Constitutional Carry Bill Moves Forward in Michigan

1. As Constitutional carry is the law on the books for the entire nation,you know the oft stated by politicians The Law Of The Land,now it just needs enforcing across this great nation.

   • I risk sounding like a parrot, but once again…

     “When’s California’s turn?”

     • When Californians want it enough that they vote in politicians who will vote for it. (That’s the way this whole democracy thing works.)
       We are in similar situation here in Illinois. It took a court order to get us to shall issue concealed carry licenses after 16 hours of mandatory training. No open carry at all. It would scare the livestock and cause miscarriages to the womenfolk.

     • When Commifornia slides off into that good night known as the Pacific ocean.

       • The section of California West of the San Andreas fault is not going to slide into the Pacific Ocean, it’s sliding Northward. Los Angeles will merge with San Francisco in about 20 thousand years, give-or-take a few K.

       • Not once the ring of fire pushes the Pacific plate upwards it won’t. When the west edge goes up, the east edge will go down. It’s just a real big version of the tetter totters that we used to have on playgrounds. Plates sit on magma, which is a fluid, and thus a very good rotation point. Somewhere around Hawaii will be the rotation point.

     • Maybe after Maryland removes the “may issue with a good and substantial need” clause.

2. Good luck to the Michiganers, but getting a permitless carry bill passed is only the first step. There will be years of court battles and resistance from the left. Been there, done that; and there ain’t no finish line. Anti-gun politicians and bureaucrats will continue to run for office, and judges will continue to cling to power. Sheriff’s and PD’s will continue to do the same as long as they allowed to get away with it. Freedom requires constant vigilance. The second you relax it will be taken away from you.

   • Election gimmick by republicans. They know the libtard governer will never sign it. But want to run for reelection on how good they are on guns. No different than U.S. congress passing a clean Obamacare repeal 56 times. Trump wins and all of a suddun they won’t vote on it any more. Trump would have actually signed it.
     This is nothing but blowing smoke up gun owners back sides. Pure show.

     I also live in Michigan. Most of our republicans in the state are rinos or globalist hacks in the pocket of the U.S. chamber of commerse.

     • Reason,

       I agree. This is for show and will not pass. Republicans floated the same bill (or essentially the same bill) under the previous Governor and it did not pass.

       Michigan sucks. It is a blue state that somehow votes red in the Michigan legislature, blue in the U.S. Senate, and quite often blue for Governor.

       • The previous Governor is an Ann Arbor Socialist who hates civil rights almost as much as he hates guns. And the MiGOP Senate leadership cared more for his reputation than they cared for his rights. They don’t mind forcing Gretchen to veto pro-gun bills, but even if we could get all the Republicans to override, they don’t have the numbers to do it.

       • cared more for his reputation than they cared for our rights.

         Geez, how did I mess that up?

       • FedUp,

         You summarized it nicely: Republicans in the Michigan House and Senate cared more about the Republican Governor’s reputation than our rights.

         Although I think you are being generous. Personally, I think Republicans did not care about our rights either. They only voted for previous bills because they KNEW that the Republican governor would veto them. They could tell their hardcore constituents that they did their part and the Governor was to blame. Meanwhile, constitutional carry and elimination/reduction of “gun-free zones” never came to pass which tended to keep lazy Democrat voters quiet and pacified — and at home on election day. Or so the Republicans thought. (That obviously backfired because Michigan lost their veto-override majority in the House and Senate as well as the Governorship.)

       • Did you go to the 2A march in September?
         A few hundred people showed up in the rain, the Speaker made a brief appearance and guaranteed GVPOs were a dead issue in the House.

         I was more impressed with Beau LaFave, R-Delta County. If I had to bet on a legislator being solidly pro-gun, it’d be Beau. I kind of wish I’d followed him inside to see the Dems’ reaction to a Representative on the House floor with an AR strapped around his neck.

         We got killed in the polls by Mary Ju Wanna in 2018.
         All the potheads turned out to vote for the weed amendment, and while we’re here, might as well vote for the other proposals and vote a Dem straight ticket.

         The brightest spot in the statewide voting was John James, who scored more votes than any other GOP candidate in Michigan, running against an entrenched and powerful Senator Stabenow. I think James can kick Gary Peters’ ass, especially if the potheads stay home.

       • FedUp,

         I may or may not live in Michigan and I may or may not have attended Skip Coryell’s 2019 Second Amendment March in Lansing. I may or may not have been near the front of the procession around the Capitol complex. I may or may not have purchased a raffle ticket for a semi-automatic rifle. And I may or may not have asked about the constitutionality of banning long-guns in vehicles to a panel of attorneys on the Capitol steps.

3. Time after time Libitard Dimwits cry the sky will fall.
   Personally Ive had enough of this.
   There should be no permits anywhere to carry a gun.
   Nowhere does it say in the Constitution pay the state to use a right granted to you already.
   Don’t these few words say what they mean in plain and simple English???
   “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
   Any law or fee contrary to these few words is unconstitutional.
   Period.

   • The permit to carry belongs right up there with the poll tax. There is no difference, both are meant to restrict civil rights recognized by the Constitution and both are racist inventions.

4. I get the argument for de-criminal-izing carry (by a lawful carrier) (whether concealed or not). Nevertheless, I see benefits from a state having a permit system.

   We PotG want to promote carry. One way of doing that is to see to it that John Lott Jr. keeps reporting a higher and higher percentage of the nation’s adults holding CWPs. The Constitutional-Carry movement (however meritorious in principle) has the disadvantage of truncating the growth in CPW-holders in the ever-increasing Con-Carry states. Do we want to eat our cake; or, do we want to have more cake?

   We PotG want to promote carry by people who have the knowledge to avoid making stupid mistakes. Vastly too many gun owners’ knowledge of the law of using lethal force in self-defense is not one iota beyond “I’d rather be judged by 12 . . . ” Every time one of these idiots shoots someone and is convicted of his crime (because he was absolutely CLUELESS about self-defense law) he undermines the cause. More newspaper articles decrying witless gun owners carrying.

   We PotG want to promote carry by asserting that CWP holders are knowledgeable. There are three ways of making that claim: making the assertion with NO evidence to supporting it; have a CWP mandate with a training requirement; have a CWP mandate with a testing requirement. I’d favor a testing requirement. If an applicant is literate enough to read a book and passes the test that’s good enough. If he is illiterate – or learns best in the oral tradition – let him take a course and pass the test.

   But how to get a “mandate” for a CWP into law while trying to de-criminal-ize carry without a CWP?

   I suggest that we consider promoting a Shall-Issue CWP with a penalty for carry withOUT a permit of $5 / $50 / $500 according to each legislature’s taste in encouraging carriers to apply and be issued a CWP.

   In a state where the fine is only $5 a defiant carrier could keep paying the fines if he is ever caught. We are encouraging him to get a permit; but if he won’t, he just has to pay the fine. If it’s $50, the carrier will probably get his permit after he pays the first fine or two (if ever). We can still hold that a CWP is “mandatory” even if there are plenty of defiant carriers who are willing to risk paying the fine. If the fine is $500 then there are some real teeth in the mandate. Even so, a judge is probably not going to send a single mother to jail if she can’t pay the fine. He will tell her to get her permit.

   I’m not crying-out for a perfect ideal carry environment – and prepared to hold my breath until Congress and 50 state legislatures deliver. I’m wondering how we can promote responsible carry: keep the CWP numbers growing; avoiding un-knowlegable carriers tarnishing the image of carry by “bad shoots”; and, promoting the image of carriers as proven to be knowledgeable.

   • I don’t agree. I know plenty of concealed carriers who probably should never be allowed to carry. I’m in illinois we need a permit. it does nothing.

     I met people who get drunk while carrying, who don’t shoot ever and carry and people who are not even a little bit comfortable with their weapon who carry.

     The state will never fix that without infringing on rights and the permit system is an infringement.

     There is a long course and everything.

     • I met people who get drunk while carrying, who don’t shoot ever and carry and people who are not even a little bit comfortable with their weapon who carry.

       We’ve got those in Michigan too.
       We call them Law Enforcement (Specifically, they’re the majority of cops who have no interest in guns, but carry them because they’re told to. Many departments actually require them to carry in public 24/7, so of course they’re carrying while drinking).

       Some scary shit happens on the LE ranges around here, probably all over the country.

   • You know the anti gunners want to take your guns and you want to give them your address. Yes there are idiots in the world. Bringing us all down to the lowest common denominator is a strategy of the left.

   • MarkPA,

     I know that you truly mean well. And I know you that have an incredible talent for pragmatism.

     I disagree with you in this case. Leftists do not want anyone armed. Period. Training and aptitude mean nothing to them. Nothing that we can do or say will change their minds. My evidence: prolific British and French UNARMED police. That’s right — Leftists went so far as to even disarm their police in parts of Europe.

     We will never win this fight with knowledge and/or facts. We might — MIGHT — be able to win with emotion if we find a formula that resonates emotionally with civilian disarmament advocates. Unfortunately no one has figured out that formula yet.

     The only guaranteed way that we can win is through brute force. If we can get extremely favorable rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court followed-up with federal and state law enforcement abiding by and enforcing those rulings, that is one way that we win the fight through brute force. If that does not happen, then it is up to each and every one of us to secure our rights with force.

     • Thank you for your comments. Much of what you say resonates with me.

       Where I differ with you is the target of our rhetoric. I think it’s a misdirection of our energy to speak to the leftists and committed gun-controllers. They will – for the most part – not be moved by anything. Granted, there are apt to be a few exceptions; but, all the energy put in their direction will produce too low a yield.

       I think we need to direct our rhetoric toward those who are NOT committed gun-controllers. They may sympathize with gun-control, but if we present them with enough good arguments they will soften their sympathies and consider the brutal facts about self-defense.

       I think in the debate over National Reciprocity, that the driver’s license analogy got traction with the public at large. Those who were not committed gun-controllers. The analogy wasn’t great; yet it struck a cord of logic. (States have little choice but to unilaterally recognize driver’s licenses issued by other states and even foreign countries. If they didn’t the average driver would have to hold a half-dozen licenses and would be driving unlicensed in another half-dozen states. It would be chaos.)

       I’m prepared to temper my principles a bit in the interest of producing better data and better arguments that will ultimately win over enough of the open-minded voters.

       Ultimately, I agree with you. SCOTUS will be vastly more important than public sentiment in securing the right to arms. And, that’s a tragedy. We the People ought to be finding the meaning of the Constitution, not SCOTUS shoving its decisions down our throats.

       The situation being what it is, what should we do about it? Should we stand on the steps of the Supreme Court after a decision is announced “thumbing our noses” at voters who sympathized with gun-control? Or, instead, should we be “working” the public-opinion side of the street? Doing our best to urge voters to see our point of view BEFORE as well as after SCOTUS renders an opinion up-holding the right to arms?

       Ultimately, I think the battle for the right to arms must be won in the hearts of voters rather than in the court-house. If voters continue to back politicians who look for every angle to undermine the right to arms then we will be in for a very long battle which we can never quite get ahead of through the courts. We need the voters to turn on the politicians and tell them “ENOUGH!” “Let us all abide by the Supreme Court’s decisions.”

       • MarkPA,

         I think we need to direct our rhetoric toward those who are NOT committed gun-controllers. They may sympathize with gun-control, but if we present them with enough good arguments they will soften their sympathies and consider the brutal facts about self-defense.

         I imagine that could very well be true. Let’s say that it is for the sake of argument. The two hugely important questions are:
         (1) How many such voters are there? Are they a large enough number that we can turn the tide if we win them over? (If they are not a large enough number to turn the tide if we win them over, then it is a waste of resources to engage them.)
         (2) Even if we win them over intellectually speaking, will they actually vote to support our right to keep and bear arms? (How many of them, with their newfound intellectual support for our right to keep and bear arms, would vote for civilian disarmament candidates anyway because they prioritize other policies above being armed?)

         We really need to know the answers to those two questions. And I think we can get pretty darned accurate numbers with a little effort. That would tell us whether such an effort would likely be fruitful or likely be a waste of resources.

         • I agree, you are asking the right questions.

           As one example, I think we need to collaborate with the National African American Gun-owners Association. What sentiments motivate Black voters? Have they lost their community memory of the Civil Rights era when government officials and their kinsmen dressed in white robes to terrorize their grandparents?

           As another, I think we need to ask Latin American immigrants about their experiences, and those of their parents, in their countries of origin. Did their governments keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Were their families able to defend themselves? Were their governments effective in protecting their families?

           Let’s talk to minority women who have sought training, received their CWPs and now bear arms in self-defense. Are they ambivalent about how they vote? Or, are they tipping to becoming “one-issue voters”?

           It MIGHT – though it is not necessarily so – that we can reach a tipping point where Democrat candidates in particular polities (congressional districts, states) no longer find it expedient to advocate for gun-control.

           OK, so, suppose we can’t succeed with such an approach. It proves to be a waste of effort. The issue can only be resolved through force-of-arms.

           Now, in such a scenario, do you want to argue:
           1. – we did our best to make our case peaceably. It failed. We regret our failure to persuade.
           2. – we presupposed it would be futile. We didn’t bother to persuade our fellow voters with the reasonableness of our arguments. We figured that the only solution would be to wait until the violations of our rights became intolerable. Thereupon, we figured those few who remained pure in spirit would muster at the barricades and resort to force.

           Tough choice. I would like to muster at the barricades with the largest and broadest cross-section of the electorate as could be inspired. But that’s just me.

       • MarkPA,

         I wholeheartedly support the oft stated model for righteous change that we first employ our soapbox, next the ballot box, then the jury box, and finally the cartridge box.

