Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Can there be a perfect gun bill?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440

    Can there be a perfect gun bill?

    I say NO!! Even if the legislature was stacked with hard core, George Washington type 2A activists and REPEALED EVERY GUN LAW in Michigan creating the most free state in the union, with Zero Regulation...gun owners, gun carriers, OCers and CCers alike would go bananas. Because there will always be those who believe regulating firearms is necessary, even gun owners!! The others will say "shall not be infringed!". We will always infight because owning a gun doesn't make you part of the Borg collective. So with that said, I'm out before the lock.
    Last edited by scot623; 12-08-2012 at 08:29 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    I say NO!! Even if the legislature was stacked with hard core, George Washington type 2A activists and REPEALED EVERY GUN LAW in Michigan creating the most free state in the union, with Zero Regulation...gun owners, gun carriers, OCers and CCers alike would go bananas. Because there will always be those who believe regulating firearms is necessary, even gun owners!! The others will say "shall not be infringed!". We will always infight because owning a gun doesn't make you part of the Borg collective. So with that said, I'm out before the lock.
    Lol you have a good point on this one. The Brady Campaign doesn't seem to have this issue.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  3. #3
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573
    Short of constitutional carry (and even that has flaws) I think you have answered your own question.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Lol you have a good point on this one. The Brady Campaign doesn't seem to have this issue.
    Of course they don't. That org was formed with the single minded goal of erasing guns from the world. Only those that join share the same mentality. They are the Borg. Gun owners come in so many variations, we can never achieve that type of group think. Therefore, infighting.

  5. #5
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    I even remember seeing talks on another forum about a repeal of the GFSZA and someone say they're against it because its an antigun bill. Their reasoning was that it should not have to be repealed in the first place.
    Last edited by xmanhockey7; 12-08-2012 at 08:47 PM.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  6. #6
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by BoiledFrogs View Post
    I think that we are sending so many different messages to Lansing that the politicians are perplexed, (not like that's a hard thing to do), so they don't know what we want from them.
    A unified voice will always catch their ear. Discord translates to them as ... Do whatever the hell you want. We'll get back to you later.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by BoiledFrogs View Post
    I think that we are sending so many different messages to Lansing that the politicians are perplexed, (not like that's a hard thing to do), so they don't know what we want from them.
    If by "We" you mean gun owners, of course the legislature doesn't know what "We" want. Because to say gun owners as a "We" you may as well say Mac owner or PC owner or iPhone owner. Since when does buying an object(gun) automatically create a single mindset?? It doesn't. It never has. It never will. Gun owners, rightfully so are a disjointed unique group of people who have one cominality...we own a piece of metal that shoots out another piece of metal by using a mini explosion. That's it. So there is no "we".

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    ^ with posts like that...the countdown to the lock is on. Tick tock, tick tock. How many other threads that have nothing to do with SB-59 will Stilly troll? I set the over/under at "all of them".

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    Personal attack me all you want. Until someone posts some proof that SB 59 has these so called changes it's a bunch of hot air in my opinion. I see many things being posted as facts which come from no official source. Lastly, go ahead an support all the anti-open carry legislation you want. I'm sure it will suit MOC well with their dwindling supporters.
    What's the name of this thread jackwagon? You're posting your SB 59 drivel in the wrong spot. Move on.
    Last edited by scot623; 12-08-2012 at 10:02 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member FreeInAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Secret Bunker
    Posts
    2,573

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    Personal attack me all you want. Until someone posts some proof that SB 59 has these so called changes it's a bunch of hot air in my opinion. I see many things being posted as facts which come from no official source. Lastly, go ahead an support all the anti-open carry legislation you want. I'm sure it will suit MOC well with their dwindling supporters.
    Uhm mike you call the kettle black often? You're organization has roughly a dozen members last time I checked. Hell your website has been a work in progress for well over a year now. Let's not throw stones if you live in a glass house aye? You do not like the bill and that's fine. Why not channel your energy into getting a hundred of your supporters to show up in Lansing on the 11th @ 9am at the Anderson building to show the legislators that there is concern over this bill?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" by Mahatma Gandhi

    “Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny.” by Mahatma Gandhi

  11. #11
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    Personal attack me all you want. Until someone posts some proof that SB 59 has these so called changes it's a bunch of hot air in my opinion. I see many things being posted as facts which come from no official source. Lastly, go ahead an support all the anti-open carry legislation you want. I'm sure it will suit MOC well with their dwindling supporters.
    Why don't you just read the actual bill?
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    Short of constitutional carry (and even that has flaws) I think you have answered your own question.
    Yup, even the ConCarry states; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont & Wyoming, have restrictions (flaws). And, just as an example, if I remember correctly, in the State of Wyoming, ConCarry only applies to residents of the state.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    Personal attack me all you want. Until someone posts some proof that SB 59 has these so called changes it's a bunch of hot air in my opinion. I see many things being posted as facts which come from no official source. Lastly, go ahead an support all the anti-open carry legislation you want. I'm sure it will suit MOC well with their dwindling supporters.
    But how do you really feel ? I agree with the context of what you have said the SB removes OC rights .. and the CC rights "won" can easily be removed later. Just how I see the bill. And creating 2 different classes of carriers is silly and going to get the public confused and would result in arrests just due to confusion.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WilDChilD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dewitt, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by FreeInAZ View Post
    A unified voice will always catch their ear. Discord translates to them as ... Do whatever the hell you want. We'll get back to you later.
    I think MOC tried the unified voice approach but unfortunately people think that anybody that OCs is a part of MOC.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    But how do you really feel ? I agree with the context of what you have said the SB removes OC rights .. and the CC rights "won" can easily be removed later. Just how I see the bill. And creating 2 different classes of carriers is silly and going to get the public confused and would result in arrests just due to confusion.
    While there's always a chance that the CC requirement may be removed later, it certainly won't be easy and it definitely wont be any time soon. We've had the CPL (CC on foot or in vehicle) and handgun registration requirement for nearly 90 years (1927) and we're just getting around to a repeal of the registration (HB5225) which will most likely die before the end of the year (session).

