• 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

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I have been in contact with Rep Opsommer about another issue, and he told me that he was supporting HB 5225. I immediately sent him the following email.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this issue.

HB 5225 scares the heck out of me sir. I am solidly against the purchase permit and registration and would love to see this eliminated, however, it leaves most Michiganders open to federal prosecution for coming within the 1,000 foot gun free school zome. Currently, our license to purchase, posess and transport, ie. purchase permit meets the standard to provide exemption for this. There are 9 million people in the state, subtract 2 million persons under age 18, and you have 7 million people, there are 310,000 CPL holders who are exempt, leaving the other 6 million of us in a very very dangerous legal position. One cannot, under the current federal law, even have a gun in the car driving down the road without committing a felony. Since the Federal law says that "a person may not knowingly posses", it leaves the person in a guilty until proven innocent situation. Gun owners on the various forums are terrified of this law, and feel like we are getting the shaft.

Just because the l;likelihood of prosecution is light, doesnt mean that this law should be passed as is. IF a person is prosecuted for crossing some imaginary line for an illusion of "safety", the punishment is sending an innocent prison, destroying their life and family, and the loss of their rights for life! Unless a provision is made to protect our citizens from the gun free school zone, I cannot support this law, and beg you to stand against it as well. PLEASE read this to every legislator before this goes too far so that they can understand what they are actually voting for.

Honestly, the way the gun laws are in the state make me want to leave altogether, this would certainly be the last straw. I am putting up with this state now, because of finances and my family, but truthfully, I want to move to a free state. It is better to try to raise my daughter from Kentucky, than from prison. At least I could drive 6 hours a couple times a year to see her.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
You made the name for yourself.

Does that make it right? You should know better.

Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!

No.
As i pointed out in the letter to Mr. Opsommer, There is no excuse for opening up millions of people to federal prosecution in order to repeal a couple of pieces of paper, that affect a distinct and vast minority, that have thus far, done little to no harm to anyone.

There is a time and a place, and a right and wrong way to do anything. In this case, we are getting the cart in front of the horse.
 
Last edited:

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!

While what you say makes sense. You must realize that gun owners are generally their own worst enemy. Look at how they helped bury SB59, now they don't want this.

It's funny how the same people who didn't want SB 59 because they demanded constitution carry are now demanding that their permission slips be kept on the books for purchasing handguns.

It probably won't pass the senate anyway. It would normally have a decent chance; however, with people calling their senators to kill the bill because of the GFSZ law, don't worry, it will die.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Yes. I'd still be enthusiastic about it even if I didn't.


I WANT to support this bill, I really do, but I can't.

Perhaps you dont have such a minefield of GFSZ in the U.P., I really don't know, but down here in S.E. Lower Peninsula, travel is next to impossible without committing a felony. I'm sure if you were down here without a CPL, you would feel as many of us do.


If this law had an exemption from the GFSZ, would be jumping for joy! I might even go borrow one of my daughters pom-poms. :lol:
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Below is the gun free school zones act.

Much like we're about to have to start kit building pistols with 16" barrels and a detachable stock if we want to carry long arms under our CPL's, we'll now have to start entirely making our own guns that didn't go through interstate commerce if we want to carry pistols with no permission. In a sense, that would be a step ahead, being able to carry home built un-serial numbered pistols, and without regard to the GFSZA. In another sense, most people won't.

What dan says makes sense, and is as always a well thought out viewpoint. I do still believe however that there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and taking down the registration system without a blanket MCL that proclaims state wide licenses for all Michigan citizens for the purpose of the GFSZA, well that's the wrong way for the reasons I've stated.

I suppose that the issue is that not one of our law makers seems interested in helping our cause along. And thus, if there is a group consensus about this being the best we can hope for, I'll keep out of it. If there isn't a general consensus, I'm going to be calling the NRA and lansing to let them know how bad of an idea I think this is.




TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 922
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Rep Opsommers response

Kudos on this man for being on top of his emails.