         My concern is that we have already put forth a ginormous effort into our soapboxes, ballot boxes, and even the jury boxes (courts). We are quite literally down to the end of the line at the courts, awaiting a significantly positive outcome in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus New York City case. If the U.S. Supreme Court fumbles on that case, it sure looks like we have exhausted the first three boxes of the four box model for righteous change.

         If the U.S. Supreme Court fumbles that case, I support redoubling our efforts on our soapboxes — hoping that leads to fruitful action at the ballot box. I also recognize that the probability of success on that route is very slim. Thus, I also implore all of us to prepare (mentally, spiritually, and physically) for what seems to be inevitable: that we will have to use force to secure our rights.

         In the final analysis, this all boils down to feelings versus facts. Civilian disarmament proponents insist on acting on their feelings and will sacrifice as many good people as it takes to assuage their feelings. On the other side, civil rights proponents refuse to condemn their loved ones to robbery, beatings, rape, and death in order to make some group of people feel good. While we can certainly plead our case, there comes a time when it is time to stop pleading and time to start fighting back.

         If an armed rapist announces his credible and imminent intention to rape a woman, should she focus her efforts on pleading her case with the rapist, explaining how it is morally wrong, damaging to the woman, and damaging to society, citing statistics and case studies? Or should she use whatever force is necessary to immediately stop the rapist? That is where I believe we are as a society. A large group of our society (including many members of government and law enforcement) have announced their credible and imminent intent to cause us great harm if we do not submit to their agenda and give up our right to self-defense. In response we have been pleading our case for decades and have very little to show for it. At some point, we have to say, “Enough is enough!” and ACT accordingly.

         • Thoughtful arguments.
           I’m not clear whether they tend to support or detract from my comments.
           Nevertheless, I share your sentiments.

   • There are currently 16 permitless carry States. Are those States awash in blood spilled by permitless carriers? Not that I’ve noticed.

     • Of course they are not! None of the Shall-Issue states are awash in blood.

       I never said such was the case.

       Nevertheless, if you read https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/ you will regularly see stories where some gun-owner shot somebody – usually a thug – without having all his legal ducks-in-a-row. The US is a big country so if this happens once a week anywhere that’s a story a week for the MSM to play-up as though it was an everyday occurance in every town in America. We don’t need that negative PR.

       Did you read about the FL handicap parking lot shooter? He made a lot of mistakes. He didn’t have a clue about the law of self-defense. He talked to the cops without an attorney. He hired a less than capable lawyer. He had no adequate expert witnesses to testify for him. He had no self-defense insurance to fund an adequate defense by a competent attorney. Did his conviction do the cause of citizen carry any good? Are you happy he had his day in court and will spend 20 years in jail because he had a Right! A RIGHT I SAY!!! to be an ignorant carryer of a gun?

       You may be happy he was ignorant. You may wish for many more ignorant carriers of guns. I’d prefer that gun carriers get educated. Not because I wish to spare them convictions and prison time; no, they deserve prison time for willful ignorance. No, I’m interested in preventing as many of them as possible from undermining the reputation gun carry by those who take their responsibilities seriously enough to learn what they need to know to avoid getting convicted unnecessarily.

       • MarkPA,

         The US is a big country so if this happens once a week anywhere that’s a story a week for the MSM to play-up as though it was an everyday occurance in every town in America. We don’t need that negative PR.

         Certainly true.

         I believe it was TTaG’s frequent commenter strych9 who mentioned a possible “in” for what you described. What the mainstream legacy media is doing is obviously deceitful. Well, as strych9 insightfully stated, NO ONE likes it when someone lies to them. Thus, our single best strategy may be to show how civilian disarmament politicians and mainstream media are blatantly lying to these potentially sympathetic people.

         (I apologize if it was someone else rather than strych9 who mentioned that no one likes it when someone lies to them.)

       • The MSM will find – or invent – stories about shootings that promote their particular political views no matter what. If Jesus Christ himself was a carrier (sans permit) and shot the Devil in self defense, the MSM would characterize him as a long haired, trigger happy, redneck that shouldn’t have had a gun.

         Requiring a permit in a effort to get the MSM (and the “public”) on our side isn’t going to be productive.

   • You talked a lot because of the 1st Amendment. How would like to only be allowed an arbitary 26 words. The short paragraph of the second amendment is explicit, non compromizing. That’s the thing. It don’t say if it is safe, it don’t say if someone knows the law, it says simply no infringement. That’s been the problem all along, and what’s got us here today. We can compromise, we can give a little, it would be better. Horseshitt! Let’s just do away with the whole damn constitution, let Trump be president for life, and have all you compromisers write a new constitution. Yes I’m pissed off!
     All these conversations about how we could have red flag laws to make this a disney land, is just plain stupid. We are humans, humans have been killing other humans millions of years before guns were invented, and will go on killing other humans after every gun has been melted and turned into plow shares. But remember this… this republic has lasted longer than almost any other nation with freedom of speech and the responsibility and duty to protect themselves.
     And it was founded by guns and pissed off people with the balls to use them. That maybe what it takes to keep this country free.

     • yep.

5. While I applaud your idea of educated carry, I feel that the classes and training should be state sponsored – locally administered, that way no one has a valid excuse for not taking the test. Carriers should be educated on the law, with no slanted views by the LE teachers(one way) or lawyer teachers(the other way).
   Let’s face it, LE will always take the road that leaves them with the only legal guns on the street, while a lawyer will teach you that it is your right and if you ever do use your firearm, he will be there to defend you(for a price).

   • I agree with your sentiments.

     There are a lot of worthy approaches to education/teaching. I learn a lot by reading. Nevertheless, I attach value to classroom training as well. I’ve taken Massad Ayoob’s MAG-20 class; which is actually largely taught via DVD. (Probably for prove-ability. If called to testify on a student’s behalf Ayoob can show the jury the DVD segment where you were taught the critical point needed for your defense.)

     The LawOfSelfDefense.com has a wealth of DVDs, including state-specific DVDs. And there are other sources of training.

     Look at the NRA model. They have certified tens of thousands of instructors across the country who teach gun safety and usage; and, even Carry Outside the Home.

     We can read books can’t we? They are CHEAP; especially used on Amazon.

     We can teach each other in gun clubs and at range meetings.

     There is a lot to know but it’s not rocket science. I self-taught myself to use guns safely enough between the ages of 8 – 13 – 17. Not a NG in my life. I only started taking formal training and reading in my 60’s when I had some money and leisure time.

     The law of self defense, the importance of how you handle a post shooting incident, the importance of self-defense insurance are NOT subjects any individual can figure-out on his own. I could figure out the mechanics of guns without coaching; but, the foregoing subjects were beyond my powers to figure out by myself.

     We, the PotG, could – with a 10 year commitment to the cause – develop the widespread knowledge of these critical topics without much marginal expense to each new student thereafter.

     Driving a car is a skill that needs to be taught. A lot to learn. Yet, it is a-typical that a teenager learns to drive by taking a course at a driving school. He is taught by his parents and with some formal training in high school. Not a big investment of social dollars in each kid. There is a big investment in the kid’s time and attention; but he is EAGER to learn. This is the kind of model I’d like to see develop around law-of-self-defense issues. Are we PotG not up to the challenge? We can’t do what parents do for their driving-age children?

     • I got a better way to educate the young and old on guns make a two year minimum service, in the Army. No exception for bone spurs, heel spurs or cowgirl spurs. If you can breathe and are 16 or over you do your time.

       • Treading on liberty? Get lost.

6. Constitutional Carry is a privilage? Oh okay, glad to kno that.

7. Where it is certainly obvious so anyone that cares to look that there are plenty of people that should never own a firearm; it is equally true that there are plenty of people that absolutely should be armed. Clearly as our civilization grows, there really needs to be some kind of official vetting process in place to determine the difference and have the teeth to maintain freedom. It should never be part of what government does. We can’t talk about tyrannical government while simultaneously submitting to that very same government. This vetting process used to be part of what responsible people took care of. It used to be about caring parents and caring responsible family and friends. Although we have always had killers and idiots, we also were able to goto local hardware stores and auto parts stores to buy firearms. People often forget that. The Media so quickly puts out video of mass shooting victim’s family members asking if we are just “supposed to live with it”. No one ever publicly responds with….”we have lived with killers from the dawn of human civilization”.

   The Second Amendment has a purpose and a meaning. It is part of what it means to be American. Being armed is part of having, keeping, and maintaining freedom. The document that we call The Constitution is the guide we agree to follow and abide by. NOT kings. Not wanna-be kings/rulers/tyrants like O’Rourke, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, etc.

   I know I’m saying this in an echo chamber. Those that truly need to read all these articles sadly will never come here.

8. Probably never pass.last Governor was a anti also.I like the idea though.but,what about travel to states where you still need a permit to carry?

   • One example:

     Alaska is a Shall Issue* state and will issue Alaska Concealed Carry permits to residents of Alaska only.

     *NOTE: Alaska Statute 11.61.220 allows anyone 21 or older, who may legally carry a firearm to also carry it concealed without having to obtain a special permit.

Comments are closed.