house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

KBCraig · Jun 14, 2012

Bronson said:
Michigander said:

a blanket MCL that proclaims state wide licenses for all Michigan citizens for the purpose of the GFSZA

Click to expand...

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.

Michigander said:

(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;

Click to expand...

Bronson

I agree, and I've been scratching my head on this too: how does a Michigan purchase permit qualify for exemption from the GFSZA?

If repealing this would cause hardship to Michiganders without concealed carry licenses, then there must be thousands of cases from the 44 or so states that don't have any kind of registration or purchase permit for handguns. All those states that have unlicensed open carry, or unlicensed car carry must have their federal courts swamped with GFSZA violations.

Except... they're not. GFSZA is not an issue, anywhere.

TheQ · Jun 14, 2012

KBCraig said:
I agree, and I've been scratching my head on this too: how does a Michigan purchase permit qualify for exemption from the GFSZA?

If repealing this would cause hardship to Michiganders without concealed carry licenses, then there must be thousands of cases from the 44 or so states that don't have any kind of registration or purchase permit for handguns. All those states that have unlicensed open carry, or unlicensed car carry must have their federal courts swamped with GFSZA violations.

Except... they're not. GFSZA is not an issue, anywhere.

I did research, I asked others to do research too. No one could find a case of someone being charged with violation of GFSZA as a stand-alone violation.

This is the chief reason I didn't push against this bill. Also, those who participate regularly in the Michigan forum can attest to what happened when some gun group opposed a piece of legislation that would allow everyone with an enhanced CPL (which anyone with a CPL could get) to carry concealed in so called PFZs. That gun group got...smote.

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

Jared said:
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.

You may be right, perhaps there have been no prosecutions for purely carrying a firearm in these zones; I will keep looking though. However, one must ask what would bring the attention of law enforcement upon someone? In the case I cited, we don't know why the individual shot at the car. Obviously, shooting at cars tends to bring attention. If a person were carrying concealed, the police wouldn't know if a violation were occurring or not.

Two problems with this thinking:

1. This website is designed as a forum for those who "Open Carry". Carrying a firearm openly tends to, at least to me, be something that people notice. With the increasing practice of Open Carry, is it at least conceivable that people will be "jammed up"?

2. However, whether one gets "jammed up" or not is irrelevant: violating the law is violating the law... ie acting illegally. If we have people here who say "Oh well, the chances are so remote that I would ever get caught etc" they are still KNOWINGLY violating the law. Besides the forum rules which state that this website only promotes legal behavior (I'm paraphrasing here), there is also the question of what kind of firearm owners would knowingly violate the law. Yes, it is onerous to have to put your UNLOADED gun in a case every time you knowingly travel through a school zone... but to not do so, and to advise others not to worry about it because "what are the chances that you will get charged and convicted?", is advocating illegal behavior. Surprising, since I understand that you are a federal law enforcement officer tasked with enforcing the law. I am not trying to impugn your integrity... I just believe your rightful opposition to registration is causing you to state things that COULD BE construed to be advocating illegal behavior.

I will emphatically state, though, that I am not saying that this bill should not be passed (disappointed that there is no provision for a voluntary permit, but it still should be passed). I say this for a number of reasons.

-As an FFL (03), this ALMOST completely removes the state authorities knowing which pistols I have.

-The negative aspects don't affect me... I have a CPL.

-Adhering to the requirement under the GFSZA for those carrying without a CPL is possible.

-I think the requirement could be useful in the defense of a state CCW charge if you do not have a CPL..."Your honor, although I was carrying an unloaded firearm in my briefcase, I was following what was required of me since I was going to be traveling through some Federal Gun Free Zones... so I had no choice". (Not saying this would work, though.)

So, on the face of it, since the effects of this passing are nothing but all positive for me... so be it. It is what it is. Of the legislation that I've seen proposed and actually facing the possibility of passing, it is the best so far. But with the possibility, once again, that we could have so much better, pardon my <YAWN> if this passes. Once again I ask if this is the best we can do.

TheQ · Jun 14, 2012

DrTodd said:
Once again I ask if this is the best we can do.

Nope, probably not. Here's the best we can do and what we need to do it.

We need every gun-loving citizen to make an appointment to visit their lawmaker for 15 minutes. They need to find out how their lawmaker stands on guns and get it in writing, if possible.

We then need people to maintain working relationships with each of the "good" law makers. When we want to introduce/support a bill we then need each of these people who have an established relationship with their law maker to lean on their law maker. We'll also have people who have "friends" in the legislator who will get bills that we want introduced, drafted as we want them, introduced.

Sadly, this all requires too much time and effort for the average gun owner.

In short, we need 148 (110 house _+ 38 senate) people who are willing to put the time and energy I have put into the legislature...who will then follow one person/group pushing a consistent agenda. What's more...they all need to live in strategically located areas (all separate districts).

