• 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.

house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Okay, I live in a state with no registration laws. I live 2 hours from the Capitol of the United States. I do not have a problem with the GFSZ. I drive past schools every day. All of us OC'ers here in this state do. The federal government does not have the man power or the time to enforce the regulation of this law. Nor do they have the right. If you are driving on a public roadway and you pass in front of a school how can they see into your private car to tell you have a gun? So then what is their RAS for pulling you over. Plus it HAS to be a federal agent to make the arrest. Local PD can not. You guys are getting really worked up over nothing. The registration and lists are a big deal and need to be eliminated. But relax about the GFSZ. It's really not that big of a problem. Keep working at restoring your rights according to the 2and amendment! Keep moving forward by removing regulation and government involvement. I hope to move back to Michigan one day and have the freedoms I do here in Virginia without having it be a privilege. It should not be a privilege, its our rights!

You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.
 

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.
Actually, the current Permit to Purchase is also considered a "license to carry." But, it's not a license to carry concealed. That's the major difference.

Myself, I'm on the fence about this. I have my CPL, so I'm not concerned about myself. But I have to care about fellow OCers who, for one reason or another don't have a CPL. As much as I would dearly love to see registration go away, I don't want to see my fellow Michiganders put at risk of federal prosecution.

And I'd be more than willing to bet that getting rid of the GFSZ act, will be difficult at best, nearly impossible at worst. But, maybe we need to go after the GFSZA in a different manner. Try to get it modified first. Perhaps some additional clause where it's only a crime if you're caught in the commission of another crime within that zone. I know, that's probably a long shot as well, but I would think it should be doable, at least more likely than repealing it out right.
 
Last edited:

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
I would be willing to pay 5 or 10 bucks(or free) for a piece of paper(like a hunting license) to cover the Feds!Or an endorsement on MI ID(drivers license),licensing me to own firearms! Done!
 
Last edited:

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Years back, while I was living in Arizona, and this was before they passed constitutional carry, I OC'd near thousands of students on playgrounds and getting out of school as I walked across half of the Phoenix Valley area. There was no way to avoid the school zones, and by that I mean I had to walk right next to them, no other options. And what's more, I KNEW no one cared. And that most definitely included every cop in the county, including the dozens that saw me and didn't look twice.

An outside perspective looking in can be distorted, because if you're in a gold star state, it is greener on your side of the pasture. I know my perspective on Michigan was distorted when I was actually living in the AZ Free Republic. Damn I miss that place...

In terms of enforcing laws, I had been under the impression that police in Michigan can enforce state and federal law anywhere they happen to be in any part of the state. If I am mistaken about this, someone please cite the state or federal law that denies them that jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Sounds like a void discussion for Jared to join. He had previously comment on state police enforcing federal laws.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Again, state and local police CAN NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

That's why when local cops get on task forces with federal agencies they have to be "deputized" if you will. Because if they weren't then they couldn't enforce federal law... Just as Feds generally can't enforce state law without states giving permission to them.
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
I share your concerns, the state could have done it the right way and preserved our rights from the Feral Beast (Federal Government) and rewrote the act, as opposed to serving us and our rights to the Feral Beast. What now a no fly list debacle as they do for air travelers were many thousands are being prevented to fly because some fluke got their name on the no fly or in this case no gun buy list? Does anyone realize is it takes many times the money to fight a case in a Federal court as it does in your local or state courts?

No there will be no onslaught of cases and malicious prosecution jsut yet, but like in Nazi Germany the Feral Beast is grabbing power and soon it will be a major problem.

If anything the states should go in the opposite direction, and take back power from the beast.



They'll be re subjecting hundreds of thousands of Michigan's non CPL holding pistol owners to the federal gun free school zones act. As in wanna walk with your pistol on public property near a school? Better use the PRK poor man's CCW method and carry unloaded and in a locked case. And believe me, we will have people getting charged. The oath violating trash that infests so many of Michigan's PD's will be beside themselves with joy if this goes through.

