the venues enumerated in section 5o are private property to include many schools, arenas/stadiums, and hospitals? As it stands currently, very few of the venues are posted. If by chance this bill goes through, you can count on two things, 1) Most of the venues will be posted where even the exemption will not help, and 2) There will never be a repeal of the PFZ's (28.425o).

[Mia'sUncle]

You are aware the majority of the venues enumerated in section 5o are private property to include many schools, arenas/stadiums, and hospitals? As it stands currently, very few of the venues are posted. If by chance this bill goes through, you can count on two things, 1) Most of the venues will be posted where even the exemption will not help, and 2) There will never be a repeal of the PFZ's (28.425o).

Okay. If there is a better alternative I want it. Private property can post. Okay. Public, no. That's true right now. We can put pressure on private owners. Easy enough.

There is no way "they are taking from us" is a valid argument. They are giving us thousands more armed good guys in exchange for not scaring schools. I'll take it. Huge win. The possibility for good press and outcomes in bad situations greatly increases.

What's a valid solution to the problem at hand? If it's repeal of pfz in time this will accomplish that.they'll be useless anyway. The special class that carries in pfz is eliminated.

What more?

[Mia'sUncle]

The problem is that Mike Green originally said he was going to write a bill to simply swap OC for CCW in schools. Then when this bill came out it does much more and criminalizes OC in a bunch of places ONLY IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE.

The ethical question people should be asking MCRGO is why the avoid responsibility for this poorly written garbage of a bill. All criticism of the bill online on their FB page was met with vague answers claiming they would inquire into the reasons.

They claim that they had to see what the bill before they decided to support it; however, it was their own BOARD MEMBER who wrote the bill. So all the off lining on criticism wasn't done in honesty.

This is double speak. It's their bill, their board member/senator wrote the bill and went beyond the simple school swap that he originally told the press he would do.

This is critically important because they have board members of their organization who are in the senate and if I'm not mistaken, one of them is the senate majority leader. They have a severe conflict of interest in this matter and their decisions to support or push bills are clearly predicated on some of their board members political careers.

They are free to do this; however, I think it's unethical, dishonest, and it does a great disservice to those of us who support 2A issues. Also, this isn't the first time they have done this.

Why not think that this is the best option for getting it passed?

Incremental increases aren't bad. Maybe they're using their knowledge of the process to give as much as possible?

Sometimes perfect isn't an option and the more thoughtful among us are willing to move forward for the sake of the better.

Boisterous ocres are hated. This bill gives those who despise opportunity to act as they would like. Not good. However ocres simply need to change their methodology and in exchange we get thousands and thousands of open doors.

Fellas quit being so negative this is a WIN. The special pfz will be eliminated making pfz useless. We've seen Texas win back oc. Let people defend themselves and give our legislators a break. It's going to be better.

[Jared1981]

Why not think that this is the best option for getting it passed?

Incremental increases aren't bad. Maybe they're using their knowledge of the process to give as much as possible?

Sometimes perfect isn't an option and the more thoughtful among us are willing to move forward for the sake of the better.

Boisterous ocres are hated. This bill gives those who despise opportunity to act as they would like. Not good. However ocres simply need to change their methodology and in exchange we get thousands and thousands of open doors.

Fellas quit being so negative this is a WIN. The special pfz will be eliminated making pfz useless. We've seen Texas win back oc. Let people defend themselves and give our legislators a break. It's going to be better.

It's not a "win". The incremental approach hasn't been working in Michigan at all. The facts speak for themselves and I already answered you in the other thread...

You example for Texas isn't valid, Texas fixed it for everyone. Not just residents of Texas by screwing over every non-resident; which violates equal protection and is morally reprehensible.

Mike Green and MCRGO were made aware of how they were screwing non-residents but they didn't seem to care. It's selfish.

[Mia'sUncle]

It's not a "win". The incremental approach hasn't been working in Michigan at all. The facts speak for themselves and I already answered you in the other thread...

You example for Texas isn't valid, Texas fixed it for everyone. Not just residents of Texas by screwing over every non-resident; which violates equal protection and is morally reprehensible.

Mike Green and MCRGO were made aware of how they were screwing non-residents but they didn't seem to care. It's selfish.

Dude, we didn't, we did but with Leo approval, we do because we qualify, we can't carry in PFZ'S accept for some old overlooked thing, we now have all that and PFZ's essentially go bye bye.

Incremental approach is working.

