detroit_fan
Regular Member
I'll reiterate:
I don't see it as a gray area, but I will say this if some think it is:
While I don't like gray areas, I'll take your gray area that does not explicitly ban OC over your black and white that does explicitly ban OC.
At least with the gray area, *I* get to assess whether the risk is low or high and choose whether or not I OC.
By all means, if you assess the risk as high then don't OC in a PFZ. But shouldn't someone who assesses the risk as low or none be free to do so, rather than there be an outright black-and-white ban on OC in PFZ? Which is worse?
That is a great way of looking at it, provided you can even afford to make that choice. Ensuring my safety should be an assessment of risk.
If SB59 fails to pass, Michigan residents have these options in PFZ's-
#1-carry concealed anyways, which is committing a crime, and deal with the associated expenses and consequences of that choice(most of us wish to follow the law)
#2-OC in the PFZ, but risk arrest and the associated expenses for defending that choice in court(more money than most can afford)
#3-disarm completely because you don't want to risk the first 2 options.(this is what 99% of MI CPL holders do)
Now, considering those are my current options, I have no choice but to go with #3 due to lack of funds to make #2 a viable option. If SB59 passes we lose option #2(something that really isn't an option to most of us due to the amount of money necessary), but gain a new option of paying a much smaller price to have a black and white law that allows CC in those places.
Is it a privilege, yes. Does it suck that I would have to pay for a class, yes. But the $100 that the class costs is MUCH more affordable to most people than fighting an OC in a PFZ court case, and much cheaper than getting caught CC in a PFZ without the exemption.