Some people will inevitably say "but that's not for regular people just carrying!" Until you've had the misfortune I've had, of being a non CPL holder in a near hour long felony stop while the cops try to figure out how they can charge you, including going over the GFSZA with the prosecutor, maybe you won't get it. As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.

It's as though they're trying to clean house of every benefit we can find in the laws, and in turn give us nothing.
 

Bowesmobile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
204
Location
Powhatan, Va
You fail to see the Michigan Bubble. The Michigan Bubble is when people think there is eternal nothingness outside the state boundaries of Michigan. They just like to be battered gun owners. Even though everything you said is spot on, logic will not work on them.

Many of the same people who opposed SB 59 because it wasn't constitution carry are opposing this because it repeals a license to possess.

So basically they can't stand the idea of a license to carry; however, they will hold on to dear life to their license to possess.

If you move back to MI, you will not have any more freedoms than you have in VA. I lived in both places as well. Michigan is more hostile to your second amendment rights, and with battered gun owners in the Michigan Bubble, I wouldn't expect anything to be better here when you return.

That makes me very sad. I miss my home, but I love my rights. I have found a more profound meaning in the constitution here in VA than anywhere else I have lived. I dont want to lose what I have. People need to stop this whole permit for perks ideology. The founding fathers said it was our right to own posses and use firearms for our protection and safety against any and all threats, foremost the government. Without the need for lists of guns owned and licenses to say you can carry. Take steps to secure the right to constitution carry. Sometimes it takes a little patience.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Again, state and local police CAN NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

That's why when local cops get on task forces with federal agencies they have to be "deputized" if you will. Because if they weren't then they couldn't enforce federal law... Just as Feds generally can't enforce state law without states giving permission to them.

There you have it, from a Fed LEO.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,004
Location
Grand Rapids
Your argument assumes that the feds would only charge you with a GFSZA violation. Usually, the largest number of charges possible are levied in the hope that one would stick.

However, I can answer affirmatively that there was a sole charge of violating the GFSZA, and yes, the person was convicted. see: United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)

That was the only charge that would stick; Danks was not innocently strolling past a school when he was arrested. He was an active shooter at the time he was in the GFSZ. I couldn't find any info as to WHY he was shooting at a car; just that it was the act that got him 'noticed'.

So, what we have here is a tempest in a teapot.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
I've read this from other people before and I don't understand how an MCL would suffice since the GFSZA requires that each person's legal ability to be licensed to possess the gun must be individually verified.

Bronson

I don't think it would. There are a few states that have such a provision in their laws. Unfortunately, until such "protection" is tested, a blanket pronouncement in state law is very questionable and one upon which I would be hesitant to rely.
Btw, you will notice that there is no exception to the law if you have to use your pistol, even if you do have a state-issued permit.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
That was the only charge that would stick; Danks was not innocently strolling past a school when he was arrested. He was an active shooter at the time he was in the GFSZ. I couldn't find any info as to WHY he was shooting at a car; just that it was the act that got him 'noticed'.

So, what we have here is a tempest in a teapot.

The question I was asked was if anyone had been charged only with violating the gfsza. Danks was only charged with violating the act. The salient point is...why not charge and convict under state law and be done with it? If what you say is true, why the sole charge?

By the way, in my response to the question I could have given you the hundreds of students charged only with a GFSZA violation... I think Alabama was leading the way with well over a hundred prosecutions. But, since these were "students", I chose instead to focus on people outside of the school itself.
 
Last edited:

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
I don't think it would. There are a few states that have such a provision in their laws. Unfortunately, until such "protection" is tested, a blanket pronouncement in state law is very questionable and one upon which I would be hesitant to rely.

Bronson said:
I've read this from other people before and I don't understand how an MCL would suffice since the GFSZA requires that each person's legal ability to be licensed to possess the gun must be individually verified.

Btw, you will notice that if you have to use your firearm in one of these "zones", there is no exemption from the law even if you do have a permit.

Bronson

WTH! I never wrote that.