Texas shows it can be fixed. Cheer up eor. No one is coming for your cherios tomorrow morning.

[Jared1981]

Dude, we didn't, we did but with Leo approval, we do because we qualify, we can't carry in PFZ'S accept for some old overlooked thing, we now have all that and PFZ's essentially go bye bye.

This entire line doesn't make any sense. What is "Leo approval"? what do "we qualify" on? And what's the "overlooked thing"?.



Incremental approach is working.

What evidence do you have to support this? in 2008, Michigan had 2 exemption in 4250, now there are over 10. Not one zone has been repealed since I moved here.



Texas shows it can be fixed.

Yes, Texas fixed it by not criminalizing anything that wasn't already illegal. And they also didn't screw over non-residents. Texas is extending the same rights to you from Michigan. This bill does nothing to extend any "rights" to people from Texas.


Cheer up eor. No one is coming for your cherios tomorrow morning.

Not sure what "ero" is. As far as my "cherios", not sure what that is. If you are referring to 425o, personally, it's already irrelevant to me as I have carried in all those places concealed anyway. I just prefer that the right is respected for everyone, and that it's not done by creating new crimes and shutting out millions of other gun owners in the process.

[Mia'sUncle]

The first run on sentence refers to concealed carry.

Whatever, you don't have to be convinced but you didn't convince me of anything other than there's some issue you have with your self made divisions.

I don't know what to tell you. We've received more and it's been made easier to carry. This is another step, sort of, in the right direction. The problem is easily fixed. Conceal it. Right now it's a crime for me. What's the difference? I'm glad you asked. The difference is a very small number of people in pfz armed to a very large number.

Win.

[Jared1981]

The first run on sentence refers to concealed carry.

Got it. Thanks



Whatever, you don't have to be convinced but you didn't convince me of anything other than there's some issue you have with your self made divisions.

Because you are ignorant of your own examples, you don't know what Texas did and how it didn't screw anybody.

What "self made divisions"? It guts reciprocity. That's not good.



I don't know what to tell you.

Because you aren't educated in the nuances of the bill and your comparisons are not relevant to any legal citations.



We've received more and it's been made easier to carry.

Please explain this, what places are no longer off limits that once were? Again, facts are not on your side.


This is another step, sort of, in the right direction. The problem is easily fixed. Conceal it.

Easily fixed for you, not for everyone else. Isn't this the same complaint when retired cops say everything is "fixed" for them because they have LEOSA. It sounds more like a bunch of have nots claiming extra rights is good for them even if it's worded to screw everyone else.


Right now it's a crime for me.


And it still will when you are trespassed for carrying in places that will prohibit it.

[DEVIL DOG]

Is there a chance of some other Reps tweeking this bill with amendments?

[Jared1981]

Is there a chance of some other Reps tweeking this bill with amendments?

I doubt it. MCRGO board member/ bill sponsor Mike Green was made aware of this. He didn't care, and it was the easiest fix.

That's probably why the NRA will help sink the bill. The NRA has never endorsed a bill that benefits residents of one state while at the same time shutting out residents of the other 49.

The NRA realizes that a lot of people travel for work and they put an emphasis on making carry assessible for as many people as possible.

So unfortunately, the MCRGO written bill probably won't change at all for the better so maybe gun groups that aren't primarily concerned with political careers of their board members can try to fix the issue when Snyder, Green, and Jones are term limited out.

[fozzy71]

I doubt it. MCRGO board member/ bill sponsor Mike Green was made aware of this. He didn't care, and it was the easiest fix.

That's probably why the NRA will help sink the bill. The NRA has never endorsed a bill that benefits residents of one state while at the same time shutting out residents of the other 49.

The NRA realizes that a lot of people travel for work and they put an emphasis on making carry assessible for as many people as possible.

So unfortunately, the MCRGO written bill probably won't change at all for the better so maybe gun groups that aren't primarily concerned with political careers of their board members can try to fix the issue when Snyder, Green, and Jones are term limited out.

ty for speaking common sense itt and all the other 442 threads

[luckless]

Is there a chance of some other Reps tweeking this bill with amendments?

Yes, there is a good chance of it. However, history would suggest that those tweeks will make the bill worse.

[bigt8261]

Is there a chance of some other Reps tweeking this bill with amendments?

Very unlikely. Reps and Senators very rarely alter each other's bills without the consent of the sponsor. If the sponsor is on board, then the sponsor is usually the one to offer the change.

