Question about MOC's philosophy on use of open carry gatherings

KYGlockster said:

Could you please cite this assertion? I was under the impression that the bill was useless unless it stated OC in these areas is now OFF-LIMITS, because the Governor would not sign it without these provisions.

Click to expand...

Venator said:

The bill has language in it to allow a CPL holder to OC with written permission. So if an OC gathering in a bar was organized with permission to OC then the attendees could OC in a PFZ.

Click to expand...

The wording was only added after an MOC board member (who is "feverishly" trying to quash your OC right) suggested that at least a private property owner should be able to decide weather OC was ok on their property. I'm sooo sick of the MOC bashing already. Yes we are Michigan OPEN carry, our "main" focus is open carry but I believe that we are a gun rights organization first! I'm so sick of hearing about MOC somehow being behind the amendment and how happy we must feel about it. None of us are "HAPPY" about it at all but in an effort to play nice with others, because we are all on the same team here people and being a gun rights organization I feel like 3 steps forward and 1 back is still 2 steps forward. Were trying to make lemonade with lemons over here people can we please grow up and get the hell over it. Be displeased with the bill all you want, shout it on a mountain top! But stop talking like this was MOC's idea to add that amendment and it's the leaderships fault for all of this.

DanM the very idea that MOC would seriously use gatherings at PFZ's to drive the public or authorities to be attracted to SB 59's ban on OC in PFZs to make it look more "appealing" is an insult!

DanM said:

Can we not get too far off topic?

Click to expand...

No. This is the internet.

mikestilly said:

Wanna site your changes in SB59? Asking permission from a school will go real far.

Click to expand...

How many schools allow OC now?

scot623 said:

How many schools allow OC now?

Click to expand...

I OC in a school every time I vote, never been turned away. Several others do too. SB-59 would destroy my ability to do that legally. There is, however, lots of candy in there for concealed carry, which I like a lot. But MOC is not MCC.

kubel said:

I OC in a school every time I vote, never been turned away. Several others do too. SB-59 would destroy my ability to do that legally. There is, however, lots of candy in there for concealed carry, which I like a lot. But MOC is not MCC.

Click to expand...

I do to, but that isn't quite the same as walking little Johnny to class now is it? What schools allow parents to open carry? You can probably count them on one hand.

mikestilly said:

Doesnt matter if they allow it or not. I can legally carry on school property and in it. I pay the taxes.

Click to expand...

What school do you personally carry in on a regular basis?

scot623 said:

I do to, but that isn't quite the same as walking little Johnny to class now is it? What schools allow parents to open carry? You can probably count them on one hand.

Click to expand...

How many will after this law passes, and how often will we be able to OC when we vote in a PFZ? I'm not trying to give you a hard time. The bill is a good one for CC (I would LOVE to CC in PFZs) but with bad provisions in it for OC, and I don't think the degradation of OC will stop with this bill. I think it's going to open the doors to defining brandishing and other unintended consequences that could jeopardize OC in MI for all of us. It's really risky business for MOC to back this.

Yeah, I'm not going to read all that. ^

KYGlockster said:

Who will honestly give permission? I do not see any schools giving permission, and I would say very few churches would.

You all can support the bill all you want; I don't have to deal with the oppression so I will venture out of here. I will say it is bad for the Country as a whole. Legislation such as this could be used to further restrictions in every state by saying we still have a right to carry, but only if we obtain outrageous amounts of training and permission! If it is ok in one state then why not in all of them? I do NOT support it!

Click to expand...

The same people who might not give you 'permission' under the new law, are the same people who would hurl you into the street for OCing under the old law. The idea that one could OC with impunity in a PFZ is ludicrous; they were not compelled to allow it, just because it was legal. Private property rules take precedent.

Everybody- take a deep breath and THINK.

Shadow Bear said:

The same people who might not give you 'permission' under the new law, are the same people who would hurl you into the street for OCing under the old law. The idea that one could OC with impunity in a PFZ is ludicrous; they were not compelled to allow it, just because it was legal. Private property rules take precedent.

Everybody- take a deep breath and THINK.

Click to expand...

Stop using facts and logic. It will get you no where. According to many, OC will BE BANNED!! It's like they haven't even read the bill.

Adams182 said:

The wording was only added after an MOC board member (who is "feverishly" trying to quash your OC right) suggested that at least a private property owner should be able to decide weather OC was ok on their property. I'm sooo sick of the MOC bashing already. Yes we are Michigan OPEN carry, our "main" focus is open carry but I believe that we are a gun rights organization first! I'm so sick of hearing about MOC somehow being behind the amendment and how happy we must feel about it. None of us are "HAPPY" about it at all but in an effort to play nice with others, because we are all on the same team here people and being a gun rights organization I feel like 3 steps forward and 1 back is still 2 steps forward. Were trying to make lemonade with lemons over here people can we please grow up and get the hell over it. Be displeased with the bill all you want, shout it on a mountain top! But stop talking like this was MOC's idea to add that amendment and it's the leaderships fault for all of this.

DanM the very idea that MOC would seriously use gatherings at PFZ's to drive the public or authorities to be attracted to SB 59's ban on OC in PFZs to make it look more "appealing" is an insult!

Click to expand...

Darn it, Phil forgot to use the purple font, so people with an under developed sense of humor would be officially notified that it was a

JOKE.

Get a clue, people....

KYGlockster said:

Who will honestly give permission? I do not see any schools giving permission, and I would say very few churches would.

You all can support the bill all you want; I don't have to deal with the oppression so I will venture out of here. I will say it is bad for the Country as a whole. Legislation such as this could be used to further restrictions in every state by saying we still have a right to carry, but only if we obtain outrageous amounts of training and permission! If it is ok in one state then why not in all of them? I do NOT support it!

