Official SB59 Debate thread

bikenut said:

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.............

Click to expand...

^^^ this! +1

detroit_fan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes A cpl gives people a privlege to carry a gun concealed, we lost the Right.
The government takes away your right to carry a gun, by creating unjust laws then gives people a way to get their lost gun carry back, by kissing *** and paying for the priviledge to carry a gun.

Now the government, will put an end to the loophole of open carry in a PFZ
create new laws. And people will line up to Kiss*** and Pay for the privledge.

I know the Kiss*** is bothersome but true.
I have a Cpl and it was discusting.

mikestilly said:

I'll say it again and I'll say it 200 more times. Our right to open carry in pistol fee zones is not a loophole or gray area. Even the anti-gun MSP agrees that it's legal. The mindset that led to this thinking comes from anti-gunners. If there is no existing law banning or criminalizing open carry then it's not a criminal act. Just because the law makers didn't take something into account when drafting laws doesn't mean it's a loophole. It's a loophole or gray area to me because they have an agenda. The fact is the more complicated and "Compromise for the greater good" we are the more messes we get ourselves in to. Criminalizing open carry is a terrible idea and greater good or not I don't support criminalizing any form of our natural rights to carry a firearm. Any firearm!

Click to expand...

Lawmakers are taking Open Carry into account by Outlawing Open Carry in PFZ and making it A Criminal Act. If its not written into law, It will be Under SB59.

I am against this bill just to be clear.

mikestilly said:

Brian. Just a follow up on a citation for this. Mike

Click to expand...

Mike, can a private property owner ban firearms?

As it is now if you don't have a CPL and you get permission to carry in those places listed in .234d you can OC a firearm. Without a CPL you can not carry a firearm in a school (some exceptions). If you do not have a CPL and you carry in those places listed in .234d without permission (or meet the other exemptions) it is a misdemeanor.

At present if you have a CPL and carry OC in those places listed in .234d you are not violating a firearm law, BUT IF the place is private property they can have you trespassed. My point is in both of these examples (With or without a CPL) you needed permission in the private property places.

If the law changes a person with or without a CPL can still OC in those private places with written permission. A CPL holder could even OC in those public places listed in 5o with written permission.

If a CPL holder intentionally OCs in a place listed in 5o without written permission then they COULD be guilty of a civil infraction with the fines and suspension. I suspect the enforcement of this statue would depend on the views of the County prosecutor and Sheriff.

I hope that is clearer.

AND BY PUBLIC I mean publicly owned..government, etc.

Ohhhh the humanity...

They are scared of you...

http://annarbor.com/news/legislation-allowing-concealed-weapons-in-gun-free-zones-raises-concerns/

AAMitch said:

They are scared of you...

http://annarbor.com/news/legislation-allowing-concealed-weapons-in-gun-free-zones-raises-concerns/

Click to expand...

Give me a freaking break. Here we go with the blood in the streets argument. It's one of many to come if SB 59 passes.

"Our state universities are some of the safest places you can be, and this bill, we think, will impede our commitment to the safety and security of our universities."

Click to expand...

ETA: Openly without the extra training is already legal!!!!! Excuse me, I'm going to go bash my head against a hard wall.

"I'm not sure we want people carrying weapons either openly or concealed in large sports arenas, in classes, in emergency rooms, in daycare centers," he said.

Click to expand...

mikestilly said:

Can you site where in SB59 it states you can OC by obtaining permission?

Click to expand...

Have you read the bill?

(10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the individual is acting with the express written consent of the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner of the premises.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0059.htm

mikestilly said:

As for MOC it's a terrible position to take on a group focused on open carry rights.

Click to expand...

If you are upset with MOC's position and can no longer support them, perhaps you should ask for your dues money back. They might return it.

griffin said:

If you are upset with MOC's position and can no longer support them, perhaps you should ask for your dues money back. They might return it.

Click to expand...

What dues?... he hasn't been a member for over a year.

mikestilly said:

- can a private property owner ban firearms? Yes, they can ban whatever they want. Its their property.

- can you site where in sb59 it states you can oc by obtaining permission?

- last i saw the bill banned open carry at the request of the governor. How could that be overcome if his requirement was removed? He'd simply veto it.

- this seems to be to be quote misleading "at present if you have a cpl and carry oc in those places listed in .234d you are not violating a firearm law, but if the place is private property they can have you trespassed.". Why bring trespassing into the conversation? You must first be asked to leave before being cited for trespassing. Anyone regardless if they're carrying a firearm or not can be cited with trespassing.

Click to expand...

(10) an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the
individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the individual is acting with the express written consent of the owner of the premises or an agent of the owner of the premises.

autosurgeon said:

What dues?... he hasn't been a member for over a year.

Click to expand...

Then why would he think he has any authority to tell MOC what to do? :cuss:

griffin said:

Then why would he think he has any authority to tell MOC what to do? :cuss:

Click to expand...

He doesn't, However he has every right to comment on something that is posted on OCDO and made to sound like a great thing to open carriers in Michigan doesn't he?

Raggs said:

He doesn't

Click to expand...

Glad you agree. But then why has he made dozens of posts telling MOC what they should do?

Edited to remove smiley face.

griffin said:

Glad you agree. But then why has he made dozens of posts telling MOC what they should do?

Edited to remove smiley face.

Click to expand...

Because, perhaps, MOC tried to make this sound like a GREAT deal on a forum, this one, that is pro open carry. Perhaps because the message was delivered badly? He has every right to state his opinion. To bad he is being attacked instead of given a fair chance make his point with such close minded people.

The following is my opinion only....

MOC comes to OCDO and makes an announcement about it's decision to support SB59.

How could anyone NOT expect folks from OCDO to ask questions and/or express their opinions concerning MOC's decision?

And how could MOC expect all the questions and/or opinions to be favorable?

And if MOC didn't want to hear or respond to questions and/or opinions about their decision from folks on OCDO then there should not have been an announcement from MOC about that decision on OCDO.

In short... MOC has every right to make whatever decisions it wishes for whatever reasons it wants..... but if MOC didn't want to answer questions or hear opinions from non members it should not have made an announcement in a place filled with................. non members.

But how MOC, and it's leadership, responds to the questions and opinions (that it invited from non members by posting it in a place it knows is inhabited by folks who are not members of MOC) speaks volumes about MOC itself.

As I said... all of that is my personal opinion...

Bikenut said:

MOC didn't want to hear or respond to questions and/or opinions about their decision from folks on OCDO then there should not have been an announcement from MOC about that decision on OCDO

Click to expand...

To be fair, whether or not MOC posted its decision to support SB59 on OCDO, it WAS without a doubt going to be discussed OCDO. On that I'm sure we can agree.

Bikenut said:

The following is my opinion only....

MOC comes to OCDO and makes an announcement about it's decision to support SB59.

How could anyone NOT expect folks from OCDO to ask questions and/or express their opinions concerning MOC's decision?

And how could MOC expect all the questions and/or opinions to be favorable?

And if MOC didn't want to hear or respond to questions and/or opinions about their decision from folks on OCDO then there should not have been an announcement from MOC about that decision on OCDO.

In short... MOC has every right to make whatever decisions it wishes for whatever reasons it wants..... but if MOC didn't want to answer questions or hear opinions from non members it should not have made an announcement in a place filled with................. non members.

But how MOC, and it's leadership, responds to the questions and opinions (that it invited from non members by posting it in a place it knows is inhabited by folks who are not members of MOC) speaks volumes about MOC itself.

As I said... all of that is my personal opinion...

Click to expand...

well said

scot623 said:

To be fair, whether or not MOC posted its decision to support SB59 on OCDO, it WAS without a doubt going to be discussed OCDO. On that I'm sure we can agree.

Click to expand...

Of course MOC's decision would be discussed on OCDO.. and other gun rights forums too... but by posting an announcement of it's decision on OCDO MOC put itself in a position of having invited questions and opinions concerning that decision be directed at MOC... from anyone, members and non members of MOC, who are members OCDO's forum.

If an organization, any organization!, wishes to maintain it's credibility and be respected as a worthy organization then it would behoove it, and it's leadership, to rise above using ridicule and insults as responses.... especially when responding to those who are rude.

Bikenut said:

Of course MOC's decision would be discussed on OCDO.. and other gun rights forums too... but by posting an announcement of it's decision on OCDO MOC put itself in a position of having invited questions and opinions concerning that decision be directed at MOC... from anyone, members and non members of MOC, who are members OCDO's forum.

Click to expand...

How so? I see people give a press release all the time and then not take questions or comments on it. Obviously MOC can't stop comments, but I think they are certainly within their rights to decline to answer any more questions, especially since this isn't their forum.

Having said that, MOC DID answer questions, and has stated numerous times why it make the decision it did. What question do you think MOC still needs to answer? It seems some who are against 59 just want to ask the same questions over and over, not sure what the point of that is? Do people expect MOC to change their stance? Do people think if they say something enough times it will become true?

detroit_fan said:

How so? I see people give a press release all the time and then not take questions or comments on it. Obviously MOC can't stop comments, but I think they are certainly within their rights to decline to answer any more questions

Click to expand...

I took Bikenut's point as MOC invited questions, not that they have to take or answer them. However, many including myself, are of the opinion that among what separates great organizations from the rest is the ability to take and respond effectively to criticism.

detroit_fan said:

Having said that, MOC DID answer questions, and has stated numerous times why it make the decision it did. What question do you think MOC still needs to answer?

Click to expand...

Question about MOC's philosophy on use of open carry gatherings.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-s-philosophy-on-use-of-open-carry-gatherings