[luckless]

Met with my rep today and shared my views with him on SB 442 and other legislation dealing with carve-outs.

[bigt8261]

Met with my rep today and shared my views with him on SB 442 and other legislation dealing with carve-outs.

Which rep and how did it go?

[luckless]

Which rep and how did it go?
Lee Chatfield. Went pretty well. Spent over an hour with him. He is in a conundrum between passing legislation that will help some as opposed to not being able to get movement on anything big. I suggested that he concentrate legislation that would benefit all, a little, rather than help a few a lot. He agrees that the special classes have a tendency to shave off proponents of gun rights. He doesn't think we can eliminate registration but hopes we can make it optional (his bill).

Took the opportunity to explain some of the past history and current problems with MCRGO, too. He is easy to get in touch with. Also pointed out the grass roots frustration of the folks working hard for change, constantly being left out of the legislation the benefits those that are either opposed or indifferent to gun rights. Spoke quite a bit about exempting leos from purchase permits and the travesty that was SB 34-35.

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Judiciary



DATE: Tuesday, October 13, 2015



TIME: 3:00 p.m.



PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building

125 W. Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48933



PHONE: Corey Woodby (517) 373-1721

Committee Clerk





AGENDA



SB 442 Sen. Green Weapons; other; open-carry of firearms in certain areas; prohibit but allow concealed carry in those areas.



SB 551 Sen. Schuitmaker Probate; wills and estates; designation of a funeral representative to make disposition arrangements for decedent; provide for.

[G36 Shooter]

I will be there to oppose this. Make this a call to action from all gun owners. Now is the time for action! This bill needs to die in committee!

[fozzy71]

mcrgo posted on their feed that john lott will be there speaking for this bill. :coocoo:

[langenc]

Man o man.

We cant even begin to agree among ourselves.

Then we get the lawyers in the legislature that rode to that seat cause they are lawyers, writing laws that after reading couple pages of comments many don't know what to believe?? What the is going on??

Would like to discuss w/ my elected persons but I couldn't even talk about this without being thought a fool, after readin 3 or 4 pages of posts,, yuk.

[G36 Shooter]

Scroll up to "General Business" forum and read the MGO statement re: SB442

[bigt8261]

Why SB 442 is a dangerous sloppy mess.

http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/10/Case-Against-SB442-A-Dangerous-Sloppy-Mess

[buck2552jr]

I know many are opposed to the bill here but being a college student, it would give me the ability to carry on college campuses. As of now, MI prohibits carry on/in college campuses. There are many advantages to the bill and if someone will please highlight the true concerns for the bill that would be appreciated. Just to be clear, I'm not 100% in favor of this bill but I do think there are some advantages to both arguments.

[Ricebrnr]

I know many are opposed to the bill here but being a college student, it would give me the ability to carry on college campuses. As of now, MI prohibits carry on/in college campuses. There are many advantages to the bill and if someone will please highlight the true concerns for the bill that would be appreciated. Just to be clear, I'm not 100% in favor of this bill but I do think there are some advantages to both arguments.

Your answers here:

http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/10/SB-442-SB-561-Amendment-Analysis-Still-A-Mess

[fozzy71]

I know many are opposed to the bill here but being a college student, it would give me the ability to carry on college campuses. As of now, MI prohibits carry on/in college campuses. There are many advantages to the bill and if someone will please highlight the true concerns for the bill that would be appreciated. Just to be clear, I'm not 100% in favor of this bill but I do think there are some advantages to both arguments.

This is not the solution to the problem. The only proper solution is a repeal of 28.425o or constitutional carry, not adding more accompanying laws and editing 425o to make penalties for violations more severe.

[jmonarch]

This is not the solution to the problem. The only proper solution is a repeal of 28.425o or constitutional carry, not adding more accompanying laws and editing 425o to make penalties for violations more severe.

+100

[Leader]

I know many are opposed to the bill here but being a college student, it would give me the ability to carry on college campuses. As of now, MI prohibits carry on/in college campuses. There are many advantages to the bill and if someone will please highlight the true concerns for the bill that would be appreciated. Just to be clear, I'm not 100% in favor of this bill but I do think there are some advantages to both arguments.

Actually MI law doesn't prohibit carry open or concealed on/in college campuses.
It only prohibits concealed carry with a CPL in dorms and classrooms.
The colleges themselves have rules, that are NOT state law, that prohibit possession by students & staff.
If this law passes, it will in no way change those rules.

