SB 59 pulled?

smellslikemichigan · Dec 5, 2012

Shadow Bear said:
The forum owners. Is there a problem?:uhoh:

no, not at all

i was simply replying to Q since the thread was started by a moderator... just good fun

HKcarrier · Dec 5, 2012

First off, I want to say I have a lot of respect for you and your wisdom, BikeNut. That said, I think you've put a lot of words in my mouth.

Reply in blue...

Bikenut said:
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.

Feel free to point out where I espoused that everyone should most definitely, without thought or dissent, agree with MOC. I didn't say that, nor did I say MOC spoke for all. My point was people should look at the positive. Discuss, dissent, debate are all good things, but people's responses were coming to "i'm taking my ball and going home"

Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.

I fail to see where MOC didn't accept criticism until it started becoming rude and nonconstructive. People asked what was going on and it was explained "BoD made a decision". People didn't like that, so there was time made for "public discourse with BoD"... if you didn't show to the public discourse, yeah, I don't think your say means much. There's a time for public discourse and there is a time that it closes. Just like any "official" meetings or board meetings go. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the initial answers weren't honest, logical, and reasonable.

Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.

Being part of a credible and respected organization is also knowing when to hold em and when to fold em. You say just above that "MOC doesn't represent all gun owners" then in the next breath state "their decisions affect more than it's members" and they "have a duty to explain to non members" So which is it?

Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.

That's perfectly fine. I have less than zero problem with your stance on the law as well as you respectfully and honorably voicing your opinion and concern. I feel that is mostly how you have conducted yourself. IT is OTHER people who are getting all cry baby about it. As the poll showed, VIRTUALLY ZERO PEOPLE ACTUALLY OC IN A PFZ....at least on any type of basis that can be considered anything more than novelty... so they're pissed about something that only they do getting taken away in order that TONS of people can do it. Selfish. At least your arguments have logic and merit. Theirs is WAAAAA I WANNA OC.

Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.

I think MOC were attacked at just about every turn by a small minority of very vocal people. They first acted respectfully but the increasing disrespect by the naysayers was met with increasing disrespect from leadership. Professional or not, can you blame people? Sometimes you give what you get. They DID give respectful thought out reasons... no one wanted to respect or accept that, so I guess the leadership said screw it... what can we do.

And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....

Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I had no intention to say that anyone who disagreed with SB59 was "pissy pants cry baby" but there certainly were SEVERAL of them that were. I never said anything of the sort and I was strictly referring to a specific set of people... I apologize if I was unclear on that.

griffin · Dec 5, 2012

TheQ said:
I think both sided have pushed this issue every way they can. It'd now be appropriate for each side to "do what they have to do/want to do" to either stop or support this bill.

Then we can all get back to pleasant conversation...

Bite me.

Small_Arms_Collector · Dec 5, 2012

TheQ said:
Likewise, I consider you mine.

That being said, using Florida and Texas law (which CLEARLY ban OC/printing) to back up your printing will be prosecuted argument is weak (nothing personal).

What about my argument? What is to stop a prosecutor from just saying it was intentional whether it was, or not? How can you prove that it wasn't? You cannot prove a negative so you lose by default, essentially you are guilty until proven innocent, and there is no way to prove it.

The Florida law you yourself posted is very similar in that it seems to require it to be intentional, yet people have been prosecuted anyway.

All it takes is a panicky person calling the police, an antigun cop, and an antigun prosecutor, and it won't matter if it was intentional or not, because they will just say it was.

NOWHERE in the law does it actually define "intentional", or require the prosecutor to actually prove it.

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

Because responding to the entire post was entirely too long my response is in portions...

First of all... I bear no ill will for you HKcarrier.. or for anyone..

HKcarrier said:
First off, I want to say I have a lot of respect for you and your wisdom, BikeNut. That said, I think you've put a lot of words in my mouth.

Reply in blue...

Originally Posted by Bikenut
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.

Feel free to point out where I espoused that everyone should most definitely, without thought or dissent, agree with MOC. I didn't say that, nor did I say MOC spoke for all. My point was people should look at the positive. Discuss, dissent, debate are all good things, but people's responses were coming to "i'm taking my ball and going home"

Click to expand...

You said...

