MLive article on SB59

detroit_fan · Mar 21, 2012

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/sweeping_changes_proposed_for.html

snip-

But the bulk of the measures are aimed at streamlining the permit process, make it less subject to local restrictions, and expand where concealed handguns can be carried, according to documents obtained by MLive.

detroit_fan · Mar 21, 2012

thanks for helping me in the comments section PD. I must have posted at least 30 replies in that article so far trying to show anti's how silly their logic is. (screen name on mlive is xd9sc)

PDinDetroit · Mar 22, 2012

detroit_fan said:
thanks for helping me in the comments section PD. I must have posted at least 30 replies in that article so far trying to show anti's how silly their logic is. (screen name on mlive is xd9sc)

No problem. I knew that was you, we have had this discussion before.

When you present a MOUNTAIN OF FACTS AND LEGAL CITES, most prefer not to "die on that hill" and simply go silent. I sincerely hope that those who read the posts we make will take stock of the information presented and take action in their own lives to provide for their Self-Protection. I know someone who just 2 years ago was an anti-gun person but has swung around to the "other side" and I will shortly be taking them to the Range for the first time (they are looking into getting their CPL and carrying).

detroit_fan · Mar 22, 2012

yeah i was pleasantly surprised by the large amount of positive comments. seems more people are finally "getting it".

detroit_fan · Mar 22, 2012

New article about it passing committee-

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/handgun_reforms_including_allo.html#incart_hbx

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

Figure I'll say it here since the other thread was closed. I don't really care for this law. Yes it's a good idea for people to shoot more, but I don't want the government authorizing itself to further require time and expense to access a privilege which should be a right. Also, given the fact that NRA range training is inept, foolish, and utterly ineffective at teaching unskilled shooters, it will only be a thorough waste of time and money unless the state mandates real world shooting in classes, which they won't since it would in effect boot the NRA out of the process completely.

The other thing I don't like about this is the establishment of an official don't carry here sign for liquor license holders. As we have it now, cpl holders are able to legally CC and go past a privately made no guns sign at a liquor license holding establishment as long as they don't make the majority of their money on on sight consumption of alcohol. The more these signs go up, the more in style they will become as more and more business owners think its okay to put them up. It's a natural effect of gun rights being exterted, but we should lobby at all times to keep the government from amplifying the effect.

In other words, I don't really see this as anything more than an attempt to streamline and extend the states grasp on power it shouldn't have. I think I'll be writing my reps to oppose it, and I'll also ask them to try to draft a bill which is actually pro freedom.

Slave · Mar 25, 2012

Michigander said:
Figure I'll say it here since the other thread was closed. I don't really care for this law. Yes it's a good idea for people to shoot more, but I don't want the government authorizing itself to further require time and expense to access a privilege which should be a right. Also, given the fact that NRA range training is inept, foolish, and utterly ineffective at teaching unskilled shooters, it will only be a thorough waste of time and money unless the state mandates real world shooting in classes, which they won't since it would in effect boot the NRA out of the process completely.

The other thing I don't like about this is the establishment of an official don't carry here sign for liquor license holders. As we have it now, cpl holders are able to legally CC and go past a privately made no guns sign at a liquor license holding establishment as long as they don't make the majority of their money on on sight consumption of alcohol. The more these signs go up, the more in style they will become as more and more business owners think its okay to put them up. It's a natural effect of gun rights being exterted, but we should lobby at all times to keep the government from amplifying the effect.

In other words, I don't really see this as anything more than an attempt to streamline and extend the states grasp on power it shouldn't have. I think I'll be writing my reps to oppose it, and I'll also ask them to try to draft a bill which is actually pro freedom.

What are you talking about? What does liquor licenses have to do with anything? This bill makes counties accountable for denying us. This bill gives us MORE freedom to carry in more places.

Yes, it requires $20USD more for 50 more bullets. The OPTIONAL exemption costs extra.

There is no way we will jump from where we are to Constitutional Carry in one jump. There needs to be baby steps, and then we will sprint. There are more antis then Pros, so come on down to realism, and let's get this done.

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

You're confusing privileges with freedom. They are 2 very different things.

