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 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 122
  1. #41
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by DP425 View Post
    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.
    It is even worse than you are reading. You must understand that the State Constitution DOES NOT grant "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." Any authority to enact an ordinance is granted in MCL, not the Constitution, and not all Univercities have it and none of the Community Colleges do.

    This just going to cause MORE pissing contests in court, and create a terrible patchwork of laws.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  2. #42
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    5,892
    Emailed Meekhof- though not in his district, scolded him for trying to pass of this abortion as a gun-rights bill. Then emailed my democrat senator and clearly explained why I support her voting against this bill, and emphasizing the need to enforce preemtion, and maintain uniformity throughout the state; not permitting a variety of locations, with unmarked boundaries, to make their own laws, so otherwise innocent people can get caught up in the system.

  3. #43
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Lansing
    Posts
    5,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    It is even worse than you are reading. You must understand that the State Constitution DOES NOT grant "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." Any authority to enact an ordinance is granted in MCL, not the Constitution, and not all Univercities have it and none of the Community Colleges do.

    This just going to cause MORE pissing contests in court, and create a terrible patchwork of laws.
    Oh lord. That is worse. Granted, courts could potentially find in our favor and say that section is erroneous and thus must be disregarded... But it could also go the other way. And how much time, money, and energy will be spent figuring that out in the mean time? And how many poor, unsuspecting individuals will get caught up in the system during the years it takes for the courts to iron out the mess?

    I don't know- maybe it isn't WORSE, as it does leave a light at the end of the tunnel, that such clause may be deemed invalid... but there is absolutely no reason to induce such a mess in the first place.

    Just thinking through the options- could this possibly be a tactic to trick those on the fence, to coming over and passing the bill, expecting the courts to declare that the clause is meaningless... thus, allowing a bill to pass, that would not have passed otherwise? That's a hell of a gamble if it is the intent.

    But with the way legislation goes in this state, I'm more inclined to believe that this is a genuine effort to appease the skeptics with a carve out in pre-emption.

  4. #44
    MGO Member luckless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    5,102
    Looks like we just got screwed in the Senate. Time to bring the fight to the House.

  5. #45
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    2,231
    If we're lucky, Snyder will veto it again.

  6. #46
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    3,795
    Quote Originally Posted by DeSchaine View Post
    If we're lucky, Snyder will veto it again.
    From MCRGO facebook:
    Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
    Snyder has made comments in the past that he will only sign the legislation if school districts can opt out. The current bills don't allow for them to opt out. That would be a very difficult compromise. While it would still allow for carry in more places, it goes against the spirit of preemption and leaves schools vulnerable who don't have a physical means to prevent access to an armed criminal.

  7. #47
    MGO Member LivinTheDream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Rapid River
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoTom View Post
    As drafted in S1:



    That will screw-over LEO's that have CPL's…especially reserve/auxiliary officers.
    That will also screw-over anyone that accidentally allows their firearm to be seen.
    Does "printing" count? If not, how "thick" or "opaque" must the fabric be?

    Not good...
    The reserve/auxiliary officers shouldn’t be a special ‘class’ anyways.
    I thought the whole printing issue was clarified with the definition of brandishing...

  8. #48
    MGO Board of Directors

    President PhotoTom's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wayne Co. MI
    Posts
    33,706
    Quote Originally Posted by LivinTheDream View Post
    The reserve/auxiliary officers shouldn’t be a special ‘class’ anyways.
    Reserve/Auxiliary officers carry under the veil of their CPL since they are not MCOLES certified. I'm talking ON DUTY here…ALL reserves/auxiliary officers that carry firearms have CPL's…so they would be prohibited from entering an area on the list UNLESS they somehow concealed their openly carried firearm. Many MCOLES certified officers ALSO have CPL's…same would apply to them, too.

    While a LEO would probably never be "charged" with illegal open carry in these places (especially if doing so "on duty"), it DOES open the door to civil actions claiming that they should not have been in there since they were breaking the law by doing so (i.e., trying to find "something" to "get back" at an officer for that somehow "wronged" a person or a family member of someone)...

    Quote Originally Posted by LivinTheDream View Post
    I thought the whole printing issue was clarified with the definition of brandishing...
    This bill would make "intentional open carry" illegal in these places. So…what if there is a see-through veil covering what is quite obviously a holstered pistol (you can literarily see it, even though it is "covered)…is that intentional open carry? Is that concealed carry? Just how "concealed" must "concealed carry" be in order for it to NOT be deemed "intentional open carry"?
    Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will Rogers
    DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.

  9. #49
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by luckless View Post
    Looks like we just got screwed in the Senate. Time to bring the fight to the House.
    Yes, we have been. And I don't think it was legal either:

    § 26 Bills; printing, possession, reading, vote on passage.
    Sec. 26. No bill shall be passed or become a law at any regular session of the legislature until it has been
    printed or reproduced and in the possession of each house for at least five days. Every bill shall be read three
    times in each house before the final passage thereof. No bill shall become a law without the concurrence of a
    majority of the members elected to and serving in each house. On the final passage of bills, the votes and
    names of the members voting thereon shall be entered in the journal.
    These bills were reported out of committee, with substitute language from the introduction, and passed the same day!

    Where was the time for public input on the changed legislation?


    Michigan Constitution.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  10. #50
    MGO Member LivinTheDream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Rapid River
    Posts
    263
    Thanks for clarifying Tom!

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... 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