Thank you Mr. Carpenter -
We are aware of this issue and are working with the NRA and MSP on a solution. In most states (around 45 that do not have permits or registration), it has meant that people wishing to open carry in a school zone would need to get a concealed license, and they would be protected to at least the same degree they are now with the “invisible license” (permit) that is obtained now. While many open carry proponents also have a CPL, both to help avoid any problems associated with brandishing or transportation, we understand that not all people wish to obtain a CPL. The MSP are as of now not convinced that a voluntary permit system would work, for while they would like to keep registration, they also would be able to save millions of dollars by getting rid of the tests, permit system, and registration. They have expressed that if they are forced to get rid of registration, they would like to be able to do so in its entirety, so a solution that meets everyone’s needs is proving to be a challenge. We are continuing to work with the NRA and MSP on this issue.
cleardot.gif
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
My response

I see your quandary. Respectfully sir, the representatives are in place to represent the will, needs and the rights of the people, not the MSP.

I sincerely hope that I do not put you off by making that statement.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
His. What a great guy.

[FONT=&quot]No offense taken, we understand, and work for you. We do not have direct control over the MSP or their positions however, and ultimately they take their orders from the Governor, who can issue executive orders, promulgate rules, veto legislation etc. We have to work within the inherent checks and balances of the system, and ultimately the final form of any piece of law is altered and shaped by a variety of stakeholders.[/FONT]
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Too bad there's not an optional permit for those who could otherwise qualify for the PP to get so they can be exempt from the GFSZA.
 

Jared

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
892
Location
Michigan, USA
Repeal of the registration and purchase permits are a "violates my principals" type of an issue. the GFSZ puts innocents into prison.

Which is worse?

For you, it's worse because you are ineligible for a CPL due to criminal history.

Now, does anything in your past history warrant restrictions on your RKBA? I say no.

Keep in mind that the GFSZ is a federal law that state and local LEO's can not detain you for or charge you with.

State and local cops who are off duty would be in the same boat as everyone else, if they don't get a CPL they will be violating the GFSZ act. I don't see why the state would make an issue of it.

In a post McDonald world, it does not seem that a 1000 foot buffer zone would pass constitutional muster.

No one wants to touch the GFSZ issue, it's always charged against someone as an add on charge.

If you were to map out school zones, you would see that it makes most major roads in any area off-limits.

It's impossible to drive around Phoenix, Cleveland, almost anywhere in Wayne County Michigan, Hawaii, San Francisco. I've seen a map of school zones in Cheyenne Wyoming, you would have to literally drive on in the breakdown lane in the eastbound lane of Interstate 80 in one spot to avoid hitting a school zone.

They threatened the school zone law in Virginia back in 2004 when retroactive preemption took effect and open carry was legal statewide. After VCDL pointed out that the off duty cops would be felons as well, Alexandria officials backed down.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
For you, it's worse because you are ineligible for a CPL due to criminal history.

Now, does anything in your past history warrant restrictions on your RKBA? I say no.

Keep in mind that the GFSZ is a federal law that state and local LEO's can not detain you for or charge you with.

State and local cops who are off duty would be in the same boat as everyone else, if they don't get a CPL they will be violating the GFSZ act. I don't see why the state would make an issue of it.

In a post McDonald world, it does not seem that a 1000 foot buffer zone would pass constitutional muster.

No one wants to touch the GFSZ issue, it's always charged against someone as an add on charge.

If you were to map out school zones, you would see that it makes most major roads in any area off-limits.

It's impossible to drive around Phoenix, Cleveland, almost anywhere in Wayne County Michigan, Hawaii, San Francisco. I've seen a map of school zones in Cheyenne Wyoming, you would have to literally drive on in the breakdown lane in the eastbound lane of Interstate 80 in one spot to avoid hitting a school zone.

They threatened the school zone law in Virginia back in 2004 when retroactive preemption took effect and open carry was legal statewide. After VCDL pointed out that the off duty cops would be felons as well, Alexandria officials backed down.


Thanks Jared. I have little doubt that it would go through court and fail, however, such a case would be highly stressful, long, and very very expensive.

This does bother me more now, lacking my CPL, but also I seem to have become a person of interest judging by the way I was rammed through the courts recently, and some of the contacts I have had since. It makes me wonder if they wouldn't try to use me as a test case.
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
a blanket MCL that proclaims state wide licenses for all Michigan citizens for the purpose of the GFSZA

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.


(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

Bronson
 
Last edited:

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
we'll now have to start entirely making our own guns that didn't go through interstate commerce if we want to carry pistols with no permission.

Nice try...it won't work. Look up "cumulative effect" of the commerce clause. Basically, if people start to make their own pistols it can be declared that since they are making their own and NOT buying them then it affects interstate commerce and can be regulated.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/CongressionalPowers/SubstantialEffect.asp

Also, since the raw materials used in making the firearm more than likely moved in interstate commerce they would claim they can regulate it.

(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;

Bronson
 

Michigander

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

We have state ID's. It's almost impossible to get away from in this day and age. If needed, it should be very easy to go as far as to have the system mark people as "licensed" or not to carry firearms.

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.

In any case, good points which I need to further research, so thank you for pointing that stuff out.

I do believe that the GFSZA is Constitutionally very weak. It failed once before, and it's ripe to fail again. All other case laws and such aside, my opinion is that a home built gun would be the way to go if someone is going to try to challenge the GFSZA by putting their own ass on the line. Having the ability to claim exemption from the commerce clause would be a lot better in court than say, trying to claim mere Constitutional invalidity for carrying an imported gun.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
As i pointed out in the letter to Mr. Opsommer, There is no excuse for opening up millions of people to federal prosecution in order to repeal a couple of pieces of paper, that affect a distinct and vast minority, that have thus far, done little to no harm to anyone.

Registration isn't a "a couple of pieces of paper". It is an infringement on the same millions you mention are infringed upon by the GFSZA. I understand it would be optimal to get rid of GFSZA first, then registration. But that's not the timing with which we are presented an opportunity today. Current state and federal legislative activity have presented the cart in front of the horse. "We" (gun owners) are not getting the cart and horse in those positions. We have a chance to kill an evil. It is error to let the evil live because it helps you avoid another evil. No, you kill the evil as the opportunity presents itself to do so.

I understand registration repeal means more care will have to be taken with GFSZA . . . until GFSZA is killed or neutered with regard to lawful carry. That will wake up gun owners who have been lazy about GFSZA because registration made it possible for them to be lazy about losing their rights.

Which is better, which will create a bunch more gun-rights advocates, and which will get something done quicker:
1) Millions lazy about GFSZA, and continuing in their slumber while their rights are infringed, because *another infringement* (registration) happens to keep them that way.
2) Millions potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something about GFSZA, due to the fact that they are not shielded from that infringement with another infringement.

I'll take a million potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something over a million lazy ones, as the former will at least translate to a substantial bump in gun-rights activism and the latter will snore away while gun rights further erode.
 
Last edited:

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
Registration isn't a "a couple of pieces of paper". It is an infringement on the same millions you mention are infringed upon by the GFSZA. I understand it would be optimal to get rid of GFSZA first, then registration. But that's not the timing with which we are presented an opportunity today. Current state and federal legislative activity have presented the cart in front of the horse. "We" (gun owners) are not getting the cart and horse in those positions. We have a chance to kill an evil. It is error to let the evil live because it helps you avoid another evil. No, you kill the evil as the opportunity presents itself to do so.

I understand registration repeal means more care will have to be taken with GFSZA . . . until GFSZA is killed or neutered with regard to lawful carry. That will wake up gun owners who have been lazy about GFSZA because registration made it possible for them to be lazy about losing their rights.

Which is better, which will create a bunch more gun-rights advocates, and which will get something done quicker:
1) Millions lazy about GFSZA, and continuing in their slumber while their rights are infringed, because *another infringement* (registration) happens to keep them that way.
2) Millions potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something about GFSZA, due to the fact that they are not shielded from that infringement with another infringement.

I'll take a million potentially concerned and hopping mad to do something over a million lazy ones, as the former will at least translate to a substantial bump in gun-rights activism and the latter will snore away while gun rights further erode.

When you put it that way the choice of lesser evils becomes obvious to most. Let's hope it does light a fire under the feet of the nearly 7 million michigan residents this could be used against. My life experience tells me that chances are it will not. In my opinion this is just what this legislature is hoping for. Fat, dumb, lazy voters who are easily distracted by shiny bobbles while they strip them of their rights. This will be done quietly in the background, while the little people marvel at the table crumbs they have just been given. :(

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both! :eek:
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
I gotta go with DanM on this one. The last time PP repeal came around I didn't support it because it didn't get rid of registration. So had that passed we would have lost the protection of the PP in regards to the GFSZA without really gaining anything at the State level. This time, with the repeal of registration included I feel the pluses at least equal the minuses.

Bronson
 
Last edited:

Bowesmobile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
204
Location
Powhatan, Va
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!
 
Top