• 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.

A glimpse into what MI could be in the future...with your help.

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Michigan is certainly far from perfect but if you can deal with getting a permit, from what I understand, OC may be less understood by our fellow citizens here but is actually less restricted than it is there. But, I'd like to hear from those that have carried in both places.

That being said, I think if the OC community could get its act together, we could become a major force in this state and we would see real change. But, as has been borne out the past few months, we need to focus in the goals instead of expending so much energy fighting amongst ourselves.

Yes on all accounts, having carried in both states. Many places in AZ post no weapons signs, and the local government agencies have the right to prohibit carry. Their version of preemption is lockers at the entrance to public buildings where you can check weapons in.

In regards to getting acts together, in addition to the other factors mentioned here, there are significant cultural differences about approaches to politics. AZ tends to be very laid back, and people tend to stay out of politics for the most part. It is a poorly educated area. (A large part of the reason why I came back here was better schools to study auto repair). However, many liberty activists live there, many flocking there for freedoms sake as I did. And this type will hound the legislature, and go nuts collecting signatures and stuff to block the smallest tax hikes and things. An attempt at a gun ban would generate so much fury that it is out of the question. Plus when you see people OCing regularly, and the cops being nice to you, the us against them paradigm doesn't exist, and people automatically want freedom and the responsibility that comes with it.

Given the laid back attitude yet ferocious pro freedom attitude combined with freedom loving politicians (other than a few select people like Nopolitano) things can kind of fall into place. Sure, you'll have issues like the NRA lobbying to stop OCing at places that sell booze for on site consumption, but in general things just fall into place.

On the other hand, in our state we have a long standing tradition of organized crime more or less from the top down and everywhere in between, hard working go getters who work hard and feel independent and competitive in their ventures and subsequently get into a lot of organizational break ups and ******* matches, and yes, can't see the light at the end of the tunnel about gun rights since so many think it's all about hunting.

AZ and Michigan are two very different places. Sure we can attempt to emulate the success of others, and we should. But there should also be an understanding that we'll still probably have to carve our own path to success.
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Yes, MI, is different than, AZ, OH, VA. For that matter you & I are different, yet we agree on more than we disagree on. My purpose of this thread was to point out that progress can be made if a unified front is present in any state. In MI. that seems to be the only thing keeping the pro guns or better said pro rights crowd in check. MI is not that different that the people cannot work together. I can say if under 7,000 people can have such a huge influence in AZ that a similar number could not do the same in any state, including MI. It has been posted that MCRGO before they went to hell in a hand basket made great strides in changing state law. MI just needs some good people to spearhead a organized front and things will change. Until then you will get the usual run around from the MI legislature "maybe next term we'll get to that....etc....":cuss:
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
My purpose of this thread was to point out that progress can be made if a unified front is present in any state.

+1

Absolutely, it should be pointed out again that MCRGO was tremendously successful for a few short years (prior to its internal squabbles).

So that only goes to show that Michigan is not really different than the other states as far as effectiveness of the gun-lobby is concerned. The only difference is that MCRGO never recovered in my humble opinion.

A Michigan Citizens Defense Leaguue (MCDL), akin to VCDL that focuses on Second Amendment Rights would be welcome.

In my opinion, MCRGO blew it with an ill-considered decision to wall-off the public at-large by limiting access to their website content to members-only.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Ever consider MCRGO was too powerful and taken over by political insiders for the purpose of dialing it back?

I'm not saying that is the case, only pointing out the possibility. I've seen it happen to other organizations including so-called Tea Party caucuses.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Unfortunately here in MI it seems the status quo is for a firearms rights group to have internal squabbles(name ONE the doesn't). But only here does MCRGO implode into two, MCRGO and MGO. MOC comes along to focus on open carry(did they feel MCRGO/MGO wasn't doing enough in this area? Must have). But internal squabbles happened even within the tiny group of open carriers so UFO(what a joke) and CLSD(seems John didn't like having a board of directors) sprang up.

So, in conclusion, for Michigan to have a unified front...ALL these groups that fractured off from each other need to miraculously come together as one?

Or EVEN BETTER!!! Yet ONE more gun group has to be formed and slowly suck the membership out of all the others to the point they dissolve(MCRGO still exists so you see how that works).

MCRGO was the one chance Michigan had to keep a unified front...and they blew it up. Shame.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Unfortunately here in MI it seems the status quo is for a firearms rights group to have internal squabbles(name ONE the doesn't). But only here does MCRGO implode into two, MCRGO and MGO. MOC comes along to focus on open carry(did they feel MCRGO/MGO wasn't doing enough in this area? Must have). But internal squabbles happened even within the tiny group of open carriers so UFO(what a joke) and CLSD(seems John didn't like having a board of directors) sprang up.

