Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 167

Thread: The new 750.227

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    The new 750.227

    It has been mentioned in various threads that Yance and I have been working on something in the shadows. Now, I want to let you know what that is. Earlier this summer, Yance and I rewrote MCL 750.227 and presented it to my Representative Eileen Kowall District 44, in an effort to attempt to remove or modify this unconstitutional law. The reason for the wait, was because in our meeting, Eileen said that the legislature was about to go on summer break. I waited to release this project so that the thread wouldn't get cold.

    As soon as SB59 went down, I decided to make my move on this, I had been working on it for quite a while beforehand. It was the right time, I reminded her that gun owners voted in this majority, and we wanted something to show for it. That the opportunity for real change should not be missed.

    We approached her on this subject not from an OC standpoint, not so much from a gun rights standpoint, but from a private property issue. Yance was able to very eloquently present it to her as a constitutional issue.

    Glock9mm graciously provided us with some numbers from the census which proved most helpful in our presentation. Thanks G9. Unfortunately, she asked to take the information with her for review, and it was my only copy. It showed the population of the state, vs how many people were prohibited, vs how many people had active CPLs and so on. We used that information to show her how the right had been eliminated altogether by this law. 9 million residents, minus the under 18s, the prohibited persons left around 7 million. To exercise self defense in a private vehicle, you need a CPL. That leaves only 320,000 people left with the "right". I pointed out that since a CPL turns a right into a privelidge, that no one had the right to keep and bear in a vehicle.

    We pointed out that there were IIRC 28 states, a majority, that had permit-less vehicle carry.

    We came at this from a private property position in saying that your vehicle should be treated as your home as it is in most states.

    You can carry, even conceal on your own property without a CPL because it is indeed private. If the police want to search your home, they need RAS and PC to get a warrant because of that private status. They need a warrant likewise to search your vehicle, again, because it is private property. But, if you carry a gun, even openly in or on a vehicle, it is a felony without a CPL. This doesn't make sense we said, you can't have it both ways. You need continuity within the law.

    The changes would change the way things work in Michigan for everyone. We pointed out that laws like SB59 would affect only 300k people, while this one would affect everyone in the state. It would allow people the right to self defense in their vehicles. It would re instate the right to carry a concealed knife, the most basic and affordable means of self defense. It would eliminate the OC/CCW on a bicycle or other vehicle debate. It would require disclosure to LEO, something I don't really like, but I felt necessary to include so that the police would consent to its passage. It would also strengthen the vehicle owners ability permission to either allow or deny the presence of weapons in their vehicles.



    I would encourage you to contact Eileen, and encourage her to introduce this bill as written, as she indicated she would do. I have also asked Representative Opsommer to lend a hand in passing this into law, and he said he would be delighted to participate.

    Yance, I would encourage you to repost this on MOC and MGO in legal if you would. Thanks.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-31-2012 at 10:16 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The New MCL 750.227


    (1). A person shall not carry a firearm, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double edged stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a knife, concealed on or about his or her person, except in his or her dwelling house, vehicle, place of business, or on other land possessed by that person

    (2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

    2 (a). A person who maintains legal ownership of any private vehicle may allow or disallow the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in or on that vehicle.

    (3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.

    (4). A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Plan B.

    When speaking with Eileen in our meeting, I offered a plan B, in case the new 227 wasn't gaining any traction.

    I suggested that the exemptions and definitions to 227 (750.231a) be amended as follows. Strike the part that require the firearm to be in the trunk of the vehicle, and the part that covers vehicles without a trunk.

    That would allow a non CPL holder to have the unloaded and cased firearm in the passenger compartment. Otherwise the transportation requirements would go unchanged.

    Strike the bolded parts of 231a and you have it.

    750.231a Exceptions to MCL 750.227(2); definitions.Sec. 231a.
    (1) Subsection (2) of section 227 does not apply to any of the following:
    (a) To a person holding a valid license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by his or her state of residence except where the pistol is carried in nonconformance with a restriction appearing on the license.

    (b) To the regular and ordinary transportation of pistols as merchandise by an authorized agent of a person licensed to manufacture firearms.

    (c) To a person carrying an antique firearm as defined in subsection (2), completely unloaded in a closed case or container designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of a vehicle.

    (d) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in the trunk of the vehicle.