Let me know when you find these people. I'll be thrilled to have a person conversation with each and every one of them!

Yance · Jun 14, 2012

I personally feel that too many people are investing A LOT into the GFSZA, there are over 300 million people in the united states and we have only found ONE case where the GFSZA alone was an issue. If that says ANYTHING its that the GFSZA is a non issue.

Just my 2 cents and if that doesnt make sense to some of you then nothing will.

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jun 14, 2012

Yance said:
I personally feel that too many people are investing A LOT into the GFSZA, there are over 300 million people in the united states and we have only found ONE case where the GFSZA alone was an issue. If that says ANYTHING its that the GFSZA is a non issue.

Just my 2 cents and if that doesnt make sense to some of you then nothing will.

While most here would agree please see the recent post by Dr.Todd - as he points out laws are laws and we are a community that follows the law, correct? Just because many drivers go 70, 80, 90 mph in posted areas of the freeway that say 55 mph does not mean that they won't be ticketed. You know better than most the mere prospect of having a firearm charge brought against a citizen can cost them dearly.

The problem is no free citizen should live under the threat of having a federal charge dropped on their head like an anvil for simply doing something the constitution says they can do legally, do to a unconstitutional federal law.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.

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

TheQ · Jun 14, 2012

Yance said:
I personally feel that too many people are investing A LOT into the GFSZA, there are over 300 million people in the united states and we have only found ONE case where the GFSZA alone was an issue. If that says ANYTHING its that the GFSZA is a non issue.

Just my 2 cents and if that doesnt make sense to some of you then nothing will.

Did I miss the one found case? Can you refer me to it?

I must have missed it in the thousands of posts on this topic.

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

TheQ said:
Nope, probably not. Here's the best we can do and what we need to do it.

We need every gun-loving citizen to make an appointment to visit their lawmaker for 15 minutes. They need to find out how their lawmaker stands on guns and get it in writing, if possible.

We then need people to maintain working relationships with each of the "good" law makers. When we want to introduce/support a bill we then need each of these people who have an established relationship with their law maker to lean on their law maker. We'll also have people who have "friends" in the legislator who will get bills that we want introduced, drafted as we want them, introduced.

Sadly, this all requires too much time and effort for the average gun owner.

In short, we need 148 (110 house _+ 38 senate) people who are willing to put the time and energy I have put into the legislature...who will then follow one person/group pushing a consistent agenda. What's more...they all need to live in strategically located areas (all separate districts).

Let me know when you find these people. I'll be thrilled to have a person conversation with each and every one of them!

Before I respond, let me begin by thanking you (and others here) for all that you have done in trying to get real legislation passed. Let me add that my comments above were not meant to question the integrity or commitment to the cause of ANY members here, nor was it to disparage those who have fought the good fight.

My criticism is SOLELY focused on the legislators who, while professing to be solidly for "Gun Rights", still actively promote legislation and policies which attack constitutionally guaranteed rights. To me actions speak louder than words. Behavior which is PROMOTED as expanding the ability of people to exercise a right yet further destroys the rights of others is, in my opinion, anti-2A legislation. This is how we got in the situation we are in today.

By carving out exceptions which mollify the most vocal supporters of the 2nd Amendment all the while reducing it for smaller groups of individuals was the major legislative agenda of the gun banners during the 1970's to 1990's. How is what is happening now different than what happened then?

What this does is divides gun owners into fragmented groups who fight each other for scraps from the master's table. I propose that this general inaction, intermittently broken with half-@$$ attempts to quiet the rabble, as proof positive the Michigan Republican Party is no better and, in many ways, worse than Michigan Democrats in this regard. Michigan Dems at least were able to get legislation passed that furthers their supporter's agenda when they were in office. Maybe if we were all corporate elites with unlimited funds to push an agenda that only supports our desire to make money... then perhaps we could get the Republican legislators to listen. Well, since most of us don't belong to the "Millionaire's Club" or have much time to go golfing with our elected representatives because we are trying to feed and clothe our families, I don't think there is going to be much headway. But, we can keep trying to get what we can. Legislators will extol this legislation as proof they have done all they could for gun owners... and Michigan remains a very gun-unfriendly state. In the end, who can gun owners blame but ourselves for believing that these people support our endeavors?

It should not take that much effort to convince a legislature composed of a majority of Republicans that the furtherance of gun rights is important. I appreciate all that you and others have done. Nope, I place all blame for this idiocy squarely where it belongs: the Michigan Republican Party.

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jun 14, 2012

TheQ said:
Did I miss the one found case? Can you refer me to it?

I must have missed it in the thousands of posts on this topic.

It was cited earlier in the thread by dr. Todd.

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

TheQ · Jun 14, 2012

Glock9mmOldStyle said:
It was cited earlier in the thread by dr. Todd.

