• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

UnOfficial SB 59 Debate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeremiahJohnson

jeremiahJohnson

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
375
Location
fenton, Michigan, USA
Shadow Bear Wrote...

This thread is for civil debate on the PROS & CONS of SB59.

Any personal attacks, mention of other organizations, spam for other web sites will be immediately deleted.

Indicate whether you are pro or con, and state your position.

Make sure you quote any post you are responding to.

Make sure you use cites to back up your position, when available.

I want a clean fight, gentlemen. Now, go to your corners, or go on your way.

I wrote...

Cons; It Bans Open Carry (Really Big Con), It Creates precedence that Govt. can regulate Open Carry, If Pistol is exposed it leaves an Argument for Brandishing, It Bans Open Carry (Repeat), It Makes CPL harder/more expensive to get, and It makes more gun Regulation.

Pro's; Instructors make more money, Govt. makes more money, Ammo Company's make more Money, Instructors have to register (Ironic), and Streamlines CPL's.

I know what your gonna say, pull the repeated Con from the list & there will be just as many cons as pros and that makes it a 50/50 compromise, which reflects the Poll. I say that the mere fact it is Anti Open Carry is the reason all gun groups should kill this Bill. It goes against everything that is 2nd Amendment. I mean if there were no CPL's handed out anywhere, how would we carry? It's a no Brain-er. Last, the fact we are torn 50/50 is another reason to kill the Bill.
Protect Open Carry at all Cost. When OC is gone only privileged people will be able to CC.

I see a response of exactly what he asked.

As far as repeating the same argument this is the first time I responded on OCDO but, I can say the same for the other side, except when you disagree with some of us very few on the right side we don't Lock your thread, but when we disagree with your side you Lock our thread, or close us out yours as soon as you see us post on the topic. It clearly shows you have something to hide!.. Besides I don't care that MOC made the Decision, I'm saying it makes no sense and they Should retract their Position regardless if the Bill passes or Fails. We're an Open Carry group for Christ sake.
 
FreeInAZ

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
As written the bill sends up some red flags. That said it can and should be amended. I am neutral at this point. I do know that Moc has always worked hard for the rights of all who carry guns in MI. I see no reason why they would suddenly change that record. Let's all relax and see what makes it to the final draft and then form our opinions on that data.
 
Last edited:
jeremiahJohnson

jeremiahJohnson

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
375
Location
fenton, Michigan, USA
So whats that have to do with the fact a person starts a thread asking for a response, and when that response is full filled by the letter, but doesn't coincide with the that persons belief it gets closed?

If people are tired of hearing disagreement about this subject, then stop making multiple Threads on Multiple Sites, or stipulate that only one response per member is acceptable.
 
X

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
I am in favor of this bill. I believe it puts us in a better position than we are in today. And I'd rather be able to CC in some of these "sensitive" places than OC but that's just me. I do see a problem in people's arguments though.

Yes the bill allows for OC in PFZ with written permission. People seem to think that if the place would allow you to OC not they'll be willing to sign off on letting you OC there. I'm going to tell you that is not so easy. Sure there will be places that will sign off on it but when it comes to getting an owner of a place to actually sign a legal document allowing you to OC in their establishment I believe it will be much harder. This same business if they didn't have to sign anything and you simply come in OCing very well may do nothing.

Other than that though I think this bill is great because it will allow people to obtain their CPLs in a timely fashion and allow more people to carry in more places. And as someone who works in PFZs (hockey referee) I'm thrilled to be able to CC into rinks because I would not be willing to OC into them. I'm sure there are more things I can bring up but for right now this is my stance.
 
fozzy71

fozzy71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
921
Location
Roseville, Michigan, USA
mikestilly said:
Can you cite this from somewhere???
Click to expand...

This has been posted for you multiple times in some of the locked threads.

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

(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.
Click to expand...
 
A

Adams182

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
177
Location
Gobles, MI
CrossPistols said:
Shadow Bear Wrote...

This thread is for civil debate on the PROS & CONS of SB59.

Any personal attacks, mention of other organizations, spam for other web sites will be immediately deleted.

Indicate whether you are pro or con, and state your position.

Make sure you quote any post you are responding to.

Make sure you use cites to back up your position, when available.

I want a clean fight, gentlemen. Now, go to your corners, or go on your way.

I wrote...

Cons; It Bans Open Carry (Really Big Con) Only in PFZ and you can still with premission , It Creates precedence that Govt. can regulate Open Carry, If Pistol is exposed it leaves an Argument for Brandishing No. , It Bans Open Carry (Repeat) Again no , It Makes CPL harder/more expensive to get, and It makes more gun Regulation. It makes getting a CPL EASIER, by eliminating gun boards, giving a 45day time max to issue, and teeth to sue them if they dont issue for invalid reasons. How does that make it harder to get a CPL.

Pro's; Instructors make more money, Govt. makes more money, Ammo Company's make more Money, Instructors have to register (Ironic), and Streamlines CPL's.

I know what your gonna say, pull the repeated Con from the list & there will be just as many cons as pros and that makes it a 50/50 compromise, which reflects the Poll. I say that the mere fact it is Anti Open Carry is the reason all gun groups should kill this Bill. It goes against everything that is 2nd Amendment. I mean if there were no CPL's handed out anywhere, how would we carry? It's a no Brain-er. Last, the fact we are torn 50/50 is another reason to kill the Bill.
Protect Open Carry at all Cost. When OC is gone only privileged people will be able to CC. prohibiting OC'ing in a PFZ is deffinetly not losing a right, you needed the privilege slip to be able to do it in the first place.