So, in conclusion, for Michigan to have a unified front...ALL these groups that fractured off from each other need to miraculously come together as one?

Or EVEN BETTER!!! Yet ONE more gun group has to be formed and slowly suck the membership out of all the others to the point they dissolve(MCRGO still exists so you see how that works).

MCRGO was the one chance Michigan had to keep a unified front...and they blew it up. Shame.

Why can't MGO and MOC merge to form an even larger org, with many more members and bigger funds? Seems that a group that size would have much more influence. I seem to remember that they were working together in some capacity on the CADL case. Why split the people into 2 groups and dilute the potency?
 

WilDChilD

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
286
Location
Dewitt, Michigan, USA
Unfortunately here in MI it seems the status quo is for a firearms rights group to have internal squabbles(name ONE the doesn't). But only here does MCRGO implode into two, MCRGO and MGO. MOC comes along to focus on open carry(did they feel MCRGO/MGO wasn't doing enough in this area? Must have). But internal squabbles happened even within the tiny group of open carriers so UFO(what a joke) and CLSD(seems John didn't like having a board of directors) sprang up.

So, in conclusion, for Michigan to have a unified front...ALL these groups that fractured off from each other need to miraculously come together as one?

Or EVEN BETTER!!! Yet ONE more gun group has to be formed and slowly suck the membership out of all the others to the point they dissolve(MCRGO still exists so you see how that works).

MCRGO was the one chance Michigan had to keep a unified front...and they blew it up. Shame.

I have never heard of UFO. Do they have a web site.
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Why can't MGO and MOC merge to form an even larger org, with many more members and bigger funds? Seems that a group that size would have much more influence. I seem to remember that they were working together in some capacity on the CADL case. Why split the people into 2 groups and dilute the potency?

So what should MOC do? Dissolve, transfer all our funds and have MGO accept all current MOC memberships as MGO's? How do we sell that to our current members? I suppose that could work..but what happens when the hardcore OCers don't feel represented properly? We all know OCErs are some of the most dedicated to 2A rights.

Would MGO want the stigma that us "in your face" OCers bring? I'd be surprised if they did(depending how much money they would net from us.)

Unlike MOC leadership, I've never seen anyone from MGO on camera for news stories, would they do that? Could they handle bad press? Or would the fudds slowly stamp out the open carry activism until we have to break off and reform MOC again?

Would they commit to the $10,000 plus CADL may cost to take the Supreme Court??

Tough questions all of them. MGO would have to make the first move and ask us to merge with them(they are the larger group).
 
Last edited:

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
One way to look at it is that multiple organizations are not always a problem. When they can be brought together on important issues, that is all that counts.

While I'll opt to hold my thoughts on the UFO concept, this was indeed part of the idea behind it. We've managed to divide and de-conquer on a major scale, and if there was a system of unity, that is what would make politicians fear us. Consider MUCC, an organization that doesn't seem to care much about gun rights activism, but does bring together a lot of organizations.

Imagine a Michigan lawmaker knowing that angering MOC or any of the others would create a backlash from every gun rights organization in the state. There is no reason why it can't be done. In particular with how many hard working and dedicated activists are in this state.

If anything, if we could get this type of unity, and keep it from involving any significant amount of money, it could end up being a fail safe from another MCRGO style cluster ****.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
So what should MOC do? Dissolve, transfer all our funds and have MGO accept all current MOC memberships as MGO's? How do we sell that to our current members? I suppose that could work..but what happens when the hardcore OCers don't feel represented properly? We all know OCErs are some of the most dedicated to 2A rights.

Would MGO want the stigma that us "in your face" OCers bring? I'd be surprised if they did(depending how much money they would net from us.)

Unlike MOC leadership, I've never seen anyone from MGO on camera for news stories, would they do that? Could they handle bad press? Or would the fudds slowly stamp out the open carry activism until we have to break off and reform MOC again?

Would they commit to the $10,000 plus CADL may cost to take the Supreme Court??

Tough questions all of them. MGO would have to make the first move and ask us to merge with them(they are the larger group).

Those are all good points. I suppose it would be hard to do, I just wish there was some way to pool resources, it just seems spreading ourselves out is not the most effective way to do things. I guess one of the most important parts of any newly formed(or merged) organization would be the mission statement, to make sure that ALL forms of carry are supported equally.
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
One way to look at it is that multiple organizations are not always a problem. When they can be brought together on important issues, that is all that counts.

While I'll opt to hold my thoughts on the UFO concept, this was indeed part of the idea behind it. We've managed to divide and de-conquer on a major scale, and if there was a system of unity, that is what would make politicians fear us. Consider MUCC, an organization that doesn't seem to care much about gun rights activism, but does bring together a lot of organizations.

Imagine a Michigan lawmaker knowing that angering MOC or any of the others would create a backlash from every gun rights organization in the state. There is no reason why it can't be done. In particular with how many hard working and dedicated activists are in this state.

If anything, if we could get this type of unity, and keep it from involving any significant amount of money, it could end up being a fail safe from another MCRGO style cluster ****.

+1 That's the spirit!

As to those who are worried that we "don't need yet another group!" I understand the concern. However how many "active/paying members" does any of these groups have that currently exist? MOC 200-300? MCRGO 100-500 now? and so on. If you read some of the comments from the members of MCRGO it appears they had over 9,000 paying members in the time when they were getting things passed or changed in Lansing. The sad truth is it takes money to get anything done in Lansing PERIOD. You can have the most noble group, saying all the right things, without the money and numbers to put the fear of God into the shyster's in Lansing nothing will change. Hell - you have MOC (God bless them/us) marching to Randy Richardville's front yard and guess what? He's still stalling! Why? He does not fear a couple of hundred: kook's, zealots, gun nuts, and whatever else MOC is called by these curmudgeons behind closed doors in Lansing.

So why can't we be members of multiple groups and yet unite under the banner of a larger group created by us? Is there some magical spell that keeps this from happening? I sure hope not. For things to get better we have to try right? If we can't all agree on that, we are in worse shape than I care to contemplate.:eek:
 

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Michigan Firearm Rights Groups Standing Together...MFRGST(or whatever its called). It's membership could be totality of all the sub groups combined(though some belong to all 3, can't count them 3 times!). Lets say it existed. How is it ran? One idea would be for each group to appoint a representative, MOC, MGO, MCRGO equal footing. Would MGO agree to be equal to MOC? Or would membership size determine how many seats at the table a group gets? The largest group could easily drown out the small in that case. How do we determine who else gets a seat at the table? Must be Michigan based. Should the groups be-non profit(CLSD is out), Should there be a minimum membership number, say 100, minimum years in existence, I'd say 2?

Next question, how would the group form as one behind issues, for example like HB5225? By Vote, 2-1? What happens if their are 4 seats(or any even number) at the table? Every time a vote is 2-2 MFGST stands neutral? Lame, and goes against the reason it is formed. Would each group MOC, MCRGO, MGO then go back to lobbying each bill individually, rendering MFRGST useless? Seems it would have to be in the bylaws any participating organization would have to agree on no lobbying on its own. Would their members agree to that?

So voting to support or lobby against a bill is straight forward(kinda). How is it decided what legislation to try and introduce? MOC members want more open carry freedom through 750.234d repeal, would MGO, MCRGO agree to go along? This is where the squabbles start and members of the participating organizations may revoke their representative effectively destroying MFRGST.

All tough questions. Almost seems impossible.

edited to add...I do like the idea.
 
Last edited:

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,944
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
Unfortunately here in MI it seems the status quo is for a firearms rights group to have internal squabbles(name ONE the doesn't). But only here does MCRGO implode into two, MCRGO and MGO. MOC comes along to focus on open carry(did they feel MCRGO/MGO wasn't doing enough in this area? Must have). But internal squabbles happened even within the tiny group of open carriers so UFO(what a joke) and CLSD(seems John didn't like having a board of directors) sprang up.

So, in conclusion, for Michigan to have a unified front...ALL these groups that fractured off from each other need to miraculously come together as one?

Or EVEN BETTER!!! Yet ONE more gun group has to be formed and slowly suck the membership out of all the others to the point they dissolve(MCRGO still exists so you see how that works).

MCRGO was the one chance Michigan had to keep a unified front...and they blew it up. Shame.
Actually, when all the stuff started going on at MCRGO, it broke up into 3 groups. MGO was one, another was GLSSA, and SAFR was the other. So far as I know, SAFR finally fell away, mostly from other problems, GLSSA was non-political for the most part, focusing on shooting sports, and MGO is the one that is still going strong. Although, I don't know if they do anything in Lansing, to be honest.

I think most of the people who were into the political aspect finally lost interest after having next to no support from anyone else.
 
Top