Click to expand...

My point was in regards to an OC gathering. I have held events and got owners to sign permission for non-CPL holders to carry in places they couldn't with permission so they could go to the event with CPL holders. Others have also.

I'm sure those same pro-gun owners would do it again, if this bill passes.

If this bill passes I would think MOC would host OC events in PFZ (with permission from owners) to educate the people and LEO that OC is not illegal and will still be done in PFZs. I would hope this may force the legislature see that OC is perfectly acceptable in PFZ and MOC will work to change this unconstitutional provision.

Venator said:

My point was in regards to an OC gathering. I have held events and got owners to sign permission for non-CPL holders to carry in places they couldn't with permission so they could go to the event with CPL holders. Others have also.

I'm sure those same pro-gun owners would do it again, if this bill passes.

If this bill passes I would think MOC would host OC events in PFZ (with permission from owners) to educate the people and LEO that OC is not illegal and will still be done in PFZs. I would hope this may force the legislature see that OC is perfectly acceptable in PFZ and MOC will work to change this unconstitutional provision.

Click to expand...

So an open carrier would either have to show a letter from the owner ( would a manager count? ) to open carry there. OR have a CPL with the extra special permission check to conceal there?

Raggs said:

So an open carrier would either have to show a letter from the owner ( would a manager count? ) to open carry there. OR have a CPL with the extra special permission check to conceal there?

Click to expand...

Yup.

Adams182 said:

DanM the very idea that MOC would seriously use gatherings at PFZ's to drive the public or authorities to be attracted to SB 59's ban on OC in PFZs to make it look more "appealing" is an insult!

Click to expand...

I agree, the idea is an insult. I'm wondering why Jared A. Coyne expressed such an insulting idea, and Phil said he had mentioned such an insulting idea to Bolger. That's what this thread is about.

I don't know Coyne, but Phil is a friend in the movement I've been around. It's a pure guess on my part, but I would be charitable with Phil and guess maybe it was a joke he laid on Bolger. A bad joke, for sure. Because if that's the story, I would equate it to, during the civil rights struggle, a civil rights leader engaging in some sort of compromise he think is good overall for black folk, but which involves instituting segregation in just a few areas, and joking that in order to get the goal accomplished he'd rally his folk in the few areas to be segregated, in order to stir up the white folk or white politicians to want those areas segregated and get the bill passed.

I'm hoping the explanation is that it was a joke, because the alternative (that it is a serious view on using an OC gathering in a PFZ to actually turn the public and politicians against it and more easily or quickly get SB 59 passed) is much worse for Phil and/or MOC.

I am sorry, I am (NOT) in favor of any bill that requires us to have to ask PERMISSION from anybody (after I pay for the extra extention coarse to begin with.

Does anyone here really think that any School is going to give you WRITTEN permission ? really !

It is bad enough that we pay Blood money to the state for permission to carry concealed, & the only reason I do is that I crosss State lines all the time.

And why is MOC making any stand Except NEUTRAL as this extention Law has NOTHING to do with open carry !

Just my 1 1/2 cents worth !

mastiff69 said:

why is MOC making any stand Except NEUTRAL as this extention Law has NOTHING to do with open carry

Click to expand...

You can't be serious. I mean, really. You're kidding, right?

First of all, there have been dozens of posts from various people explaining in excruciating detail exactly why MOC is supporting SB59. If you had any reading comprehension whatsoever you would already know why MOC is taking a supporting stand on this bill.

Second of all, do you remember what happened on the last non-OC related bill MOC stood neutral on? MOC got criticized for remaining neutral.

http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?102940-What-s-the-latest-news-on-HB-5225/page5

Third of all, if MOC had been against this bill, the rest of the gun community would have criticized us.

So MOC is damned if we do, damned if we don't, and damned if we are neutral. Someone somewhere is going to be upset.

What I suggest is all of you put on your big girl pants and grow up. Look at the real world as it exists, not what you would like it to be.

griffin said:

You can't be serious. I mean, really. You're kidding, right?

First of all, there have been dozens of posts from various people explaining in excruciating detail exactly why MOC is supporting SB59. If you had any reading comprehension whatsoever you would already know why MOC is taking a supporting stand on this bill.

Second of all, do you remember what happened on the last non-OC related bill MOC stood neutral on? MOC got criticized for remaining neutral.

http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?102940-What-s-the-latest-news-on-HB-5225/page5

Third of all, if MOC had been against this bill, the rest of the gun community would have criticized us.

So MOC is damned if we do, damned if we don't, and damned if we are neutral. Someone somewhere is going to be upset.

What I suggest is all of you put on your big girl pants and grow up. Look at the real world as it exists, not what you would like it to be.

Click to expand...

I am sure no one thinks this is offensive, and a good debate tactic!

Raggs said:

I am sure no one thinks this is offensive, and a good debate tactic!

Click to expand...

And they shouldn't...he's not debating anyone.

griffin said:

-snip- Look at the real world as it exists, not what you would like it to be.-snip-

Click to expand...

Being in a philosophical mood this morning I offer this.....

Whether in reference to the current political world, the world of rights, or even my own personal little world...............

When I limit myself to seeing the world only as it exists I cheat myself out of the vision of what I would like it to be.

And if I do not have a vision of how I would like the world to be I will be so busy dealing with the world as it is I won't see the path that leads to a better world.

Our Founding Fathers had a vision...

Martin Luther King had a vision...

Neither of them settled for the real world as it existed.

And neither of them allowed themselves to agree to compromises that led away from that vision.

So I have to ask myself

What's my vision for the future? Will a compromise now really widen the path to get there or will it only lead to another, worse, compromise later taking me further from the path?

Or maybe I've just had too much coffee this morning!!!:lol: