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

KROGER

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 122
  1. #31
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonJ View Post
    A good question... probably just "more restraint". I can't imagine what would be taught that would make any difference.

    I like the idea of these bills, except for the part where it makes open carry a criminal offense, and strengthens a college/university's ability to restrict. Those are no good. Otherwise, I see it as a stepping stone. If we had this, where CPL holders could carry into current PFZ's, and after a few years of no incidents, where nothing happens.. we can point and say "See? Concealed carriers aren't the problem." For whatever that's worth. And it may open the door to more firearms freedoms.
    We've been open carrying onto those places for a long time. Using your logic, Meekhof would be pointing to all of the incidents when nothing happened and pushing the bill we actually want.

  2. #32
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    Quote Originally Posted by ChaneyD View Post
    Trying to wrap my head around this extra training requirement. What would be taught that we don't already know and have been trained for?
    The training is more about filling the coffers of the NRA and MCRGO than anything else.

  3. #33
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by luckless View Post
    We've been open carrying onto those places for a long time. Using your logic, Meekhof would be pointing to all of the incidents when nothing happened and pushing the bill we actually want.
    A good point... I don't seem much of that in my area, but I'm sure State-wide it happens all the time every day. But then again, we are asking typically liberal individuals to use logic to reassess a perceived problem and drop a major component of their party line... that ain't gonna happen.

  4. #34
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    11,437
    Additional training is to try and get it signed by the Gov. that doesn't want any guns in any PFZ's. Same reason open carry get's thrown under the bus.

  5. #35
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Coloma, Mi.
    Posts
    235
    Seams to me there is no respect for the CPL we already have , ok the 8 hr class would be ok but the range time I’m not for that and 94 rounds , I’d have to reload 14 times and that redicklous , I think that was put in as a deturant.
    I think our existing CPLs should be enough and the fact that with we have showed that we are responsible CPL owners already.

  6. #36
    MGO Member Divegeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Dundee
    Posts
    2,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Donut View Post
    Seams to me there is no respect for the CPL we already have , ok the 8 hr class would be ok but the range time I’m not for that and 94 rounds , I’d have to reload 14 times and that redicklous , I think that was put in as a deturant.
    I think our existing CPLs should be enough and the fact that with we have showed that we are responsible CPL owners already.
    94 rounds is a deterrent? Don't take a real training class then. MDFI and Sentinel Concepts usually require 500+ rounds. Whatever class they decide on will be a joke compared to the classes I take for fun.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  7. #37
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Coloma, Mi.
    Posts
    235
    I agree, but my wrist would be very sore after 94 rounds and at my age I’m not planning on taking more classes unless I have to.
    There should be some respect for the CPL’s we already have, we’ve already shown we responsible LPL carriers.

  8. #38
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Clarkston
    Posts
    5,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Donut View Post
    Seams to me there is no respect for the CPL we already have , ok the 8 hr class would be ok but the range time I’m not for that and 94 rounds , I’d have to reload 14 times and that redicklous , I think that was put in as a deturant.
    I think our existing CPLs should be enough and the fact that with we have showed that we are responsible CPL owners already.
    How many rounds did you shoot during your CPL class? Im gonna guess it was 50 and overall range time didnt meet the state requirements.

  9. #39
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Lincoln Park
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Donut View Post
    I agree, but my wrist would be very sore after 94 rounds and at my age I’m not planning on taking more classes unless I have to.
    There should be some respect for the CPL’s we already have, we’ve already shown we responsible LPL carriers.
    It would depend on the time frame. 94 rounds in 30 minutes wound be tasking for some. 94 rounds (appox. 10 mags. or one every 6 minutes) in 60 minutes should be doable for most.

  10. #40
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Divegeek View Post
    And there is a section that kills any chance of getting to carry on university campuses: "(10) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION PROHIBITS A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAS THE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 TO ENACT AND ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE POSSESSION, CARRYING, USE, OR TRANSPORTATION OF A PISTOL FROM ENACTING OR ENFORCING SUCH AN ORDINANCE."
    This is far bigger concern for me than anything else.

    I don't really want to "throw open carry under the bus", but without this prohibition, the bill would strength gun rights on school grounds. By making a specific preemption carve-out to permit primary and secondary schools to regulate STUDENT possession of firearms (which, are highly unlikely to have a CPL anyway, being the only class of students over 21, are likely severely handicap enough that they don't have gun rights anyway), that gives the clear implication that all other schools and classes of people at schools, cannot be subjected to additional regulations.

    But then inserting the line you quoted... Well, now you just severely restricted gun rights on campus. That means not just carry, but people passing through. Now, MSU could literally, arrest people for driving through campus while carrying under a CPL. Or, they could choose to make it a crime to have a firearm on campus at all; just having a long gun properly stored for transport, in your truck could get you arrest. This section is absolutely ludicrous. Without it, I view this bill as a win; sure, it would cost a little extra, but preemption would be further solidified and carry rights essentially, expanded. But with it, not only is it a massive loss of rights, but it turns the state into a patchwork of differing laws.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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