Am I An OC Advocate?

Mike said:

. . . I think this bill should be amended to eliminate the open carry prohibition, and grandfather-in all current CPL and non-Michigan CHP holders while applying the new training requirement to new Michigan CPL applicants only.

Click to expand...

autosurgeon said:

Hey Dan... we tried such a bill.... it was called SB57/58.... it stalled. Then there was the first version of SB59 which had nothing related to OC in it... then the version the gov said he might sign which banned OC in PFZ's. Then the weasel got into the henhouse in CT and the gov showed the colors we always knew he had.

So the bill you and Mike wanted already was introduced and got no support from the house or senate leadership.

Click to expand...

griffin said:

Slight OT: I thought I read here or over on MGO that SB59 was tie-barred with another bill, but the record doesn't show that. Was it, and if so, what?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gr...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2011-SB-0059

Click to expand...

TheQ said:

No tie-bar. It was a gentle men's agreement: Senate would pass 5225 if House passed 59.

Click to expand...

FreeInAZ said:

In Lansing Sir you will be hard pressed to find a gentleman anywhere in the legislature in my honest opinion. See Gov. Snyder for an example of what I speak of.

Click to expand...

griffin said:

That's not what I was referring to. I thought I read--and maybe I misunderstood--that there was some other non-firearms legislation that Gov. Snyder was being pushed to sign, that was tied to SB59.

Click to expand...

DanM said:

So, then one way to overcome that is to go "incremental" and break down the basket of reforms into smaller bite-sized chunks of legislation.

Another is to tie legislation either explicitly (by "tie-bar") or implicitly (by negotiating that it is part of a "package") to other legislation the governor and other legislators want.

Another is the "rider" route where gun reforms are made as amendments to other legislation (to the extent possible in Michigan).

Or a combination of any of the above, along with any other possibilities for re-setting or re-packaging the reforms we want without criminalizing any gun owner's currently legal purchase, possession, or carry rights.

Then, at the end of the day, if none of that works without agreeing to go along with criminalizing some gun owners, you just gotta say, "Sorry, no thanks, we'll get rid of you via the ballot box rather than go along with you criminalizing us away!"

Click to expand...

DanM said:

Due to recent events, and some support for a flaming t.u.rd of a recently vetoed bill, the question of whether one is doing OC advocacy or not has been discussed.

When it comes to any bill in the future like SB 59 (and it may come up again), I think you're an OC advocate if you predicate your support on there being no OC criminalization and . . . hell, Mike Stollenwerk says it best about what should be advocated for in such a bill:



Do you agree with Mike's points on what should be advocated for, if this ever comes up again? I do. Again, take note that I'm talking about what should be advocated for, if you think of calling yourself an OC advocate.

Click to expand...

Ezerharden said:

Guess that definition by the OP leaves me out. I suppose I am just plain a Carry Advocate. I believe in both OC and CC as they both have their pros and cons. To me the fact that you do carry is more important than how you carry, either way you have your weapon for self defense.

Click to expand...

Raggs said:

Sadly according to YOU I am not an OC advocate, which I can live with.

Click to expand...

mastiff69 said:

And i am just nobody ! hehe !!!!

Click to expand...

SpringerXDacp said:

Life is much easier that way. Think of the time, energy, and expense some folks exhaust in an attempt to maintain a facade of self importance.

Click to expand...