    (e) To a person while transporting a pistol for a lawful purpose that is licensed by the owner or occupant of the motor vehicle in compliance with section 2 of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422, and the pistol is unloaded in a closed case designed for the storage of firearms in a vehicle that does not have a trunk and is not readily accessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

    (2) As used in this section:

    (a) "Antique firearm" means either of the following:
    (i) A firearm not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica of such a firearm, whether actually manufactured before or after 1898.
    (ii) A firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
    (b) "Lawful purpose" includes the following:
    (i) While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.
    (ii) While transporting a pistol en route to or from his or her home or place of business and place of repair.
    (iii) While moving goods from 1 place of abode or business to another place of abode or business.
    (iv) While transporting a licensed pistol en route to or from a law enforcement agency or for the purpose of having a law enforcement official take possession of the weapon.
    (v) While en route to or from his or her abode or place of business and a gun show or places of purchase or sale.
    (vi) While en route to or from his or her abode to a public shooting facility or public land where discharge of firearms is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.
    (vii) While en route to or from his or her abode to a private property location where the pistol is to be used as is permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    The New MCL 750.227


    (1). A person shall not carry a firearm, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double edged stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a knife, concealed on or about his or her person, except in his or her dwelling house, vehicle, place of business, or on other land possessed by that person

    (2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

    2 (a). A person who maintains legal ownership of any private vehicle may allow or disallow the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in or on that vehicle.

    (3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.

    (4). A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.
    Sounds good, but I take issue with two points:

    1: The definition of a dagger vs. a knife could be used as a trip-up point for cops. You can have a knife but not a dagger... I know there are different definitions for both, but you know how those interactions usually go. You could just say 'blade' and legalize it all.

    2: The penalty seems a bit steep considering the only way you could really violate this law is by carrying a non-knife blade, or violating 'any restrictions upon such [CPL] license'. So now you can get 5 years and a $2500 fine for violating a CPL restriction that is normally a civil infraction.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Creamsicle View Post
    Sounds good, but I take issue with two points:

    1: The definition of a dagger vs. a knife could be used as a trip-up point for cops. You can have a knife but not a dagger... I know there are different definitions for both, but you know how those interactions usually go. You could just say 'blade' and legalize it all.

    2: The penalty seems a bit steep considering the only way you could really violate this law is by carrying a non-knife blade, or violating 'any restrictions upon such [CPL] license'. So now you can get 5 years and a $2500 fine for violating a CPL restriction that is normally a civil infraction.
    I like your take on the word blade, it was considered, but I was afraid some anti would come in front of the floor wielding a broadsword, battle axe or Samurai sword demanding that bladed weapons be disallowed.

    I hate the penalties section, it was left unchanged from the original text of 227. I figured it had the best chance of passage this way.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-31-2012 at 10:29 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    The New MCL 750.227


    -snip-
    unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon,
    -snip-
    Michigan doesn't have a concealed "weapon" licenses.... we have a concealed "pistol" license.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I chose my words carefully for a reason.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Email sent.

    Hi Eileen, Neil Carpenter here.

    A couple months ago, before summer break, I and Adam Yancer met with you in a very noisy Petes Coney to discuss some much needed changes in our law. It had to do with re instating the private property rights of gun owners within their vehicles. The law change that was presented was for amending MCL 750.227, a cumbersome and unconstitutional law that could be altered without the usual controversy associated with firearms law. As was pointed out the majority of states allow the right to self defense in the private vehicle without a permit, and only a tiny fraction of our own residents have a permit.

    I know that you are very busy and that time has passed since our meeting, so I wanted to take a second, and remind you about the subject. You had indicated that you would introduce this in September, soon after summer break was over. Please do, this means a lot to me, and would do so much for gun owners this term.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I chose my words carefully for a reason.
    If you are replying to my post pointing out that Michigan doesn't have a concealed "weapons" license but has a concealed "pistol" license....

    Please elaborate as to why you chose that specific wording since a concealed "weapons" license presently does not exist.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 08-31-2012 at 11:17 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I worded the proposal in such a way that would allow knives to be carried; I was trying to avoid the word pistol, for psychological reasons.

    ETA

    I was trying to keep the focus on private property, not so much on gun rights.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-31-2012 at 11:22 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I worded the proposal in such a way that would allow knives to be carried; I was trying to avoid the word pistol, for psychological reasons.

