It's only going on 17 years sheesh! Be patient!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roundballer
Printable View
It's only going on 17 years sheesh! Be patient!Quote:
Originally Posted by Roundballer
Below is the Communication that We the Board sent:
Dear Representative,
On November 8, 2017, the Michigan Senate approved Senate Bill 584 by a vote of 25 to 12. As I am sure you are aware, this bill creates an exemption for individuals who possess a concealed pistol license (CPL) which would allow those who complete an additional eight hours of training to carry a concealed pistol in areas designated as pistol free zones (PFZ). While the Board and members of Michigan Gun Owners applauds the legislature’s decision introduce a bill which would allow CPL holders to carry concealed pistols in PFZ’s, we vehemently oppose the bill as a whole.
SB 584 as passed by the senate would require CPL holders to complete eight hours of training, in addition to the training required to obtain a CPL, before being allowed to carry a concealed pistol in areas identified under Sec. 5o. CPL holders would then be required to ask for permission from the county clerk to obtain the exemption which would allow them to carry a concealed firearm in those areas. Our organization has yet to hear an explanation from any senator or representative as to how this proposal makes communities safer. Instead, our legislators are voting in favor of a bill which requires CPL holders, who are statistically one of the most law-abiding groups of people in the state, to jump through more hoops in order to exercise our Constitutional rights. Our organization has and will continue to encourage gun owners to take advantage of training opportunities, but we believe mandatory training to carry in certain areas does nothing to provide for our safety. We believe that an arbitrary law or rule does nothing to stop violent criminals from entering those areas with their own firearms. Laws only regulate the law-abiding and will not affect a criminal’s actions.
Additionally, Michigan Gun Owners finds it abhorrent that the legislature is willing to trade one right for another. These bills would eliminate the right of CPL holders to openly carry their firearms in the areas identified in Sec. 5o. There is no compelling or factual argument regarding public safety that can be made in favor of eliminating open carry. Rather, this bill favors public perception over a gun owners’ right to choose the manner in which they can comfortably carry their firearm. Many gun owners openly carry their firearm due to convenience, disability which prevents from safely concealing, or comfort. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to apply this unnecessary provision to only a handful of locations. If it is safe to carry openly carry a firearm almost everywhere else in the state, there is nothing that would make it inherently unsafe in a small number of PFZ’s. It is troublesome to think that rights should only be exercised when done in a manner in which the majority agrees upon. Instead, the manner in which a lawful gun owner carries his or her weapon should be of no concern to the government as it is not a public safety issue at all.
Finally, we support SB 586 and the revisions which more clearly define a local unit of government. In passing this bill, the legislature creates a stronger footing in preemption cases and will nearly eliminate the patchwork of administrative regulations around the state. While we believe that school districts are already local units of government and subject to preemption as defined in Capitol Area District Library v. Michigan Open Carry, we appreciate the legislative attempt to put this argument to rest.
Michigan Gun Owners respectfully requests your opposition to SB 584 and your support of SB 586. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have regarding our position on these matters. We look forward to working with you on a solution that protects the rights of all lawful gun owners while maintaining a safe environment for all.
Michigan Gun Owners, Board of Directors
A Special Thank You to Brent Bott, MGO Member, Active Duty U.S. Air Force, For again taking the Time to Draft this Statement for us. He Never Lets us down when We call on Colonel Bott!!.....Thanks Again, Brent.
Rochelle's argument is juvenile and stale.
The "OK Corral" statement she makes is a lie. Simply look at every other state that allows similar laws and you will find that her statement holds no water.
I get tired of people opposing things here in Michigan that have been legal in other states for years, on the grounds that it will lead to death and disorder. Yet in the other states where it has been legal, it has never been a problem.
If something is legal in Nebraska and nobody has died from it, then it will be fine here in Michigan as well.
People like Rochelle Riley really make me want to repeal the first amendment.
We just need 'common sense IT safety'. Ban high speed printing presses. Limit editorials to 10 characters maximum. Prohibit all media not available at the time the Constitution was drafted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeep olllllo
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb32
Mike, Is it possible to use the basis of this message with changes for other organizations?? Would like our local gun club to send this to our Rep.
Bob T.
SHR&GC Webmaster
:yeahthat:Quote:
Originally Posted by 10x25mm
So true. Well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by 10x25mm
I think I, and plenty of others, would agree, that perhaps, the worst part about this legislation, is entirely ignored; the issue with a messy carve out from preemption for universities, and the factually incorrect language used to do it. This is the worst part because it's wide ranging, guts the entire concept of "Field Pre-Emption", creates a patchwork of different laws across the entire state, and ensures YEARS of lawsuits to get the horribly messy language ironed out. And this issue wasn't even mentioned in the letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb32
As far as the pre-emption bill, I'm not so sure that's a positive either. It's been pointed out a couple times before, that as you make that legislation more and more specific, noting exactly who is covered, it will continue to lend more and more support to the side contending that "field pre-emption" was not the intent, and if they wanted a certain segment pre-empted, they'd have listed it. Take for example, this legislation specifically mentioning primary, secondary schools, and community college districts, yet it does not mention universities. It's not a very difficult argument to make, that having listed the order of schooling all the way from primary, up to community college, if they intended to also pre-empt universities, they would have said so. Combine that with the bill this is being partnered with, specifically giving a university carve out, and you end up with the theory of "Field Pre-Emption", going away. All it takes is one case to take the whole thing down.
The proper way to handle the pre-emption bill would have just been the simple words "The state is supreme and has field pre-emption on all matters of firearms regulation and law". Adding more and more entities, becoming more and more focused, isn't going to help in the long run.
Or maybe they are just stupid. They are still looking for “the open carry law”Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader
LOOPHOLE…!!! It's the open carry LOOPHOLE!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981
Sheesh…I'll bet you don't even realize that you can get a pit-bull attachment for your AR-15 either!!