I see a response of exactly what he asked.

As far as repeating the same argument this is the first time I responded on OCDO but, I can say the same for the other side, except when you disagree with some of us very few on the right side we don't Lock your thread, but when we disagree with your side you Lock our thread, or close us out yours as soon as you see us post on the topic. It clearly shows you have something to hide!.. Besides I don't care that MOC made the Decision, I'm saying it makes no sense and they Should retract their Position regardless if the Bill passes or Fails. We're an Open Carry group for Christ sake.
Click to expand...

We are a gun rights organization, who's MAIN (not "only") focus is Open Carry. You don't get legislation passed with a my way or the high-way, no compromise additude. And we also need support from other gun orgs and firearm ownwers to pass legislation in the future and can't go burning bridges.
 
FreeInAZ

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
If one of the photoshop wizards here can change the hair color to red and make the guy about 2 feet shorter it will look just like mike (seriously). Mike has always been a character. Never will forget the "great oc bicycle ride" he micro managed. :rolleyes:


602__image_091.jpg
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
smellslikemichigan said:
locking threads and leave them as stickies? priceless! :banana::banana:
Click to expand...
There can be value in doing that - indeed John Pierce has locked threads and intentionally left the sticky active. Simply put, it allows the thread to be read, but w/o further discussion along the lines that made it unacceptable. The obvious benefit/purpose in the sticky is to keep the item in the forefront. I see no conflict.
 
WilDChilD

WilDChilD

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
286
Location
Dewitt, Michigan, USA
Grapeshot said:
There can be value in doing that - indeed John Pierce has locked threads and intentionally left the sticky active. Simply put, it allows the thread to be read, but w/o further discussion along the lines that made it unacceptable. The obvious benefit/purpose in the sticky is to keep the item in the forefront. I see no conflict.
Click to expand...

Nails on a chalkboard.
 
M

mastiff69

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
573
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
Mastiff's food for thought !

Lets ALL go out and get permission slips, written permission ***to open carry*** from Bars, Church's, Hospitals, etc.
Let's test this SB59 bill in reverse.


Mastiff Say's and I will ask ( have any of you EVER asked for WRITTEN permission) & been given it ? HUMM !

I have never in my 5yrs of open carry/concealed carry asked or been given PERMISSION

I believe this bill, paying for permission, then having to get written permission, to OC in PFZ is bs, God knows we have some screwed up laws in Michigan but do we really want more ?

Also if you get the enhansed cpl and carry in pfz & your weapon becomes exposed, without that WRITTEN PERMISSION SLIP, would you violation, & get fined etc...?
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
mastiff69 said:
Lets ALL go out and get permission slips, written permission ***to open carry*** from Bars, Church's, Hospitals, etc.
Let's test this SB59 bill in reverse.


Mastiff Say's and I will ask ( have any of you EVER asked for WRITTEN permission) & been given it ? HUMM !

I have never in my 5yrs of open carry/concealed carry asked or been given PERMISSION

I believe this bill, paying for permission, then having to get written permission, to OC in PFZ is bs, God knows we have some screwed up laws in Michigan but do we really want more ?

Also if you get the enhansed cpl and carry in pfz & your weapon becomes exposed, without that WRITTEN PERMISSION SLIP, would you violation, & get fined etc...?
Click to expand...
I have, we have done OC seminars in American Legions (Bar) and got permission in writing, so non CPL holders could carry at the seminar. I think others have too, a Bowling event comes to mind. The fact is if an OCer has a favorite bar or other place he frequents and knows the manager or owner he probably could get written permission.

I have this as a word doc with MOC letterhead. This could be a templete with the various statutes changed at the botton.

Permission to possess firearms
On/in these premises​
As the legal agent/owner of this business I grant permission under Michigan statute 750.234d* to the invited guests of __________________________ to possess firearms in/on theses premises as allowed by Michigan and Federal law. This permission is granted for the entire day entered here: _______________.


This agreement can be rescinded or extended at any time by the owner/agent for any lawful reason.







____________________________ Date_______________
Owner/Agent


____________________________ Date________________
Permitted Agent









*(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:
(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
While it is true that under SB59 folks could OC with permission of the property owner/owner's representative...

And folks have put for the argument that any property that would not give permission would be the same property that would boot an OCer out anyway...

I wonder.........

Of all the properties that didn't boot out OC'ers in the past because "permission" was as equally as unspoken as "no permission" was.. I wonder how many will be willing to actually accept responsibility for giving spoken/written permission that can be submitted in a court of law?

I personally see a flaw in the argument that OC'ers can still OC with permission being used as a positive for the bill... and that flaw is the assumption that places that used to not say anything will now not only say something but will actually give permission.

Frankly I suspect many places that just didn't say anything in the past will NOT give permission to OC when asked but will simply say that there is an "enhanced" concealed carry permit available and if folks want to carry there they can do it concealed so there is no need to OC.

In my opinion... the portion of the bill that mentions OC in a PFZ with permission of the property owner is nothing more than an attempt to provide a red herring to take attention away from the fact that the simple act of open carry has specifically been made illegal. And, unless I am mistaken, this would be the first time in Michigan there would be a law that specifically makes open carry itself illegal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top