HKcarrier said:
-snip-
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say.-snip-

I don't know how others read that but to me it appeared to say that MOC made their decision... and because there are folks who think it was a good one... everyone should just accept it and shut up. Did I misunderstand that? If so I sincerely apologize.

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.

I fail to see where MOC didn't accept criticism until it started becoming rude and nonconstructive. People asked what was going on and it was explained "BoD made a decision". People didn't like that, so there was time made for "public discourse with BoD"... if you didn't show to the public discourse, yeah, I don't think your say means much. There's a time for public discourse and there is a time that it closes. Just like any "official" meetings or board meetings go. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the initial answers weren't honest, logical, and reasonable.

Click to expand...

The leadership of an organization that wishes to protect the credibility of that organization do not respond to rudeness with rudeness... it is unbecomming and puts a negative light upon the organization. Not attending a meeting does not make questions, or the questioner, irrelevant and deserving of rude responses. An organization and/or it's leadership responding in that manner is unbecoming and damaging to it's credibility.

And I politely asked questions and received rude responses in return.. including one with the implication that a 19 month old child has more comprehension than I. Again, such things do NOT put the organization in a good light.

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.

Being part of a credible and respected organization is also knowing when to hold em and when to fold em. You say just above that "MOC doesn't represent all gun owners" then in the next breath state "their decisions affect more than it's members" and they "have a duty to explain to non members" So which is it?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between representing someone and having the courtesy to explain to those the organization doesn't represent why a decision was made that affects those who aren't represented. Again... being discourteous is unbecoming...

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut
Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.

That's perfectly fine. I have less than zero problem with your stance on the law as well as you respectfully and honorably voicing your opinion and concern. I feel that is mostly how you have conducted yourself. IT is OTHER people who are getting all cry baby about it. As the poll showed, VIRTUALLY ZERO PEOPLE ACTUALLY OC IN A PFZ....at least on any type of basis that can be considered anything more than novelty... so they're pissed about something that only they do getting taken away in order that TONS of people can do it. Selfish. At least your arguments have logic and merit. Theirs is WAAAAA I WANNA OC.

Click to expand...

Let me see... the ability to OC in a PFZ is currently there for anyone with a CPL if they choose to do it but because only a small number of folks are willing to do it the larger number of folks who want to have the ability to "feel safe" as they carry in PFZs because they have the express permission from the government to do it in a concealed manner justifies supporting the extra expense.. the extra hassle of getting extra training (the worth of which is up for debate).. positively eliminating the ability to OC in a PFZ...and handing the government control of yet another "infringement" on the right to bear arms?

Is my understanding correct? Because if it is then applying the standard of "selfish" rather depends on which side of the issue a person is standing.

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.

I think MOC were attacked at just about every turn by a small minority of very vocal people. They first acted respectfully but the increasing disrespect by the naysayers was met with increasing disrespect from leadership. Professional or not, can you blame people? Sometimes you give what you get. They DID give respectful thought out reasons... no one wanted to respect or accept that, so I guess the leadership said screw it... what can we do.

Click to expand...

I would think an organization that represents the right and the ability to openly bear arms, something that affects all people in the entire State regardless of membership status in that organization, would behave in a professional, respectable, credible, and respectful manner at all times simply because by representing the right and ability to openly bear arms that organization has a higher responsibility than to just it's members. And adopting the attitude of "screw it" when questioned is.... what is that word?... unbecoming...

Please understand that I'm not talking about the individual persons in leadership roles of MOC ... I'm talking about how the actions and attitudes of those persons reflect upon the organization. And in my opinion... MOC really dropped the ball on this one. And I'm not saying that because I felt insulted.... hell... this isn't my first rodeo and I've been bucked, and bucked off, before... I'm saying that if MOC wants to be a credible and valid gun rights organization then it's leadership would be wise to conduct itself in a manner that does not alienate people who actually dare question it's decisions.

And when Michigan OPEN CARRY adopts a decision to support legislation that eliminates the ability for everyone in the State to OC in PFZ's it should come as no surprise that MOC's leadership will be expected to explain and justify that decision to non members.

Bikenut · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Originally Posted by Bikenut

And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....

Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I had no intention to say that anyone who disagreed with SB59 was "pissy pants cry baby" but there certainly were SEVERAL of them that were. I never said anything of the sort and I was strictly referring to a specific set of people... I apologize if I was unclear on that.

Click to expand...

HKcarrier said:
-snip-
Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want.
-snip-
We need to be united on these fronts.

No need for an apology... an explanation is good enough for me.

HKcarrier said:
First off, I want to say I have a lot of respect for you and your wisdom, BikeNut. -snip-

And thanks... I'll show that comment about my having wisdom to my wife... she will undoubtedly laugh about it for at least a week!

Sorry about all the posts folks....

Edited to add: Told my wife about the "wisdom" thing and she said she will be laughing for a lot longer than a week.

KYGlockster · Dec 5, 2012

HKcarrier said:
It's amazing to me how people act as if this is going to be the last gun law ever passed, and this is what we will have to deal with for the rest of eternity and this is the best we can ever get...

Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step. Don't like the way we have to "prove ourselves" as safe and what-not? Sorry, but that's REALITY. There's a AWFUL lot of soccer mom's out there that think you don't need a gun FOR ANY REASON.... so they're out there screaming in the law maker's ears too.. and they don't have anything else to do but bitch and take care of their precious snow flakes... we all have jobs... So take a reality check. This law is a GOOD thing and a step in the RIGHT direction for ALL of the firearms community. Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want. Stop thinking ONLY OF YOURSELF and realize that this is the one of the steps of many that have come and many to come in order to get us to Con Carry.

Please. All this infighting is RE-G.D.-DICULOUS.

Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say. Stop acting as if MOC controls the michigan legislature and has so much pull what they say will instantaneously add or subtract from the bill. MOC is one of MANY players on this wagon and can either be on the wagon or off, alone, all by themselves.

Instead they elected to be ON THE SAME TEAM, even to their own detriment in order to TAKE ONE FOR THE -TEAM- and do something that was good for EVERYONE ELSE but maybe not the best for THEM. Part of being a big boy and acting like an ADULT. Making hard and sometimes self sacrificial decisions.

We need to be united on these fronts. Discussion is great... talking about things and even disagreeing is great... but people are taking it too far.

Here in Kentucky we do NOT have to "prove ourselves" as safe or anything else. So it is NOT a reality in this state.

I do agree that with such oppressive laws on the books it will take time to get them removed, but adding to them instead of removing them is a step in the wrong direction.

ANYTHING that gives the STATE more authority and control over what is "supposed" to be a right is a step in the WRONG direction.

We ALL need to work on removing legislation that infringes on our rights or that gives supreme authority of those rights to the state!

Currently you can carry in the PFZs with a standard CPL as long as you are carrying openly and can do so without the need for MORE training and infringement. With this bill, it strips everyone that holds a CPL of the ability to carry in PFZs unless they spend MORE money and time receiving more training that the State demands, training that infringes on the RIGHT to bear arms in the first place. THINK about it! This bill takes away EVERYONE'S ability to carry in these PFZs unless you receive the EXTRA training mandated by the State! Currently you can do so as long as you OC; after this bill passes nobody will be able to unless they pay for more infringement on their rights! Does this not make sense? Once this passes and is signed into law NOBODY can carry in these places until the training is verified! And those that currently OC in these places may not have the funding to pay for more training, so now they are stripped of the ability to carry in PFZs! Everyone with a CPL can carry now in PFZs, but after this passes only "special" CPL holders will be able to do so!

KYGlockster · Dec 5, 2012

Bikenut said:
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....

Couldn't agree more! It seems there is a lot of this going on around this forum these days.

Bronson · Dec 5, 2012

Bikenut said:
The leadership of an organization that wishes to protect the credibility of that organization do not respond to rudeness with rudeness... it is unbecomming and puts a negative light upon the organization. Not attending a meeting does not make questions, or the questioner, irrelevant and deserving of rude responses. An organization and/or it's leadership responding in that manner is unbecoming and damaging to it's credibility.

And I politely asked questions and received rude responses in return.. including one with the implication that a 19 month old child has more comprehension than I. Again, such things do NOT put the organization in a good light.

I believe scott623's response to similar comments in this thread: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?107498-Question-for-new-Michigan-Mods-OT sum up MOC's postition quite succinctly.

scott623 said:
to those who expect certain posters to have "tact and professionalism", you are likely to be continually disappointed. If you feel so strongly about certain people who hold certain positions posting in a certain manner...maybe you should hold those positions so you can control how professional they are perceived.

He admits that the leadership of MOC is completely incapable of behaving in a professional manner and if you can't or won't step up to take on a leadership position within MOC you shouldn't dare to criticize them.

Bronson

lapeer20m · Dec 5, 2012

I am opposed to hb 59 for several reasons. Here are a few:

One is far more likely to be prosecuted under the new law if you accidentally step foot onto property whike oc that you did not know was owned by a church or school or any place listed in 425o. Currently if you were cc and made the same mistake nobody would know and prosecution is very unlikely.

One would be forced into giving up their 4th and possibly 5th amendment rights while carrying in these zones as one is required to disclose, carry and produce upon request identification and cpl. None of these things are required currently while possessing firearms in pfz's.

Philosophically I think it is moving in the opposite direction of con carry as it gives the government even more regulating authority over an activity that they have no lawful authority to regulate in the first place.

As a selfish note, I would like to lawfully carry concealed in the current pfz's, but I cannot support this bill for the above reasons, and more.

griffin · Dec 6, 2012

lapeer20m said:
One is far more likely to be prosecuted under the new law if you accidentally step foot onto property whike oc that you did not know was owned by a church or school or any place listed in 425o.

This is probably the first real, good, logical reason to oppose this bill. Although being a reciprocal of the current law, you make the point that CCing would not be noticed and you'd likely not be prosecuted for a mistake, whereas OC would likely be noticed.

TheQ · Dec 6, 2012

griffin said:
This is probably the first real, good, logical reason to oppose this bill. Although being a reciprocal of the current law, you make the point that CCing would not be noticed and you'd likely not be prosecuted for a mistake, whereas OC would likely be noticed.

Unless, of course, you're OCing in a 28.425o zone and a sweater momentarily flops over your gun. Cop sees sweater go over gun for brief moment and BOOM -- 28.425o violation. Why is no one talking about that?

xmanhockey7 · Dec 6, 2012

griffin said:
This is probably the first real, good, logical reason to oppose this bill. Although being a reciprocal of the current law, you make the point that CCing would not be noticed and you'd likely not be prosecuted for a mistake, whereas OC would likely be noticed.

I agree and that was my first thought when I heard about the OC provision. I'd be more apt to CC or at least keep and IWB holster for my Glock in my vehicle incase I need to switch from OC to CC because I'm going to a place that is a PFZ. Also a place where you're unsure of whether it's a bar with the primary source of income being liquor sold by the glass or a restaurant where the primary is food you'd want to stay safe and concealed carry. Granted I still support SB 59 I just agree that he made a good argument.

xmanhockey7 · Dec 6, 2012

TheQ said:
Unless, of course, you're OCing in a 28.425o zone and a sweater momentarily flops over your gun. Cop sees sweater go over gun for brief moment and BOOM -- 28.425o violation. Why is no one talking about that?

In my experience it's easier to keep a gun openly carried than it is to keep it concealed. Not that I don't support SB 59 I'm just saying.

ETA: Your milage may vary.

griffin · Dec 6, 2012

TheQ said:
Unless, of course, you're OCing in a 28.425o zone and a sweater momentarily flops over your gun. Cop sees sweater go over gun for brief moment and BOOM -- 28.425o violation. Why is no one talking about that?

How are you OCing? If you are in a CC-free zone, you need to make sure you don't cover your firearm.

The post posits a different scenario, that you might inadvertently enter an OC PFZ by virtue of non-obvious ownership. How likely is this? I don't know.

TheQ · Dec 6, 2012

griffin said:
How are you OCing? If you are in a CC-free zone, you need to make sure you don't cover your firearm.

The post posits a different scenario, that you might inadvertently enter an OC PFZ by virtue of non-obvious ownership. How likely is this? I don't know.

How likely is it the wind will flop your shirt over your gun in a 28.425o zone?

I'm not sure either, but I hear we can ask stainless.

SB 59 pulled?

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Bikenut

Guest

Activist Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member