[bigt8261]

Actually MI law doesn't prohibit carry open or concealed on/in college campuses.
It only prohibits concealed carry with a CPL in dorms and classrooms.
The colleges themselves have rules, that are NOT state law, that prohibit possession by students & staff.
If this law passes, it will in no way change those rules.

^ That.

Your best bet to carry on campus is Wade v. UofM. Once universities are declared preempted, then they will no longer be able to prohibit students as well as visitors. SB 442 and 561 will not change the status quo for students.

[luckless]

Is wade v uofm in progress or settled? I am unfamiliar with it.

[bigt8261]

The case is only in the beginning stages. Whatever the outcome is at the lower level, it will likely be appealed. Do not expect a result any time soon.

[Ricebrnr]

Is wade v uofm in progress or settled? I am unfamiliar with it.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/09/22/university-michigan-open-carry-lawsuit/72619910/

[dmd7765]

Is wade v uofm in progress or settled? I am unfamiliar with it.

No lower court decision expected until next fall, IIRC

[dmd7765]

Great article by Tom Lambert
https://mic4l.com/news/michigan-senators-seek-trade-away-open-carry-rights

[partdeux]

The colleges themselves have rules, that are NOT state law, that prohibit possession by students & staff.
If this law passes, it will in no way change those rules.

then there's the whole private vs public vs the big three universities issue.

[G36 Shooter]

This is not the solution to the problem. The only proper solution is a repeal of 28.425o or constitutional carry, not adding more accompanying laws and editing 425o to make penalties for violations more severe.

Exactly! "pro gun" Republican Senators bowing to the wishes of a RINO Governor.

[G36 Shooter]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/09/22/university-michigan-open-carry-lawsuit/72619910/

Hey, that's my 'pretty gun'

[buck2552jr]

Ok I have read that article you have posted. At first, I was somewhat for 442 alone as it stood. However, 561 has really turned my head in the other direction. Especially the penalties. That is insane. SB 561 punishes OC with a 90-93 day misdemeanor, $1,000-2,000 fine, and an 8 year CPL disqualification for the first offense. Even in the parking lot or for even the possibility of printing?
That is insane.

Tried getting ahold of our representatives. For working for the public, they sure do not like to respond to emails, letters, phone calls, or personal meeting requests....

[DEVIL DOG]

Snyder is on Ch.4, Flashpoint. Said he will veto 442 if it won't allow schools to opt out.

[fozzy71]

let's hope they don't add that opt out clause so this garbage gets veto'd.

[Super Trucker]

let's hope they don't add that opt out clause so this garbage gets veto'd.

I hope you're right.
I have a bad feeling this was the plan to "close the open carry loophole" right from the start.

[partdeux]

I hope you're right.
I have a bad feeling this was the plan to "close the open carry loophole" right from the start.

Well duh, it was in there in the early drafts. I've lost track if it's in or out right now.

[tedalton]

Not only that, but the governor wants to gut preemption too.

[Kaeto]

Figures. He needs to start wearing a red armband with a white circle and black swastika on it he's so anti freedom.

[JFB]

Pushed, the ban of open carry in the "weapon free zones" should be ruled unconstitutional.

[fozzy71]

NY Times article:

Rift Emerges Among Gun Owners Over Concealing Weapons in Schools (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/gun-owners-concealed-carry-schools.html)


“This is a very unusual bill in that it’s being attacked by the usual suspects — all the Bloomberg groups — and it’s also being attacked by some of the open-carry groups,” said Steve Dulan, a board member for the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, which supports the bills. “We expect all the folks in the matching T-shirts to be against it. We didn’t necessarily expect some of the guys wearing guns to be against it.”

I always assumed he was smarter than this.......

[Leader]

. Like many states, Michigan bans concealed guns at schools, libraries, sports arenas and other places. But the judge in the Clio case found that residents can take handguns into those spaces provided they carry them openly and have concealed pistol licenses.

I don't think this writer knows very much about MI gun laws and his editors don't either.

[luckless]

I don't think this writer knows very much about MI gun laws and his editors don't either.

That gives him something in common with some of our "pro gun" legislators.

[partdeux]

I don't think this writer knows very much about MI gun laws and his editors don't either.

For a NYT article, it was remarkably accurate.

MI firearm laws are screwy... when even prosecutors don't know understand the laws. Thanks to Green's well researched proposed legislation, they could get even screwier.

[oil dripper]

Snyder to veto ...

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/11/snyder_vows_to_veto_bill_allow.html

[Smokepole]

Snyder to veto ...

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/11/snyder_vows_to_veto_bill_allow.html

Yep!
...That's our RINO Governor in action.


"I vetoed it once. I'd veto it again," said Snyder, referencing similar legislation he rejected in 2012.

[Leader]

Yep!
...That's our RINO Governor in action.

Yep...

And once again, I am happy he is going to veto it.

I just disagree with his reasons.

[Roundballer]

Yep...

And once again, I am happy he is going to veto it.

I just disagree with his reasons.

Agreed!

We don't want it because it is a piece of crap.

He will veto because it is not crappy enough (schools can't opt out)

[fozzy71]

Snyder to veto ...

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2015/11/snyder_vows_to_veto_bill_allow.html

Comments from Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners Facebook post about this:

Another version of the bill, drafted by the NRA and having NRA support is in the works and may address some of Snyder's concerns about the current language.

....

The substitute would not allow schools to make their own rules. It would give them more flexibility.

[BOSS302]

The schools have and always will be a point of contention. How about trying to remove the other PFZs while the government is slightly pro-gun.

[luckless]

Comments from Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners Facebook post about this:

Another version of the bill, drafted by the NRA and having NRA support is in the works and may address some of Snyder's concerns about the current language.

....

The substitute would not allow schools to make their own rules. It would give them more flexibility.

After the screwing those two orgs handed us in January, thanks but no thanks!

[fozzy71]

After the screwing those two orgs handed us in January, thanks but no thanks!

agreed, i def wasnt agreeing with what I posted in italics, just putting it out there since I know many of you don't follow FB let alone MCRGO's page.

[luckless]

agreed, i def wasnt agreeing with what I posted in italics, just putting it out there since I know many of you don't follow FB let alone MCRGO's page.

Thank you. I'm one of those people not on Facebook..

[G36 Shooter]

Agreed!

We don't want it because it is a piece of crap.

He will veto because it is not crappy enough (schools can't opt out)
I'm with ya.

[G36 Shooter]

Well let's see, Snyder won't sign SB442 ( POS bill, my thoughts) yet another "carve out" sits on his desk for signature.

[Leader]

Well let's see, Snyder won't sign SB442 ( POS bill, my thoughts) yet another "carve out" sits on his desk for signature.

Oh.... It's ok if "those people" carry guns in schools & day care centers & wherever.
We just don't want those dangerous mentally ill private citizens doing it.

[rs1]

And statistically speaking armed people in pfzs will make a difference if there is a murderer and they are there.

IMO, if there is a murderer at a PFZ, and he eyeballs someone carrying openly, he is apt to reconsider, and revert to "wishful murder" mode.

While this is just my opinion, I do have two data points to back it up. Background: I am a disabled senior. I do not have a CPL, because I cannot afford the (to me monumental) nickel-and-diming required to leap through the hoops. So, I only carry at home, and on my own land. I carry concealed, or openly, depending on the weather, my clothing, and my whim du jour.

On two occasions, I was protected from "the unthinkable" because those who had intent to do me harm reconsidered when they saw a holstered 1911 hanging from my belt.

Their reconsideration was obvious; the instant they were close enough to see the weapon, their entire demeanor changed, and they immediately beat a hasty retreat.

OTOH, there was also time that a concealed (behind a partially opened front door) weapon gave me the confidence that the "wishful perp" on the other side was not going to get the upper hand. He left, and when I reported this to the police the next day (this event having happened at about three in the morning), they scolded me for not having immediately reported it, because they could have had a deputy out right away and arrested him.

Aside: I really hate "rural crime" -- we moved out to "the pickers" in part because of being fed up with the crime in the urban area, only to end up on the receiving end of it more times than I can recall. And that's not to mention the stuff that didn't affect us personally, such as the time a car full of illegals drove past our house, turned at the next crossroads, stopped, got out of the car, and proceeded to fire a bunch of rounds into one of the passengers before speeding off. (He managed to crawl up to someone's house, and ended up surviving. His "roommates" (or relatives -- I can't remember) ended up arrested and prosecuted.)

I am just optimistic enough to hope that the recently posted bill to give MI a form of Constitutional Carry might pass in this election year.

I am just realistic enough to avoid getting my hopes up.