    ETA

    I was trying to keep the focus on private property, not so much on gun rights.
    Psychological reasons?

    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911
    (2). A person shall not carry a weapon concealed, on or about his or her person, except in his or her house, dwelling place, place of business, vehicle, or on other land possessed by that person, unless that person is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.
    Stipulating that a license that doesn't exist allows folks to carry weapons doesn't help since, without the license (that doesn't exist) folks won't be able to carry weapons anyway.

    I applaud your and Yance's efforts......... I'm merely pointing out that the wording "licensed to carry a concealed weapon" won't work because there isn't such a license available in Michigan.

    Edited to add:
    Neil... please.. for the sake of clarity... use the "quote" feature????
    Last edited by Bikenut; 08-31-2012 at 11:50 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    You're splitting hairs. I could have called it a CCW and it would still be understood.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    You're splitting hairs. I could have called it a CCW and it would still be understood.
    -sigh-
    I specifically asked you to use the "quote" feature to keep the conversation easy to clearly understand.......

    Neil... I am NOT splitting hairs! When writing law it is necessary to be clear and concise with the wording. Assumptions as to what the wording means, is supposed to mean, might be thought to mean... is how we ended up with the laws we have now. The very laws folks complain are so difficult to understand because they are not worded clearly.

    Writing a law that says something is Ok to do if you have a concealed weapons license..

    .. and you are specific in your wording of concealed weapons license meaning there must be such a specific license and the CPL doesn't apply because that is for concealed pistol license

    ... but no such "concealed weapons license" exists...

    means that without a "concealed weapons license" it is NOT Ok to do it.

    Now.... please be so kind as to provide a cite and/or link to Michigan law that provides for a "concealed weapons license".
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    What about the millions of people who rent cars? Since they don't own the car, they can't legally carry in it. (plus the rental company (cars legal owner, could ban carry in it). Secondly what about the people who can't buy their own car(for who knows what reason), therefore aren't the legal owner? Young adults driving cars that the parent owns, someone borrowing a friends truck to move, a nanny using the family vehicle ect ect ect.

    I like where you are going with this, but do not water down the bill for the antis, let them introduce their BS restrictions so they can be tied to that person.

    You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.

  15. #15
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    (3). A person in posession of any type of deadly weapon in or upon a vehicle must immediately disclose the presence and location of that weapon upon initial contact with a law enforcement officer.
    Does this include my pocket knife or Gerber tool?
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley
    "...go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
    Wheels

  16. #16
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Neil,

    While I applause your efforts, I wanted to offer a few comments.

    1. I hope you are being as professional as possible (including dress) when lobbying -- it really does make a difference in what you are trying to do.
    2. I'm not sure this is the right time in the session (with literally 3 months left -- very little happens in Sept) to get a new bill introduced.

    That being said, this sort of bill is a priority for MOC as well. I look forward to working with you early on in next session (January 2013) to push to get this bill introduced.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    What about the millions of people who rent cars? Since they don't own the car, they can't legally carry in it. (plus the rental company (cars legal owner, could ban carry in it). Secondly what about the people who can't buy their own car(for who knows what reason), therefore aren't the legal owner? Young adults driving cars that the parent owns, someone borrowing a friends truck to move, a nanny using the family vehicle ect ect ect.

    I like where you are going with this, but do not water down the bill for the antis, let them introduce their BS restrictions so they can be tied to that person.

    You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.
    I agree with this too. Be willing to water it down as we go along, but start with a strong bill....so you have something concentrated you can have some room to afford watering.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  18. #18
    Regular Member HKcarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    831
    You can't "allow" someone to CC at your home. Why would be able to do it in your car?


    The bill needs strengthening. Good deal that you're trying to get it to the floor though...


    As Q pointed out, maybe hold it back until the next sessioN?
    When you put the gun in the holster, put the ego in the gun safe.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by HKcarrier View Post
    You can't "allow" someone to CC at your home. Why would be able to do it in your car?


    The bill needs strengthening. Good deal that you're trying to get it to the floor though...


    As Q pointed out, maybe hold it back until the next sessioN?
    The thought behind allowing someone to carry in a vehicle is the same as private property rights. You can tell someone they cannot possess (being the key word) a firearm in your home, or you can grant them permission to. By changing the law to allow a person who can otherwise possess a firearm to carry in a vehicle it removes the concealed aspect of the law. Currently its illegal to possess a firearm in a vehicle because it is considered concealed and concealing a firearm is illegal.

    So, change the law to allow a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle it no longer becomes a crime of carrying a concealed weapon, youre simply dealing with possession. At this point any person can say, "yes you may have your gun in my car" or "no you may not have your gun in my car"

    That was the thought behind it.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    -sigh-
    I specifically asked you to use the "quote" feature to keep the conversation easy to clearly understand.......

    Neil... I am NOT splitting hairs! When writing law it is necessary to be clear and concise with the wording. Assumptions as to what the wording means, is supposed to mean, might be thought to mean... is how we ended up with the laws we have now. The very laws folks complain are so difficult to understand because they are not worded clearly.

    Writing a law that says something is Ok to do if you have a concealed weapons license..

    .. and you are specific in your wording of concealed weapons license meaning there must be such a specific license and the CPL doesn't apply because that is for concealed pistol license

    ... but no such "concealed weapons license" exists...

    means that without a "concealed weapons license" it is NOT Ok to do it.

    Now.... please be so kind as to provide a cite and/or link to Michigan law that provides for a "concealed weapons license".
    I now see what you are talking about, my apologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post

    You are doing the dirty work for the anti's. Don't. Introduce a strong bill.
    Yance properly addressed most of your post. I understand and agree with you here, I wanted to present something that the current legislature would look at, and maybe even pass. I dont have a great deal of confidence in them at this time based on their past actions, or the lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by griffin View Post
    Does this include my pocket knife or Gerber tool?

    IMO, yes. This would cover the run of the mill knife that anyone might find in a pocket, or at the counter of the hardware store, Bass Pro, and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    Neil,

    While I applause your efforts, I wanted to offer a few comments.

    1. I hope you are being as professional as possible (including dress) when lobbying -- it really does make a difference in what you are trying to do.
    2. I'm not sure this is the right time in the session (with literally 3 months left -- very little happens in Sept) to get a new bill introduced.

    That being said, this sort of bill is a priority for MOC as well. I look forward to working with you early on in next session (January 2013) to push to get this bill introduced.
    I was hoping that the legislature would be eager to give the gun owning voter something substantial at the end of the term, possibly in an effort to save face, and gain votes. I think SB59 got tabled because they were afraid to touch the schools issue, too controversial or whatever. This is the sort of thing that just might work, no screaming parents, or picket signs for this law change.

    I would be proud to work with you on getting this, whether it be this term, or in the next.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-31-2012 at 09:50 PM.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    As far as rental cars and the like would go, some businesses would allow it, some would not. No different from any other business, or how we would regard that business. No gun = No money.

  22. #22
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    IMO, yes. This would cover the run of the mill knife that anyone might find in a pocket, or at the counter of the hardware store, Bass Pro, and so on.
    So now you've made a criminal of half the men drivers (not to mention some women) because now they don't know that they have to tell a cop they are carrying a knife or box cutter or whatever when they get stopped for speeding.

    Other states don't even have to notify of a pistol, and you are adding more notification than what we currently have?

    No!

    Scot is right. Start with a strong bill, knowing the anti's will want to weaken it or put changes in just to show their constituents they've done something. Make them justify their proposals. Don't start in the middle and get pulled further left.
    Last edited by griffin; 08-31-2012 at 10:09 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley
    "...go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
    Wheels

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I have had many converstaions with certain members of the legislature, and when it comes to gun related bills, the police, specifically the MSP have got to give it a nod before it goes anywhere. Thats just the way it works.

    We need the police to back the bill if it stands a snails chance of getting anywhere past this forum, disclosure is the key to that.

    Im not turning anyone into a criminal that wasn't already in commission of a felony. What passing this might do however, is allow more people to become aware of the law who otherwise wouldn't.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 08-31-2012 at 10:24 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    What passing this might do however, is allow more people to become aware of the law who otherwise wouldn't.
    I do not see how passing a law would educate people, How many new laws are passed that J.Q. Public actually know about?
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  25. #25
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Im not turning anyone into a criminal that wasn't already in commission of a felony.
    How is getting jammed up for carrying a pocket knife like you've done for fifty years not turning people into criminals? They aren't felons for simply not disclosing because they never knew they all of a sudden had to start.

    There is no pocket knife disclosure currently. Why add it? It's dumb.
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley
    "...go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
    Wheels

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •