• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

MLive article on SB59

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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.


I don't like the training requirements either. But is the fact it adds to the training requirements for a basic CPL (requirements which are already required by the sponsor of the class) and doesn't remove all training requirements reason enough to kill the bill?

Really, we need to be pragmatic. Does this bill leave us better than we were yesterday? If so, then it deserves our support.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Michigander said:
I don't want the government authorizing itself to further require time and expense to access a privilege which should be a right.
It is a right, one which is currently badly infringed by many levels of gov't.
And there have been states which lessened & finally stopped their infringements. Not nearly enough of them - 'enough' would be all 50 + DC - but ya gotta start somewhere.

NRA range training is inept, foolish, and utterly ineffective at teaching unskilled shooters
I think that's a bit harsh, & not just because I'm an instructor.
I've seen people who were almost literally afraid to handle a gun (pistol, rifle, & shotgun) come out the other end of a NRA class which included range work being basically competent.
That's the foundation for building skills more useful than those you deride (basic stance, bullseye shooting).
Ya gotta start somewhere.
Is a First Steps or Basic Pistol class sufficient for someone who's never handled a pistol before to get a carry license & be competent to use that pistol effectively in a SD situation? Absolutely not. But nobody can jump from never touched a firearm before to the reincarnation of Jeff Cooper with one 8-hour class.

TheQ said:
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.
Yep. We're having the fight (over here across the lake in WI) about what sort & how much training should be required.
I go back & forth w/ myself because I don't think the gov't should require any training or tax or license to exercise a right, but if you're going to get (or give) training it should mean something, be useful.
Free mass lectures have been very popular. I hope those people either already have practical training or come to understand they need some.

Michigander said:
what in the hell is the deal with these advertising links going in automatically now?
It's some revenue stream. I don't know quite how it works, but when I see those I go back & break up whatever word or phrase they've inserted themselves into, usually by adding a _ between words or sometimes a | in place of an l.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
I think that's a bit harsh, & not just because I'm an instructor

There are really 2 schools of thought on it. There is the idealistic route, where basic bullseye instruction takes place before combat instruction, and suitable amounts of time and money are expended to the point of proficiency.

Then there is reality, as was discussed earlier that students tend to want the least possible amount of time and money spent on the class, rarely if ever again to show up at a range, and almost certainly if they do, not bother shooting like their lives depend on it, mostly because very few ranges, particularly in the mid west, will allow it.

What has worked for me in teaching new shooters basic defensive handgun use, is to first have them empty a magazine as fast as possible to calm their nerves and get them focused, then set targets out from 2 to 15 feet, and teach them hip shooting and it's transition back and forth between point shooting. If this is mastered, isosceles at 20 or more feet can be learned, but I don't consider it especially important for the casual carrier.

Speaking of Jeff Cooper, I believe he helped write many of the NRA instructor materials, which by the way I own copies of. The concept of the "modern technique" being taught to anyone who at a basic minimum won't dry fire practice weekly and live fire practice twice a month, is in my opinion insane. I have never, ever under any circumstance met anyone online or in person, who survived a gun fight and can recall seeing the sights, let alone taking a perfect posture, apart from special forces veterans. The very idea that the NRA would teach close quarters sight picture shooting and the weaver stance to large numbers of people who at best might practice every 6 months is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.

It doesn't change anything as far as posting signs.
 
Last edited:

Slave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
141
Location
Flint, Michigan, USA
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.

No I'm not. It's you who is confusing fantasy with reality.
Reality: Guns are regulated, regardless of what the Constitution says.
Your Fantasy: If you say that it's a right for the 1,000,000th time, the anti's and .gov will magically pass constitutional carry.
Reality: We need to chip away until we win.
 

Slave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
141
Location
Flint, Michigan, USA
There are really 2 schools of thought on it. There is the idealistic route, where basic bullseye instruction takes place before combat instruction, and suitable amounts of time and money are expended to the point of proficiency.

Then there is reality, as was discussed earlier that students tend to want the least possible amount of time and money spent on the class, rarely if ever again to show up at a range, and almost certainly if they do, not bother shooting like their lives depend on it, mostly because very few ranges, particularly in the mid west, will allow it.

What has worked for me in teaching new shooters basic defensive handgun use, is to first have them empty a magazine as fast as possible to calm their nerves and get them focused, then set targets out from 2 to 15 feet, and teach them hip shooting and it's transition back and forth between point shooting. If this is mastered, isosceles at 20 or more feet can be learned, but I don't consider it especially important for the casual carrier.