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

Be more specific? A post # or link?

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jun 14, 2012

TheQ said:
Be more specific? A post # or link?

Ok more specific read the damn thread.

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

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

TheQ said:
Be more specific? A post # or link?

Post #6

Jared · Jun 14, 2012

DrTodd said:
You may be right, perhaps there have been no prosecutions for purely carrying a firearm in these zones; I will keep looking though. However, one must ask what would bring the attention of law enforcement upon someone? In the case I cited, we don't know why the individual shot at the car. Obviously, shooting at cars tends to bring attention. If a person were carrying concealed, the police wouldn't know if a violation were occurring or not.

Two problems with this thinking:

1. This website is designed as a forum for those who "Open Carry". Carrying a firearm openly tends to, at least to me, be something that people notice. With the increasing practice of Open Carry, is it at least conceivable that people will be "jammed up"?

2. However, whether one gets "jammed up" or not is irrelevant: violating the law is violating the law... ie acting illegally. If we have people here who say "Oh well, the chances are so remote that I would ever get caught etc" they are still KNOWINGLY violating the law. Besides the forum rules which state that this website only promotes legal behavior (I'm paraphrasing here), there is also the question of what kind of firearm owners would knowingly violate the law. Yes, it is onerous to have to put your UNLOADED gun in a case every time you knowingly travel through a school zone... but to not do so, and to advise others not to worry about it because "what are the chances that you will get charged and convicted?", is advocating illegal behavior. Surprising, since I understand that you are a federal law enforcement officer tasked with enforcing the law. I am not trying to impugn your integrity... I just believe your rightful opposition to registration is causing you to state things that COULD BE construed to be advocating illegal behavior.

I will emphatically state, though, that I am not saying that this bill should not be passed (disappointed that there is no provision for a voluntary permit, but it still should be passed). I say this for a number of reasons.

-As an FFL (03), this ALMOST completely removes the state authorities knowing which pistols I have.

-The negative aspects don't affect me... I have a CPL.

-Adhering to the requirement under the GFSZA for those carrying without a CPL is possible.

-I think the requirement could be useful in the defense of a state CCW charge if you do not have a CPL..."Your honor, although I was carrying an unloaded firearm in my briefcase, I was following what was required of me since I was going to be traveling through some Federal Gun Free Zones... so I had no choice". (Not saying this would work, though.)

So, on the face of it, since the effects of this passing are nothing but all positive for me... so be it. It is what it is. Of the legislation that I've seen proposed and actually facing the possibility of passing, it is the best so far. But with the possibility, once again, that we could have so much better, pardon my <YAWN> if this passes. Once again I ask if this is the best we can do.

Your arguement concerning me is borderline insanity. If what you say of me is true then EVERY cop in New Hampshire is guilty of dereliction of duty if they purchase something from a store while on duty on Sunday's because it is illegal in New Hampshire to work on a Sunday. So if they purchase a soda from a 7-eleven would they be co-conspirators?

Secondly, I did take an oath to uphold the constitution, and finally, even if I was tasked with enforcing the GFSZ Act (which I am not nor is it in my purview in my statutory authority), how would I have probable cause to arrest? I would have to know that they are not exempt from the act because the act does not require one to carry a license on them nor would they be required to produce it to me. Also, I would have to prove that they knew that it was a school zone since the GFSZ is not a strict liability statute.

Even if I did want to enforce it and if I could, how far do you really think I would get if I arrested an off-duty state trooper for carrying in a school zone? I would probably somehow end up arrested myself or thrown in Jail.

Sorry Dr. Todd, but you are a little bit off your rockers in your unfounded accusation. If one is that concerned about the GFSZ not being enforced then call the ATF in California whenever their is a long gun open carry event because those guys are breaking federal law; yet the San Diego PD (who HATES open carry) isn't calling the ATF to arrest the OC'ers on their long gun walks.

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

Jared said:
Your arguement concerning me is borderline insanity. If what you say of me is true then EVERY cop in New Hampshire is guilty of dereliction of duty if they purchase something from a store while on duty on Sunday's because it is illegal in New Hampshire to work on a Sunday. So if they purchase a soda from a 7-eleven would they be co-conspirators?

Secondly, I did take an oath to uphold the constitution, and finally, even if I was tasked with enforcing the GFSZ Act (which I am not nor is it in my purview in my statutory authority), how would I have probable cause to arrest? I would have to know that they are not exempt from the act because the act does not require one to carry a license on them nor would they be requires to produce it to me. Also, I would have to prove that they knew that it was a school zone since the GFSZ is not a strict liability statute.

Even if I did want to enforce it and if I could, how far do you really think I would get if I arrested an off-duty state trooper for carrying in a school zone? I would probably somehow end up arrested myself or thrown in Jail.