  16. #16
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXDacp View Post
    While there's always a chance that the CC requirement may be removed later, it certainly won't be easy and it definitely wont be any time soon. We've had the CPL (CC on foot or in vehicle) and handgun registration requirement for nearly 90 years (1927) and we're just getting around to a repeal of the registration (HB5225) which will most likely die before the end of the year (session).
    I think registration will be gone. But some form of background check will still be required.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  17. #17
    Regular Member MikeTheGreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northville, Michigan
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    Personal attack me all you want. Until someone posts some proof that SB 59 has these so called changes it's a bunch of hot air in my opinion. I see many things being posted as facts which come from no official source. Lastly, go ahead an support all the anti-open carry legislation you want. I'm sure it will suit MOC well with their dwindling supporters.
    You make me sad that we share the same name.

    For the love of God man, please shut up.

  18. #18
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Lightbulb

    Yes. It's called constitutional carry.What we pretty much had prior to the 68' gun control act!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  19. #19
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by scot623 View Post
    Of course they don't. That org was formed with the single minded goal of erasing guns from the world. Only those that join share the same mentality. They are the Borg. Gun owners come in so many variations, we can never achieve that type of group think. Therefore, infighting.
    Don't forget the fact that they only have a couple hundred folks compared to millions of pro-gun group members!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  20. #20
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    What began as a simple exercise in understanding the 'big picture' has deteriorated into a thread full of misinformation.

    Fact- under SB59, you will still be able to OC in a PFZ; it simply requires written consent from the owner or agent of the PFZ.

    Fact- there never was a law that specifically legalized OC in a PFZ. It was an unanticipated juxtaposition of two laws that created an apparent loophole. This has already been described as ridiculous by a sitting judge. I don't see it as much of a stretch if this position was adopted by more.

    Reasonable conjecture- those who would refuse to give written consent are the same ones who would hurl you into the street for OCing under the old loop-hole. Now, they have to post a sign, and make sure you see it.

    Fact- this is the most significant piece of human rights legislation to come out of Lansing in a very long time. To get annoyed because it doesn't support your particular view of how EVERYONE else should carry their sidearm is, well, go look in a mirror. How often do OCers get pissy with CCers, and vice versa, for the same reasons? We need to accept that providing more people the legal ability to protect themselves and their loved ones is a good thing.

    How will be be able to look at ourselves in a mirror if another madman perpetrates another slaughter of innocents in a PFZ, because we denied people the right to CC in a PFZ? Just because the law didn't go EXACTLY as we think it should?

    Shame on you for being selfish and narrow minded, despite the facts
    Page 69 (10) of SB59 states "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 discribed 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.
    (11) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows- - - .
    This is where the bill specifically makes open carry illegal in GFZ's,where MCL 750.237(a) exempts CPL holders who OC in GFZ's!
    I hope this site clears up any confusion on this bill specifically making OC illegal in MCL for the first time in MI history!CARRY ON!
    Last edited by Big Gay Al; 12-09-2012 at 02:00 AM. Reason: Removed quoted objectionable material.
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  21. #21
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    I'm only going to say this once. If ANYONE has a problem with ANY moderator, take it up in PMs with the ADMIN. Do not go around posting stuff in the public forums.

    If you have a problem with any one else, take it up with them via PM or email, not in the public forums.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Big Gay Al; 12-09-2012 at 02:02 AM. Reason: added additional info
    Big Gay Al
    Coordinator, Michigan Pink Pistols
    Big Gay Al's Big Gay (Gun) Blog
    Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal FNX-45 .45ACP 16 rounds of hurt.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    .
    Last edited by Adams182; 12-09-2012 at 02:33 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by hamaneggs View Post
    Page 69 (10) of SB59 states "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 discribed 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.
    (11) An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows- - - .
    This is where the bill specifically makes open carry illegal in GFZ's,where MCL 750.237(a) exempts CPL holders who OC in GFZ's!
    I hope this site clears up any confusion on this bill specifically making OC illegal in MCL for the first time in MI history!CARRY ON!



    750.237? the one about liquor and controlled substance?
    750.237 Liquor or controlled substance; possession or use of firearm by person under influence; violation; penalty; chemical analysis.

    I think you ment 750.234d but I still fail to see where .234d is relivent with anything to do with SB-59. Either way I believe mr. stilly was looking for a cite where it was stated one could OC in a PFZ with permission if SB-59 passes, which has been provided above or in a different thread.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    O/T

    I agree there can never be "the perfect bill"

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Adams182 View Post
    750.237? the one about liquor and controlled substance?
    750.237 Liquor or controlled substance; possession or use of firearm by person under influence; violation; penalty; chemical analysis.

    I think you ment 750.234d but I still fail to see where .234d is relivent with anything to do with SB-59. Either way I believe mr. stilly was looking for a cite where it was stated one could OC in a PFZ with permission if SB-59 passes, which has been provided above or in a different thread.
    He means 750.237a, not 750.237(a).

    750.237a exempts:

    (c) An individual licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.
    However, 28.425o, prohibits CC. Hence: Where the OC with CPL is legal at a school comes from ("Loophole").

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(baf...e=mcl-750-237a

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •