scot623
Regular Member
Wrong. You need a CPL to OC in the .425o AND .234d PFZ's
-
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.
-
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.
Official SB59 Debate thread
- Thread starter Shadow Bear
- Start date
- Status
Wrong. You need a CPL to OC in the .425o AND .234d PFZ's
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
Wrong. A CPL is not necessary to OC in a place listed under 28.425o as long as it's not a school or a place listed under 750.234d. You must be licensed to carry a concealed pistol to have 28.425o. apply to you. The law also states you must be carrying a concealed pistol.
scot623
Regular Member
So the only places not on both lists are sections (f) and (h) of 28.425o. And even the the entertainment facility in (h) can't be a theatre or arena of any kind. So you can OC in college dorms and classrooms without a CPL.
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
There may not be many but I'm just saying. People say you need a CPL to carry in a place under 28.425o but its really not true. It's 759.234d and the weapons free school zone that does.
scot623
Regular Member
"There may not be many" is a giant understatemt. Under 425o (h), college dorms and classrooms..name ONE college in the state that would allow a firearm in those places. And I didn't want to rack my brain, but maybe you can describe an entertainment facility with seating under 2500 that isn't a theatre or an arena, and doesn't have a liquor license or is owned by a school, church or synagogue. Just think about that makes my head hurt. Lol
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
Scott with the potential change with SB 59 and the fact many people believe without a CPL they can OC in places like Meijer because "their primary source of income is not the sale of liquor sold on premises" I think we do a disservice to say that 28.425o are places where one is required to have a CPL to carry because you are referencing an incorrect law.
Eta: Not trying to be a ***** about this just saying we should reference the correct laws.
Last edited:
scot623
Regular Member
I agree. I thinks it's a disservice to say you do not need a CPL to OC in the .425o places when the vast majority of those places are in fact covered by 234d also...and the 2 that aren't are minuscule. College dorms and classrooms?? Some super small subsection of entertainment facilities that seat under 2500 BUT AREN'T theater or arenas, so on. I think most people would say "you need a CPL to OC in a .425o PFZ."
Last edited:
Haman J.T.
New member
I'm talking about exercising the Rights of All Citizens compared to the "special few" exercising with government permission! Don't you understand "God Given Rights" compared to government control?There's a difference between what Our Founders Instituted in Our governing Documents(the basis of all our laws) and what We Allow(The People are Sovreign) Our servants control over! Never are We to allow them to take Our Right to Bear away for any reason! Or do you not know the difference between Rights and priviledges? This law makes OC illegal in one instance and CC a priviledge by government control! How bizzaro is that young man?
Haman J.T.
New member
No OCer or 2A advocate can deny the deterent effect of a lawfull,Openly Carried firearm,in a GFZ! Thats THE POINT that is missed when OC is outlawed alltogether in GFZ's! The prevention of massacres of the unarmed in GFZ's,besides being an Infringement on Our Right to Bear,IS and ALWAYS WILL BE OUR FOUNDERS and MY VISION and IDEAL!! CARRY ON!
scot623
Regular Member
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, 2A rights have not been a driving factor in any of the recent elections, national or state. So until we have a legislature full of OCers(yeah right), or legislators who truly believe the MAJORITY of voters will hold them accountable to pass pro-2A legislation they have no fear of doing just the opposite. The gun lobby is Michigan is not as strong as it needs to be to advance a true con-con bill. So until it is, we have zero choice but to make compromises. That is the facts.
Last edited:
Raggs
Regular Member
It is nice of the CPL folks to compromise the open carry folks though
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
You can still OC in those places with written permission. As I have said many times now. You needed permission in the private property places anyway, it was either explicit, that is they said you could, or it was implied, they didn't say you couldn't (They remained mute).
So while it makes it a bit more difficult to get that permission it is still an option to OC.
Last edited:
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Dupe.
Last edited:
griffin
Regular Member
But who says my principles or those of the BoD of MOC demand an open carry "all-or-nothing" position? Even though it promotes open carry, MOC is first and foremost a gun rights organization, is it not? MOC uses OC to promote its objectives, but its objectives can also be met by this bill:
- To protect our right to self-defense. Goal still met.
- To demonstrate to the public at large that gun owners are one of the most lawful segments of society and they have nothing to fear from the lawful carry of a firearm. Goal still met. There will be exponentially more firearms carried in PFZs with SB59 than without it. Doesn't this demonstrate to the public that they have nothing to fear from firearms in entertainment facilities, churches, or schools?
- To exercise a natural right to self defense using the most efficient and common tool, a handgun. Goal still met.
- To educate and desensitize the public and members of the law enforcement community about the legality of the open carry of a handgun in public. Since most OC currently happens outside of PFZs anyway, this goal can still be met.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Mike I specifically said private places, schools are public. Most schools wont let you OC in them now, same with Hospitals same with any place that is private. Mike you can still OC in any other place not on the 5o list but you STILL NEED PERMISSION, always did.
The point is you always had to have permission to OC in private places. Now you have to get permission in writing to OC with or without an OC. Not a big change.
griffin
Regular Member
Many people have been asked to disarm or leave hospitals, theaters, and other places because they were seen open carrying. Some churches do not allow open carry, and I personally don't know anybody who OCs in church, and I have been going for 56 years. So outside of being able to OC while you vote in a public K-12 school, what do you lose Mike (and others)?
griffin
Regular Member
You know what he means. They have to tacitly allow you to. If they do not allow you to, and you refuse to disarm or leave, you can be trespassed. So yes, you have to have their permission to OC in their private place.
DanM
Regular Member
I would like to take up this point in agreement, and expound on it.
It seems that some are confusing libtard, anti-gun judges', RINO governors', and other officials' pronouncements of "absurdity" or other emotional disagreement about Michigan gun laws as indicative of an objective "gray area" in the law.
To be sure, some of these officials have power to mess up your life, but they do not have the power to muddy the plain language and interplay of the law.
There is no gray area with OC in PFZ's in Michigan. There are RINO governors and libtard, anti-gun officials, some of whom have had their libtard, anti-gun pronouncements smacked down by higher authority. Can you say "Judge Aquilina"? Can you say "Court of Appeals smacking down Judge Aquilina's anti-gun ruling"?
Do not confuse the ramblings of a libtard, anti-gun judge, RINO governor, or any other official as evidence of a "gray area" in Michigan gun laws.
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
For me the question isn't ... what do I have to lose... or ... what do I have to gain... but is...
What does the government have to gain? Because whatever the government gains is what I lose. And any privilege given by the government means the government gained more power and control over exercising the right to bear arms.
Now I have a question.... and it bypasses all the "What's in it for certain groups of gun owners (really more like folks from each group asking .. what's in it for me.)" mental gymnastics being used to justify supporting SB59.......
"If open carry is presently legal because there aren't any laws that make open carry itself illegal......... wouldn't a law that makes open carry illegal by specific language mentioning "openly carrying", even if only in PFZs, create the precedent of creating law that specifically makes the simple act of open carry itself illegal?"
The term "unintended consequences" comes to my mind.............
detroit_fan
Regular Member
How is it a right if you have to have a CPL to do it? Why are you ok with having to take a class and pay for CPL? OC in a PFZ w/ a CPL is a privilege, not a right.
- Status