Sorry Dr. Todd, but you are a little bit off your rockers in your unfounded accusation. If one is that concerned about the GFSZ not being enforced then call the ATF in California whenever their is a long gun open carry event because those guys are breaking federal law; yet the San Diego PD (who HATES open carry) isn't calling the ATF to arrest the OC'ers on their long gun walks.

I will limit my response to: I only said that your statements COULD BE interpreted as advocating illegal behavior; I didn't state that you WERE advocating illegal behavior and I said nothing regarding you enforcing this law, nor anything regarding dereliction of duty when cops buy a pop on Sundays(??). I thought I made it abundantly clear that I was in no way questioning your integrity...In fact, I was issuing a friendly caution... something I thought you would agree was not your intent at all. It appears I may have been wrong on all counts... sorry to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I stand by my statement that promoting illegal behavior is not something that should be acceptable from one tasked to enforce the law nor from anyone else here, even if it is the "way things are done". Instead of responding that you wished to further clarify that was not your intent, which is what I would have expected, you instead further detail how others do questionable activities so it is OK. And then, to further your misplaced anger, you question my sanity a number of times.

WOW, your words speak volumes...and I am somehow "off my rocker"?

stainless1911 · Jun 14, 2012

Bowesmobile said:
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!

Let's say, that a department had a bone to pick with a certain person, could they not refer you to the feds, saying "we want this guy"?

Glock9mmOldStyle said:
Ok more specific read the damn thread.

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

Thanks G9, that was funny. LMAO

Glock9mmOldStyle · Jun 14, 2012

Gentlemen - I know one of you personally & the other has been on this forum for a good amount of time. In my opinion you both hold our rights in the highest regards, so let's be kind to one another. United we stand, divided we shall surely fall. Just saying.....

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

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

Glock9mmOldStyle said:
Gentlemen - I know one of you personally & the other has been on this forum for a good amount of time. In my opinion you both hold our rights in the highest regards, so let's be kind to one another. United we stand, divided we shall surely fall. Just saying.....

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

I agree. If I have been unkind in anything I've said, please PM me so that I may learn the error of my way...
Someone got angry over what I believe to have been interpreted incorrectly... it happens all of the time. If that happens, PM is available. I have modified posts in the past when others have asked me to because of how the post could be construed... just ask... oh, never mind I don't want to let another thread go off to all-to-familiar territory. People are getting too edgy about things lately.

I will state it yet once again: I harbor no ill-will towards anyone here, and if I personally offend, it is unintentional. Just PM me and we can hash it out. No need to cast aspersions upon others. All of us are fully capable to do a good enough job of it to ourselves...

stainless1911 · Jun 14, 2012

DrTodd · Jun 14, 2012

Jared said:
If one is that concerned about the GFSZ not being enforced then call the ATF in California whenever their is a long gun open carry event because those guys are breaking federal law; yet the San Diego PD (who HATES open carry) isn't calling the ATF to arrest the OC'ers on their long gun walks.

Just a point of clarification:

California law very closely resembles Federal law... one of a few states that does.. The OCers in San Diego, and elsewhere in CA, were pretty diligent in providing maps to participants of these walks which detailed where the relevant school zones were. Therefore, if someone would have violated a zone, I'm pretty sure they would have been charged because, like I said, state law also prohibits carry near a school.

Just one example, but moot because OC of a handgun is now illegal in CA: (found here: http://nc.opencarry.org/forums/show...Carry-Meet-8&p=1414693&viewfull=1#post1414693)

Weekly San Diego Open Carry Meet 8

Hi everyone!

FireMark and I thought it might be fun to mix things up a bit so this week I tried to get ahold of the management at a local pool hall that I really like. As things turned out, that place will have to wait for maybe next week.

But the good news is this: I just spoke with the manager of another neighborhood poolhall in Clairemont and we are all set for this Monday night at 7 pm. He was very welcoming, says they don't discriminate against anyone and as Mondays are pretty quiet they'd love to have us. I checked the surrounding area and it is outside of any "only criminals get to have guns because this is a gun-free-school-zone so please don't hurt me" restriction.

They have large and small tables, food, drinks, everything. There is also a Dolci Mango frozen yogurt place there that is very good if you've got a sweet tooth. The address is below.

Hungry Stick
4664 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92117-2005
858-272-1412

Sorry for the late notice but that's how it worked out.

I'll be there at 7 with my girlfriend, the bartender is Wes, the manager is Gary. Be sure to say hello. Bring a newbie/friend/significant other/possible love interest AND YOUR RECORDER LOCKED ON AND RECORDING and I'll see you all there!

Sam

KBCraig · Jun 14, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Let's say, that a department had a bone to pick with a certain person, could they not refer you to the feds, saying "we want this guy"?

Of course they could. They'd better come bearing some big-time criminals on silver platters, too, because they're not going to waste their time otherwise.

house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Michigan Moderator

Banned

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member