I just want to be clear here that I am not the Josh in question. That was someone else.
I am also just making inferences. I haven't heard this first-hand.
I just try to find outcomes that pass occam's razor.
I just want to be clear here that I am not the Josh in question. That was someone else.
I am also just making inferences. I haven't heard this first-hand.
I just try to find outcomes that pass occam's razor.
Mistakes were made. Josh's action was NOT high on the list of mistakes. He did NOT go rogue, rather, he acted on what he believed to be MGO's official position.
What MGO lacks is a proper process for taking "official" stance on ANY bills. In the legislative committee forum (which was inactive for several months until just recently), we have a listing of all current FIREARMS related bills. We are in the process of formulating recommendations for MGO's stance on each for the BoD to consider. I am on the legislative committee, as well as the BoD, but I cannot snap my fingers and magically state that MGO has an official stance on ANY bill, let alone bills that have nothing to do with firearms.
Jim (Shyster) and I discussed a missing component of our bill review this morning. When we look at a bill that seems like MGO should "oppose", we need to be careful and ALSO review who the sponsors/co-sponsors are, so as to make sure that we aren't slapping any of our FRIENDS in Lansing in the face unintentionally. This should be part of the legislative committee's process, so that information is also available for the BoD's final decision on MGO's stance on any given bill.
In this specific instance, an email was sent to MGO from MUCC. It was a poorly written email that made understanding what MUCC's position less than fully clear, especially for someone that was not familiar with the background and the players where baiting is concerned (like me). The board member that received the email posted it in the BoD DISCUSSION forum (not the VOTING forum) for informal discussion. Just under 25 hours later, having only had the input of 3 other board members (2 supporting standing with MUCC's position and 1 giving a bit of background information on the baiting issue), MUCC was notified that MGO was on board with their position in response to the original email.
There was never a vote of the board on behalf of MGO. The legislative committee was never involved in the review process of this bill. I personally never involved myself since the response had already been made by the time I read the thread. It was posted the evening of the Second Amendment March, so I was busy that evening after getting the MGO trailer back to its home and getting caught up on work emails, etc from taking the day off…and subsequently trying to play catch-up the following day. Three others board members never posted a position.
So, what happened here was an informal discussion involving some MGO Board members, but there was never a formal review of the bill by the legislative committee, nor was there ever a motion/vote made for MGO to take an official stance on the bill in question. If such a motion/vote had been made, it would be published in the MGO BoD Meeting Minutes on official record.
MGO's official position has been and continues to be "No Position" as it relates to the bill in question. I do not foresee MGO taking action to change "No Position" to "Support" or "Oppose" on this bill since it has nothing to do with MGO or MGO's Mission Statement.
Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will RogersDISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.
I'm not trying to be deceitful at all, I promise. Had damage control to deal with due to a mistake.
MUCC sent a letter in early September and we had a short discussion on it with no vote. The letter was poorly worded and due to this, a yes was sent to the MUCC, to include us.
In hindsight, we should have just ignored the letter.
Now, as to what I said on Facebook.
I had to go back to the discussion to remember it, as it was very short lived and did not stick out in my mind. Then I went to the MUCCs page (since we did say include us) to see the stance. I was not thrilled, but as we had said yes to the letter, I tried to explain it. That's it.
We are now working to get our name removed from that list.
Now my personal stance on baiting? I don't care if people do it. That should be up to the individual hunting.
For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
MGO Life Member, NRA Life Member, MOC Member.
The way we handle our mistakes is more important than the mistake. Now, we just need to work together to get things on track.
Don't let yesterday use up too much of today - Will RogersDISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or official policies of Michigan Gun Owners.