From Michigan Open Carry:
The Good – SB 584 seeks to create a shall issue exemption to the concealed pistol free zones listed in MCL 28.425o (and on the back of every CPL) for anyone who takes an additional 8 hours of training, or who is a certified instructor. While this is not the complete elimination of the section that we would like to see, it alone is a step in the right direction. This is what the bill looked like before the gun-control was added by the committee.
The Bad – One of the changes subbed into the bill was a ban on open carry in ALL of the listed places in the section, even for those with the newly proposed exemption above. The only way someone would be able to carry openly in any of these places is if they own the property, they are hired security, or if they have express written permission from the owner. That’s it. Infractions start off with a $500 civil infraction and a 6 month license suspension, and go all the way up to a felony. Yes, a felony.
We understand there is an ongoing debate about who should be able to carry a firearm in schools and how they should be able to carry. We have always said that we are happy to have this debate and consider the merits of proposed changes; however, we see no reason at all for the State to prohibit someone from carrying in the manner that is most comfortable for them in the rest of the places, especially when they are somewhere that is privately owned.
An analogy of these changes goes as follows – they are trying to take away your blue shirt, and then give you a red shirt back, but only after you jump through more hoops, pay more fees, and get more permission first.
The Committee also added a provision making it clear that universities are authorized to create their own rules, thereby completely undermining the ongoing pro-gun litigation of Joshua Wade v. University of Michigan, as well as a provision adding airport authority property to the list of restricted zones.
The Ugly – Currently, every one of the nearly 620,000 CPL holders in this state, as well as any license holders from other states, can carry in the zones listed in MCL 28.425o, though most of us have to carry openly. Should this legislation pass as is, nearly all of us would lose ANY ability to carry at all in these places until we first go through more training, pay more fees, and once again get permission to exercise our rights, and that’s only for Michigan residents.
Those from other states would have no option available to them left. Because of this, we firmly believe that SB 584 would REDUCE the number of people able to defend themselves in these zones, not increase it. This is the exact opposite of what any gun rights organization should be working for.
Going Forward – We are currently working with other state and national organizations, such as NRA and NAGR, to fix this bill in the House. We very much support scaling back these zones, commonly referred to as “mass murder empowerment zones”, but we are not willing to do so at any price.
That said, this bill, as passed by the Senate, doesn’t even scale back the list, it makes it longer and stricter, making opposing these changes an easy decision for us.
You can read the version passed today by the Senate HERE:
https://miopencarry.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=710075bba75b914b805e1861a&id=968ac5c19b&e=ed4ed205d7
Tom Lambert
President
Legislative Director
Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
This is all very simple. Two things:
Private Property
and
Shall not be Infringed
Property owners absolutely have the right to not allow guns on their property. And you have the right to not step foot on said property.
The government cannot infringe on a right. If the property is “public” meaning that the government owns the property then it cannot prevent people from carrying guns.
“The government cannot infringe on a right. If the property is “public” meaning that the government owns the property then it cannot prevent people from carrying guns.”
The government can, and does. Stating “it can’t” is meaningless. We, POTG, have no sovereign, absolute “right” to act as if law we do not support is null and void….if we wish to remain “….the most law-abiding segment of the population.” Even though I believe that the citizenry (the militia) should be able to to toe-to-toe with the standing army (all the military) as regards firepower (if we and/or the community) can afford it, reality is every constitutionally protected right is subject to “infringement” or some sort. We either abide by the law, change it, or declare revolution to overthrow it. “Shall not be infringed” is not moving the ball forward; it is a distraction useful to the anti-gun mob.
What is your opinion about private property that legally classified as a “public accommodation”?
Hear, hear…
The photos in the article unwittingly highlight the puerile machismo rife in the gun-nutty ilk; yall fantasize about living an Eastwood scene probably less from the Leone days and more from his torturing racist cop roles.
So while your problem is of course largely rooted in ignorance, stupidity, delusions fueled by shrivelled self-esteem and heavy indoctrination fro an array of retrograde and loony sources, we cant neglect the role played by your immaturity and lack of empathy, your lack of emotional intelligence in the mix that yields such gun-nutty doofuses : D
I’m too young to care about any supposed machismo from Eastwood’s roles. Only film of his I’ve seen is Grand Torino (fantastic film by the way).
You’re projecting.
Most Michigan ‘public’ universities enjoy a peculiar quasi independent status enshrined in our state constitution. This has created a degree of legal uncertainty in court actions attempting to force them to behave as public entities. These universities have no hesitation claiming to be fully ‘public’ when it comes to funding, however. The anti gun left in Michigan has enough presence in our judiciary (and the soul of our RINO Governor) to ensure that they remain mass murder empowerment zones.
10×25, only three universities have some autonomy as you state. However, that autonomy is limited and specific to only certain things.
You have gotten to Article VIII, Section 5 in the Michigan Constitution. Now continue on to Article VIII, Sections 6 and 7. The remaining 16 Michigan ‘public’ institutions of higher education (and community colleges too!) are given the very same privileges; they just didn’t rate being identified by name back in 1963. This interpretation has been confirmed repeatedly by Michigan’s courts with nary a contrary ruling.
The constitutional “university autonomy” is very limited. It does not exempt them from almost all laws enacted by the state, and was intended to preclude political interference in hiring and curriculum.
Regarding gun laws, the decision of the Court of Appeals (CAVANAGH, P.J., and SERVITTO, JJ) with SAWYER, J. (dissenting) clearly points to the resolution of the University of Michigan Board of Reagents’ usurpation of the exclusive province of the legislature to enact firearms regulation. The UofM argument of exemption from state gun laws hinges on flawed language contained in the law:
“This Court noted that MCL 123.1102 only applies to a “local unit of government,” which is defined under MCL 123.1101(b) as “a city, village, township, or county.”
MCL 123.1102 must be amended to prohibit on all units of government other than the Michigan legislature from imposing special taxation on, enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulating in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.
I have written to every member of the legislature an NO ONE, including Patrick Colbeck has been interested in correcting this.
Why?
– If their proposals are so good, why do their opponents have to dig out what they’ve done? It’s almost like they are trying to sneak something through. Why do it that way?
– They can’t ban it outright, so wrap it in so many exceptions, restrictions, n permissions you can’t do it anyway.
– What problem does this solve? Concretely, what gets better, at what cost, compared to what? I don’t see answers to that.
It seems the second and third questions answer the first.
But Jim, your questions seem to presume that the legislature is using the same criteria that we do. They don’t see the “good” the same as we do. The only good for them is more and continued control of the rest of us. And they’ll say or do anything at all to keep that control.
Heres a secret you would have lived and dies never hearing…
You are currently and have been your entire life complete under the control of the government…
They are thrilled that yall stay occupied with your gun fetish, this poses zero challenge to their authority, in fact it facilitates perpetuating their power…
You see their power is not so much based on the capacity for violence, they rarely control anyone by force. Their control is based on domination of the ideological spectrum so that everyone controls themselves.
You go to work, pay your taxes, dont disrupt the economy, participate in the political system or at least dont disrupt it, breed, and socialize your children to do the same these are the kinds of things they depend on to perpetuate their power…
and certain ideas are literally unthinkable to you, ideas that would pose an actual threat to their authority, like this idea I just presented…
And not only are you wholly unaware that you play into their hands remaining quiescent, never doing anything significant to challenge their authority, but the entire time you are unwittingly a drone you also think that you are some big time independent thinking thorn-in-their-side rebel…
Understand? You imagine youre the governments worst nightmare, that you and yours are protecting freedom, when in fact you are the governments dream, another zombie wholly ideologically enslaved focused on guns and other things superfluous to their maintaining their power…
Its ideal like advertising. When you survey folks everyone says they believe advertising manipulates people, and everyone simultaneously believes they are immune to that manipulation…
So now what you will do, brainwashed fool that you are is cling to your delusion that you can think and that you scare the government and push this big secret Ive revealed to you far far out of mind by ripping me a new arsehole, mock and revile me because youre too weak and silly to live in the real world I just revealed to you : D
I’m not familiar with the word “cegro.” Is it a synonym for @ssh0le?
That’s true, however it’s not only guns…..,Cars, boats, planes, wars, racism.
The “problem”, from the POV of the anti gunners, is that 500,000 holders of Michigan CPLs, and millions of licensed carriers from other states, can openly carry holstered handguns in schools and bars.
The “problem” from the POV of the pro gunners, is that we can’t legally conceal a handgun in a bar or a school (or a restaurant that sells a lot of alcoholic beverages).
Now, thanks to our “pro-gun senate leadership”, this bill causes more problems than it solves. I suspect the wholesale changes were quietly slipped into the bill yesterday to make our anti-gun Governor happy.
It has long been my opinion (not universally shared among MOC members) that Meekhof cares a lot more for the Governor’s comfort than he cares for the rights and safety of millions of Michigan voters.
LOL
Somebody let the criminals know!
I just want to say, in case it’s not clear, I’m not Tom Lambert.
And what I quoted in yesterday’s daily digest comments was most of, but not all of, Tom’s email blast from yesterday.
Here’s the email:
http://mailchi.mp/miopencarry/moc-opposes-sb-584-senate-gun-control-bill-takes-rights-away-only-give-back-with-more-trainingfeespermission
Including the opening paragraph:
Yesterday, the Senate Government Operations Committee, chaired by Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, substituted significant changes into SB 584 at the start of the committee hearing and without any testimony or prior notice. These changes are not friendly to gun owners in Michigan and have caused MOC to turn from support to oppose for SB 584. Today, the Senate passed this bill, along with others, and sent them to the House.