Bronson
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
The question i was asked is if anyone had been charged only with violating the gfsza. Danks was only charged with violating the act. The salient point is...why not charge and convict under state law and be done with it? If what you say is true, why the sole charge?
Thats their loophole practice!Any charge they want to make up,legitimate or not,in order to make something stick!Those are the legal "loopholes" that they CAN use,the loopholes "WE THE PEOPLE"need to close so they CANNOT use them against US!
The use of "vague" laws rarely benefit "THE PEOPLE"(US)!
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
Also, I need to research it more, but I doubt that the substantial effect issue would come into play, because very few people possess the machine tools or skill to build guns. Some do, and some build guns, but it's never been many.

Cumulative.

And HAHAHAHA you think any of your logic or reason is going to stop them? They don't have to show that an activity actually DOES have an effect on interstate commerce only that there is some remote possibility that it COULD.

Bronson
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Again, state and local police CAN NOT ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

That's why when local cops get on task forces with federal agencies they have to be "deputized" if you will. Because if they weren't then they couldn't enforce federal law... Just as Feds generally can't enforce state law without states giving permission to them.

That is true to a point. What we have in Michigan is that many local sheriffs will turn certain cases over to the feds when they feel that the law on that level would be a bit harsher. What the feds do with it at that point is up to the federal prosecutor's office. But, as we have seen with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, deputization is an issue only if the local PD wants to arrest on the federal charges. The PD could let you sit at home while the Feds decide to charge you and, when they want you, they will get you.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Cumulative.

And HAHAHAHA you think any of your logic or reason is going to stop them? They don't have to show that an activity actually DOES have an effect on interstate commerce only that there is some remote possibility that it COULD.

Bronson

What I'm saying is that it gives the individual a better chance. The sort of chance I'd want if I was personally going to risk my freedom to help take that law out.

Provided that it's true that only federal cops can enforce federal law, (and I give jeremy as much credibility as anyone) I agree that it's less of an issue. I'm still not happy about this potentially being a new issue, but yeah, I'll go with the flow and say let's get rid of the nearly 100 year old Jim Crow horse ****.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
That is true to a point. What we have in Michigan is that many local sheriffs will turn certain cases over to the feds when they feel that the law on that level would be a bit harsher. What the feds do with it at that point is up to the federal prosecutor's office. But, as we have seen with the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, deputization is an issue only if the local PD wants to arrest on the federal charges. The PD could let you sit at home while the Feds decide to charge you and, when they want you, they will get you.

That is still far fetched. If you have an example that does not involve one shooting at a car is a school zone, I'm all ears.

What I do know is that the license to purchase and registration is a huge infringement on our rights and it violates ALL of us by merely existing.

I'm disappointed that MOC hasn't supported the bill because it does affect open carriers in a way no one has mentioned. Michigan has extra prohibited possessor laws compiled with the purchase permit rules. If this repeal happens then Michigan will mirror federal law by default.... Which opens the door of handgun ownership to more people.

I forgot to mention, that the local police would be calling the Feds at their own peril because ALL their off duty cops (unless they have a CPL) would be in violation of the GFSZ law as well.

It would be a conspiracy if people started to get jammed up meanwhile no off duty cops would be getting jammed up.
 
Last edited:

Yance

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
568
Location
Battle Creek, MI
We could always support 5225, get it passed, then use that as the reason why the GFSZA need to be revised or repealed because now there are 7 million people that could be improperly prosecuted.

Any one think of that as an answer? You all are talking about how we NEED the GFSZA repealed or revised, regardless of this bill passing it needs to be anyways, but what better ammunition than saying "our state just passed a law that opened 7 million of its residents to federal prosecution for simply exercising their rights, this needs to be changed" Id say thats decent ground to stand on.

Everyone that opposes this because of the GFSZA seems to be saying that its just bad timing and we arent given things in the order we need them to get the GFSZA repealed then get PP and registration repealed so that everyone is safe. But what if this order is EXACTLY the order we need them in to get the GFSZA looked at in depth?

just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Top