Speaking of Jeff Cooper, I believe he helped write many of the NRA instructor materials, which by the way I own copies of. The concept of the "modern technique" being taught to anyone who at a basic minimum won't dry fire practice weekly and live fire practice twice a month, is in my opinion insane. I have never, ever under any circumstance met anyone online or in person, who survived a gun fight and can recall seeing the sights, let alone taking a perfect posture, apart from special forces veterans. The very idea that the NRA would teach close quarters sight picture shooting and the weaver stance to large numbers of people who at best might practice every 6 months is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Okay, I should have read all of your posts first, because now, you are making even less sense than earlier.

You oppose this bill, because of the poor NRA class. You advocate constitutional carry.

NRA Class: SOME training

Constitutional Carry: Any nut can buy a gun with piss poor eye site, NEVER EVER train, because ZERO training is required for Constitutional carry.

What is your point? You say the law is bad because the training is poor, yet you advocate a carry type with even worse training.

You make my head hurt.

I also believe in constitutional carry, but I will not talk in circles and hate Licensed carry because it doesn't have great training requirements. I will hate licensed carry for a bunch of legit reasons.

TL;DR The supposed bad NRA training is better than ZERO training, WTF are you going on about?
 
Last edited:

quarter horseman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
345
Location
Allegan co Michigan, USA
1 question

I have one question it may have been brought up before in the thread but with all the other postings I either forgot or didnt see the answer. Does this change the ability for a CPL holder to openly carry into the PFZ's as we are allowed to now?
I want to know if this passes will I still be able to carry into my sons school openly with a normal CPL?
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I have one question it may have been brought up before in the thread but with all the other postings I either forgot or didnt see the answer. Does this change the ability for a CPL holder to openly carry into the PFZ's as we are allowed to now?
I want to know if this passes will I still be able to carry into my sons school openly with a normal CPL?

Okay, short of it. This bill will allow a CPL holder who takes additional training ( about 9 hours, along lines of NRA course Defense outside the home, and details to be worked out.) can then present this additional training to clerk and they will issue a new CPL with the exemption box checked for a 10 fee (cover cost of new CPL). THIS IS OPTIONAL. Basically if you have a CPL now and don't take the additional class, nothing changes and you would go about as usual, so no change in OC options.

If you get the exemption you will have the OPTION of CC or OC as you choose in the GFZs as listed on your CPL. Courts, federal regulations, etc., stay the same.
 
Last edited:

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
816
Location
michigan
I sure hope this goes thru.. I will most certainly take advantage. It is lame to have to pay more money for a right and whatnot.. but it will be worth it not having to disarm at least 4 times a day while dropping/picking up chitlins.... :/
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
WTF are you going on about?

If you don't want your head to hurt, you really shouldn't go quoting a post in response to a somewhat off topic remark by MKEgal, then act as though I was trying to say something in regard to the bill.

In any case, NRA training isn't the only way to get a cpl, and I never intended to make it sound as though it is. Mcoles training, and ony other program which meets the requirements can be used to certify someone for a cpl. If it wasn't abundantly clear, I hate the NRA on many levels, and use every chance I can get to bash them.

Just so it's completely clear what I think and why, here is a brief summary.

I was wrong about the signs! I already figured that out and posted it on the last page.

The NRA has a NEAR monopoly on CPL classes, and it will do no good to require more ammo at the classes, since in my opinion the classes are garbage to begin with. It Is a step BACKWARDS to be putting new requirements and costs on CPL seekers. No matter who teaches the class and how, new costs and requirements are a new detriment to liberty.

We can already OC with CPLs nearly anywhere. The concept of adding new bureaucracy and expense for an ability we essentially already have, I don't buy it. I think it's another step backwards. If your opinion is the opposite, GREAT! Go and lobby your ass of for the bill to pass.
 
Last edited:

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Reality: We need to chip away until we win.

I suppose I should address my opinion of this comment as well.

As I already said, when was the last time you remember the government giving up licensing requirements? Do you think that you'll live to see an end to chauffeurs licenses, fishing licenses, hunting licenses, or motorcycle endorsements? How about an end to the NFA registry?

I know 2 things for sure. The government doesn't want any of that, and none of it will happen unless people work extremely hard to make it happen. Your defeatist mentality about fantasy vs reality reminds me of the comments I heard from other gun owners in 2007 when I started OCing. Telling me that the few of us here OCing in urban areas were nuts, out of line, going to be arrested, and yes, living in a fantasy. It took a lot of hard work to get where we are now. Will it be even harder to get constitutional carry? Probably, but if we want it we need to work for it, not against it by encouraging the government to grant itself new powers.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Will people be able to CC in courts?
As I said you will be able to CC in the places listed in the CC statute, Courts are not on that list. Below are the place you will be able to CC in. The only gray area is casinos. There is a rule stating no weapons in casinos licensed by the act, so CC may not be allowed in casinos. My interpretation is no CC in casinos controlled under the act.

(a) A school or school property except that a parent or legal guardian of a student of the school is not precluded from carrying a concealed pistol while in a vehicle on school property, if he or she is dropping the student off at the school or picking up the child from the school. As used in this section, "school" and "school property" mean those terms as defined in section 237a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.237a.
(b) A public or private child care center or day care center, public or private child caring institution, or public or private child placing agency.
(c) A sports arena or stadium.
(d) A bar or tavern licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, where the primary source of income of the business is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass and consumed on the premises. This subdivision does not apply to an owner or employee of the business. The Michigan liquor control commission shall develop and make available to holders of licenses under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, an appropriate sign stating that "This establishment prohibits patrons from carrying concealed weapons". The owner or operator of an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, may, but is not required to, post the sign developed under this subdivision. A record made available by an establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303, necessary to enforce this subdivision is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.
(e) Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship permit the carrying of concealed pistol on that property or facility.
(f) An entertainment facility with a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals or that has a sign above each public entrance stating in letters not less than 1-inch high a seating capacity of 2,500 or more individuals.
(g) A hospital.
(h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.


2) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol in violation of R 432.1212 or a successor rule of the Michigan administrative code promulgated under the Michigan gaming control and revenue act, 1996 IL 1, MCL 432.201 to 432.226.
 

quarter horseman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
345
Location
Allegan co Michigan, USA
Okay, short of it. This bill will allow a CPL holder who takes additional training ( about 9 hours, along lines of NRA course Defense outside the home, and details to be worked out.) can then present this additional training to clerk and they will issue a new CPL with the exemption box checked for a 10 fee (cover cost of new CPL). THIS IS OPTIONAL. Basically if you have a CPL now and don't take the additional class, nothing changes and you would go about as usual, so no change in OC options.

If you get the exemption you will have the OPTION of CC or OC as you choose in the GFZs as listed on your CPL. Courts, federal regulations, etc., stay the same.

Thank you that was what I was hopeing for, I dont mind OCing in PFZ's so I more than likly will not pay for all the extras. I for one do not have the extra money and time is very hard to come by also, so as long as the laws on OCing stay the same it wont affect me because I dont usually CC anyway. Heck I'm still waiting to have extra cash to get a mosin-Nagant from Dr. Todd thats about the only rifle I can afford, Kids and horses suck the money out of my wallet faster than i can put it in.
 

quarter horseman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
345
Location
Allegan co Michigan, USA
I sure hope this goes thru.. I will most certainly take advantage. It is lame to have to pay more money for a right and whatnot.. but it will be worth it not having to disarm at least 4 times a day while dropping/picking up chitlins.... :/

From the sound of it you have a CPL so why disarm? just OC when you pick them up. With me there are so many kids and parents around no one even sees your carrying most of the time. this is why I am not 100% behind this bill but also not against it either becauce I can still OC in the same places.
We in my opinion should not have to do the extra training and pay more money just to CC when we can OC in the same, place with out all the wasted time and money. What really changes? your CCing I'm OCing, we both are there to do the same thing, watch a show or pick up chitilins, what have you and we both have our guns. I still dont understand why you would want to pay and take all that time out of your busy life to do the same thing I am at no extra cost.
I am in support of the bill because it does not change anything for me but will help the CCers out and I consider them teammates in our battle (I dont believe they think the same for OCers) but I will help them. By the way whay is a cc bill so important in a OC forum anyway? I think we should be fighting for the carry of weapons any and everywhere we want toin this state.
I still thank the Q for his time and effort, I still contacted my senator in support, I did not mean to offend anyone or cause an arguement form this just stating my opinion and how I have fealt your years. I also know my spelling and gramer and puncuation suck so you dont have to remind me of that thanks to anyone who wants to be a smartypants.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
SB 59 will not change the status quo as far as courts are concerned. That's a supreme court rule -- not a law.

Well except for this one.

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.Sec. 234d.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.
(b) A church or other house of religious worship.
(c) A court.
(d) A theatre.
(e) A sports arena.
(f) A day care center.
(g) A hospital.
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.
(b) A peace officer.
(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
 
Top