Read the bill, towards the end, you'll see what I'm talking about. I'd copy and paste, but I'm typing this on an ipad and don't actually know how to copy and paste with it.

detroit_fan · Mar 25, 2012

Slave said:
What are you talking about? What does liquor licenses have to do with anything? This bill makes counties accountable for denying us. This bill gives us MORE freedom to carry in more places.

Yes, it requires $20USD more for 50 more bullets. The OPTIONAL exemption costs extra.

There is no way we will jump from where we are to Constitutional Carry in one jump. There needs to be baby steps, and then we will sprint. There are more antis then Pros, so come on down to realism, and let's get this done.

I agree 100%. Even South Dakota and Montana were unable to pass Const Carry, to think that MI is just going to go from what we have now to that is not realistic. I have no idea what liquor signs he is talking about. What I really like about this bill is that if you like things the way they are it is still the same, the extra stuff only applies to those that want to expand their carry. It eliminates the CPL board, which is LONG overdue imo. This is why we never get anything done in MI with regards to the 2A, because some people will nitpick every little detail and oppose it just because it is not perfect. When is the last time you saw a perfect bill? Baby steps are better than no steps, but I guess Michigander is fine with standing still.

Shadow Bear · Mar 25, 2012

Any ground gained is a victory; we cannot win the war without winning battles.

Are you for us, or against us?

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

detroit_fan said:
I agree 100%. Even South Dakota and Montana were unable to pass Const Carry, to think that MI is just going to go from what we have now to that is not realistic. I have no idea what liquor signs he is talking about. What I really like about this bill is that if you like things the way they are it is still the same, the extra stuff only applies to those that want to expand their carry. It eliminates the CPL board, which is LONG overdue imo. This is why we never get anything done in MI with regards to the 2A, because some people will nitpick every little detail and oppose it just because it is not perfect. When is the last time you saw a perfect bill? Baby steps are better than no steps, but I guess Michigander is fine with standing still.

Standing still?

Granted I've been out of the state for the past 14 months (more to come on that when I get back shortly) but I've consistently put my money where my mouth is as much as anyone.

The point is that a cpl holder can already OC almost anywhere. This would enable both CC and OC in most places while offering no reduced costs to the CPL applicant, rather higher costs in ammo while still giving a near monopoly to garbage NRA training. It would however save the state the expense of having the stupid gun boards.

I'll say it again, read the bill, you'll see what I'm talking about with the liquor license signs.

Progress is progress, but I see no actual progress being proposed, only a proposal to pay for more privileges. Without reduced taxation and/or real gains in freedom, no bill regarding gun carrying can be related to progress.

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

Another way to look at it was when was the last time that a state, deciding to give way to freedom and responsibility gave requirements up for licenses, certifications or permits to hunt, drive, ride motorcycles, operate boats, work with hazardous materials, or build buildings? Pretty much never, because they love power and control, not a bit of which they deserve, apart from the fact that some citizens are willing to let the have it.

Edit to add- what in the hell is the deal with these advertising links going in automatically now?

detroit_fan · Mar 25, 2012

Michigander said:
Standing still?

Granted I've been out of the state for the past 14 months (more to come on that when I get back shortly) but I've consistently put my money where my mouth is as much as anyone.

The point is that a cpl holder can already OC almost anywhere. This would enable both CC and OC in most places while offering no reduced costs to the CPL applicant, rather higher costs in ammo while still giving a near monopoly to garbage NRA training. It would however save the state the expense of having the stupid gun boards.

I'll say it again, read the bill, you'll see what I'm talking about with the liquor license signs.

Progress is progress, but I see no actual progress being proposed, only a proposal to pay for more privileges. Without reduced taxation and/or real gains in freedom, no bill regarding gun carrying can be related to progress.

I didn't meant to imply that you do not fight for the cause, I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I was referring to state law standing still. Some people do not want to have to OC in a school and draw all the attention, same can be said for other PFZ's, having a CC option in those areas is important imo.

What higher ammo costs are we talking about? Most classes already require you to shoot at least 50-100 rounds, are we really complaining about having to shoot a few more rounds? I couldn't care less about the liquor signs, if a business wants to be anti carry then don't spend your money there, we should not kill a bill just because some anti bar owners would put up signs.

The progress is being able to CC in current PFZ's something we can't do now. The progress is elimination the gun boards, which we have now. I just think it's silly to oppose this bill without putting forth a bill that you think is better that actually can pass the legislature. We have to remember that lansing is not filled with people like us, no matter how bad we all want Const Carry it just won't pass here yet. We can all sit back and wait for that day to come and do nothing in the mean time, or we can support bills like this that take small steps forward. jmo

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

I'm actually one of the least optimistic con carry advocates. But as I said progress can only be made in the form of reduced taxing, and gains in rights.

Personally I don't have any more faith in the SOS, sheriffs depts, or any other government agency as opposed to the gun boards. I'd put twice the faith into a random waiter at pizza hut. The gain here would be a reduction of some sort in their oversight. Or at least a reduction of some sort to a less than 48 hour time frame to issue the license before the agency owes you a grand or something. Think about it, why is it that after less than an hour in the DMV Arizona issued me a 50 year drivers license 4 minutes after my picture was taken (not a temp, the permanent one) and Michigan can't even figure out how to issue a cpl or drivers license without having its bureaucrats haphazardly play with themselves for weeks or months on end?

TheQ · Mar 25, 2012

detroit_fan said:
What higher ammo costs are we talking about? Most classes already require you to shoot at least 50-100 rounds, are we really complaining about having to shoot a few more rounds? I couldn't care less about the liquor signs, if a business wants to be anti carry then don't spend your money there, we should not kill a bill just because some anti bar owners would put up signs.

The NRA already requires that you fire 93 (or 98?) rounds to take Personal Protection In the Home. The fact that some instructors are having you only fire 30-50 risks their certification credentials with the NRA.

Also, please cite the page of the bill the "signs" nonsense appears on. I've read the bill 3 times. I helped write it!

detroit_fan · Mar 25, 2012

TheQ said:
The NRA already requires that you fire 93 (or 98?) rounds to take Personal Protection In the Home. The fact that some instructors are having you only fire 30-50 risks their certification credentials with the NRA.

Also, please cite the page of the bill the "signs" nonsense appears on. I've read the bill 3 times. I helped write it!

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, just saying that the increase in shots fired is not that much more than we already have. People saying that increased ammo costs is a reason to be against this bill just seem silly to me.

I'm assuming you are asking michigander about the page number, I have no idea what signs he is referring to.

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

Towards the bottom, Sec 50 (1) (d)

I did however just realize I was mistaken! That part is already law. My apologies for the confusion.

These signs have not really been an issue thus far because no one who has a cpl and follows the law would CC anyway. I do believe they'll become more popular if this bill becomes law, but contrary to what I was thinking, I guess that by itself doesn't mean much, all things considered.

That however doesn't change the fact that I still don't like the other aspects of this bill. What the NRA requires shouldn't mean much, considering the fact that NRA training is some of the worst defensive shooting practice I know of. I for one would rather a private individual who is preparing to defend themselves shoot 50 rounds the right way, rapid fire from the hip and with extended arms while focusing on the target rather than the sights, than to shoot 1-3 at a time slowly being taught the weaver stance and some other nonsense while being PROHIBITED from using silhouette targets while consuming in excess of 100 rounds. One way can give someone with no previous experience better odds of saving their life, the other can make that person delusional, or maybe it will leave them lacking confidence since they never scored well. In any case, round counts are not the problem, a bullying state in bed with a horrible organization is.

TheQ · Mar 25, 2012

There are good, quality NRA instructors and there are not so good trainers. Quality control is a problem the NRA has. This is where caveat emptor comes in. People should do research and ask people they know to be competent and trust for a recommendation to a quality trainer.

Are your proposing the state get involved in controlling the quality of training via regulation?

*hides*

TheQ · Mar 25, 2012

If quality training is what the market wanted -- that's what we'd have for trainers because the ones lacking quality would run out of clients.

Sadly, many people just want the "bare minimum" to get their piece of paper for their CPL -- so that's what the market often delivers.

Michigander · Mar 25, 2012

TheQ said:
Are your proposing the state get involved in controlling the quality of training via regulation?*

No, saying they should stay out of it completely, and that any attempt the state makes to further establish legal requirements to carry is a step in the wrong direction.

I'd say that the vast majority of people just want the bare minimum to get their cpl. They've seen CSI and cops and already know it all. But from a standpoint of liberty and those who seek to defend it, their arrogance isn't really a problem to take up with the legislature.

MLive article on SB59

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member