And the closer, following Tom’s signature:
Michigan Open Carry, Inc is a Not-For-Profit organization that depends on our dues paying members to continue our operation. We are an all-volunteer organization. As such, no one is paid a salary and very few of the personal expenses of our officers are reimbursed. Won’t you consider joining us or renewing as a dues paying member today? If you need technical help with the process, please email [email protected].
When I played criminal, I carried a handgun anywhere, concealed. Laws were ” ah shit I got caught”. When are these anti gun types going to learn gun laws make law abiding criminals and real criminals don’t care about laws
Jackball joetast(emycawk) parades the ignorant gun-nuts (pardon redundancy) lack of logical thinking skills.
So this dunces premise is that criminals ignore laws.
And from this supposition he concludes so laws are wholly ineffectual in changing criminal behavior and may as well not exist.
1. The initial claim is obviously false, SOMETIMES criminals simply blatantly ignore laws and SOMETIMES they ignore them while taking extra precautione to avoid arrest, and SOMETIMES they obey them to avoid arrest. So clearly laws do SOMETIMES mitigate or hamper or eliminate criminal behavior
2. Even if your stupid claim were true, this would of course not be a reason to simply eliminate laws. People regularly murdering each other makes clear that that statute is often ignored but it doesnt logically follow from this fact that we should label homocide statutes wholly ineffectual and eliminate them.
3. One purpose of a law is to provide justification for arresting folks if they violate it, so obviously folks ignoring a law is not a reason to eliminate the law.
Like all the awful writers and posters on this site you have no capacity to proceed logically, you cant think in any meaningful sense, even the simplest most straitforward relationships are beyond you, you regularly makes fools of yourself as you just did, yet you also presume to make grand pronouncements about late 18th century language from the US constitution regarding arms and militias, and you pontificate about the nexus of crime and morality and race… but you donkeys dont know anything about the world of the Americas in the late 1700s, your heads are teeming with a bunch mumbo-jumbo from am radio and the NRA. Likewise you have zero understanding of the ongoing history of race and racism in America as it relates to crime…
Youre a bunch of ignoramuses regurgitating facile and false claims from retrograde and loony sources : D
Here’s a thought. Using the word Youre (and I have purposely spelled it incorrectly like you have) and also saying “like all the awful writers and posters on this site” tends to make your reply include more than just your buddy Joetast. Who by the way seems to have some real cred here regarding the issue you two are going on about. Joe speaks for himself. He doesn’t speak for me unless you find me replying with an X2 post under his.
I don’t see you (Rob) posting that you yourself have lived a life of crime at one time. Joe apparently has and I’m betting it boils your butt that he has way more cred on the subject of ignoring laws than you do.
(AH waves buh BYE)
There was an accidental shooting in Ga. at a Gun Free zone, by a person not legally allowed to possess and carry a handgun. It was a school and a student, two people shot were not killed, the gun was carried in a box, in a backpack and when dropped apparently discharged.
So, the laws broken are:
1. Carrying an unlicensed Concealed weapon.
2. By a juvenile not allowed to possess or own a handgun.
3. Into a lawfully established gun free zone to wit a school and public place.
4. Discharging though accidentally in a dwelling or public place.
5. Discharging though accidentally inside 500 feet of a road.
6. Causing accidental injury by firearms two juveniles.
7. Transporting by vehicle a weapon, too wit a car, truck or school bus.
8. Being a juvenile in possession of hand gun ammunition.
9. Committing though by accident assault and battery upon two juveniles.
10. Having a back pack that was not made of see through material.
So, ten laws did not mitigate nor hamper criminal behavior.
No, an outright gun ban will not take all guns off the street anymore than a complete alcohol ban stopped drinking or buying and selling alcohol.
If these ten laws did not stop this event then how can one more law prevent it from occurring again.
The answer is, they cannot.
5.
Your speculating. This is fact ” When I was an Outlaw, gun laws did not stop me from carrying a gun anymore then drug laws stopped me from selling drugs”race had nothing to do with that fact. …. I kaint spels, so I ain’t gonna gettin n no wurd pissn match wit no bobs
For racists like Rob everything is about race.
What the offended snowflakes wish to ban but cannot they price and regulate beyond the ability to pay for and meet regulations to have.
It was such once when unable to ban firearms the banners tried to ban Ammunition as Ammo was not mentioned in the second amendment.
Then when that failed set about making ammunition to costly to buy.
The current Bump stock ban in planning bans certain parts of a fiream in order to make it less able to shoot rapidly which means any part of the weapon can be banned that makes it shoot more than one shot at a time.
Gun banners are devious.
Comments are closed.