• 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.

Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Arrest, charges, or convictions for simple accidental exposure is what it leads to. Video proof from Florida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pns3_Peke30#

The officer makes a traffic stop on the licensed CC'er. The CC'er, fully calm and compliant with the officer, accidentally exposes his CC'd weapon when complying with the officer's request for his papers.

The officer prones him out, cuffs him, tells him he's "going to court on it [the exposure of the weapon]", and says "Alright, so when you let it pop out from behind your shirt that's a violation of your permit right there."

CC'er: "How's that?"

Officer: "'Cause I saw it, that's how. It's not concealed anymore."

So, when any Michigan gun organization or gun owner says there's no real risks to going along with "compromise" and criminalizing OC in limited areas, DON'T BELIEVE 'EM!
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
I <3 you, Dan. You're my hero. Can I have your autograph?

Phil, laws that say CC, but not OC, is legal in an area lead to wrongful arrest, prosecution, and possibly conviction of CC'ers who print or accidentally expose.

Compromising Michigan law to turn it into laws such as that is compromise that harms law-abiding Michigan gun owners.

I never thought Michigan gun organizations would go along with such evil. I never thought they or any Michigan gun owner would need education of the consequences. I was wrong.

So, I will be the guy around here that will provide the reminder from time-to-time about the evil of this kind of compromise.

I will stop being the reminder if I see any Michigan gun organization taking up the good cause of defending our laws against the compromise of criminalizing OC where CC would continue to be allowed.
 

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
it's important to note that florida DOES NOT have a duty to disclose law
it's also important to note that despite the law being changed to allow for brief accidental exposures in 2011 (this arrest was 2009), arrests still continue for accidental exposure.
 
Last edited:

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
So we don't compromise, and they don't compromise, and no one gets a damn thing passed. I s that about it? You DanM are either very stubborn, or very politically naive, or perhaps both.
 
Last edited:

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
So we don't compromise, and they don't compromise, and no one gets a damn thing passed. I s that about it? You DanM are either very stubborn, or very politically naive, or perhaps both.

Dan is not stubborn, nor is he hard headed. I feel like I can say this with some authority since I have worked with him on various OC projects over the past 5 years. Dan is in fact one of a the most reliably level headed people on this forum.

Dan's point is also very good in this case. Negotiating rights away does no good, especially when we already have some of the very best preemption in the US. There are only a couple states in which you could be better off to carry in if you have a license/permit. Let's please not **** that up.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
Dan is not stubborn, nor is he hard headed. I feel like I can say this with some authority since I have worked with him on various OC projects over the past 5 years. Dan is in fact one of a the most reliably level headed people on this forum.

Dan's point is also very good in this case. Negotiating rights away does no good, especially when we already have some of the very best preemption in the US. There are only a couple states in which you could be better off to carry in if you have a license/permit. Let's please not **** that up.

Ok, so he isn't stubborn. However everything I have seen to date regarding this issue since SB59 is a hardline "NO COMPROMISE" approach to legislation. Remember, Michigan would still be a May Issue state without compromise. This mentality will not get things passed. As the old saying goes, everyone needs to piss in the pot to be sure it tastes good.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
What did we lose with shall from may issue? Restrictions on the politically connected? Those with legit and immediate fear for their lives can still get unrestricted CPL's, same as before. It didn't even take a small bite out of preemption.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Ok, so he isn't stubborn. However everything I have seen to date regarding this issue since SB59 is a hardline "NO COMPROMISE" approach to legislation.
My view is that if a proposal would require criminalizing a current gun right in order to pass it, then we should go alternate route:
1)Break proposal to smaller increments and/or,
2)Attach proposals as tie-bars or amendments to other legislation desired and/or,
3)Informal negotiation to guarantee passage of proposals for support on other legislation that other lawmakers want and/or,
4)Any other tool at our disposal that avoids criminalizing current gun rights.

We are too smart, too politically savvy, and too many in number versus the antis to do what was done with SB59 in aiding and abetting the enemy by going along with criminalizing any right currently available.

Remember, Michigan would still be a May Issue state without compromise.
Really? What gun rights available to the general citizenry at that time did we lose in order to get shall-issue passed?
 
Last edited:

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Dan is not stubborn, nor is he hard headed. I feel like I can say this with some authority since I have worked with him on various OC projects over the past 5 years. Dan is in fact one of a the most reliably level headed people on this forum.

Dan's point is also very good in this case. Negotiating rights away does no good, especially when we already have some of the very best preemption in the US. There are only a couple states in which you could be better off to carry in if you have a license/permit. Let's please not **** that up.

+1

Dan is one of the very few here that I trust implicitly. If you have any doubts, you can find him speaking during Public Comments at the Royal Oak City Commission Meetings in July/August 2010 and judge for yourself:

http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2010/07/12/city-commission-meeting

http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2010/07/19/city-commission-meeting

http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2010/08/09/city-commission-meeting

http://www.ci.royal-oak.mi.us/portal/meetings/city-commission/2010/08/16/city-commission-meeting
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
CEZ's are what I was talking about before.

I think we can all agree that they shouldn't be a fact of life here, but my point was that the average pistol owner in Michigan lost nothing when the CEZ's and shall issue became law. There were only gains.

Now, the politically connected can get the same CPL as everyone else, and someone being stalked or what not can get a 180 day CPL with no restrictions. There was negotiating, but no loss which I am aware of for anyone but the politically connected.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
723
Location
Erie, MI
I believe that we should do our best not to compromise and should fight hard for what we want - Rights Recognized.

You say No Compromise now, yet there are those here that praise how Shall Issue has made things so much better. So you acknowledge the benefit of one compromise while striking down the idea of any others? Or is it because the Shall Issue compromise threw the CC people under the bus instead?
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
You say No Compromise now, yet there are those here that praise how Shall Issue has made things so much better. So you acknowledge the benefit of one compromise while striking down the idea of any others? Or is it because the Shall Issue compromise threw the CC people under the bus instead?

Excellent point. Were all these people against the "shall issue" law as well?

Author and Second Amendment March founder Skip Coryell, in his article in the Jan 2013 MOC Newsletter, stated:

"I was impressed with the way Michigan Open Carry handled the fight to pass Senate Bill 59. It showed a willingness of the few to sacrifice for the many."
 
Top