Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SB 213 Tracking and commentary

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Exclamation SB 213 Tracking and commentary

    We should not lose track of this bill.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1q5...e=2013-SB-0213


    It'll be interesting to see what anti-gun provisions are added in to this new bill. It already starts off with some "compromises" and there are bound to be more.

  2. #2
    Michigan Moderator Big Gay Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mason, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,954
    Restored, with off topic posts removed.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Ezerharden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Erie, MI
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    We should not lose track of this bill.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1q5...e=2013-SB-0213


    It'll be interesting to see if any anti-gun provisions are added in to this new bill. It already starts off with some language intended to make it passable.
    fify.

    Nothing was "compromised" unless you consider the repeal of 4 PFZ's with no additional training required and getting rid of the county gun boards to be a "compromise".
    Last edited by Ezerharden; 02-28-2013 at 12:23 AM.
    Want to keep informed of Open Carry events in your area? Go to www.miopencarry.org/update

    I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

    For Drama free gun rights discussion, see http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezerharden View Post
    fify.

    Nothing was "compromised" unless you consider the repeal of 4 PFZ's with no additional training required and getting rid of the county gun boards to be a "compromise".
    I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

    I'm not saying the bill is bad by any means and I would support it fully in its current form. What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.

    Mike

    PS: Thanks for re-opening the thread much appreciated.
    Last edited by mikestilly; 02-28-2013 at 06:46 AM. Reason: adding of PS:

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Grand Rapids
    Posts
    181
    Because sometimes the compromise requested is not the compromise you had intended.

    SB 59 could have been scaled back, but instead and OC ban was added. Things are not always so linear.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Raggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wild Wild West Michigan
    Posts
    1,188
    True, And it isn't like they are now going to rewrite it to remove schools hospitals and churches. I would love it if they would but such a bill would not pass. This thread is kinda useless as it wants to talk about changes that might possibly maybe happen. I would agree that more transparency in this process would be good but that aint happening.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezerharden View Post
    fify.

    Nothing was "compromised" unless you consider the repeal of 4 PFZ's with no additional training required and getting rid of the county gun boards to be a "compromise".
    My reasons to OC
    1. to raise awareness of the legality of open carry in Michigan
    2. To raise awareness that good people carry guns
    3. A deterrent to people so that I won't be targeted
    4. Because it's more comfortable than CC in most situations
    5. Because I can and want to
    6. Because it's perfectly legal
    7. Self defense

  7. #7
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    There are two concessions in the bill that are questionable as to why they were needed and who--which legislator(s)--felt they were needed.:

    --Members of your family or household are excluded as personal references for your CPL application.
    --The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.


    I've argued that it is a well-known principle of negotiation that you do not come to the table with your concessions already given to your opponents. You hold off on all concessions, and use them as bargaining chips with your opponents. I've said:

    Quote Originally Posted by DanM
    Every competent negotiator knows that your initial offer has [b]everything[b] you want which advances your position from the status quo and nothing that sets your position back from the status quo or that your opponents want. The concessions come after negotiating begins.
    Before proceeding, I should explain to whom that statement is directed. TheQ voiced concern it was to him, and I committed to him to address that perception. That statement is only directed at the person or people to whom it applies. If the shoe fits, wear it. Those who are specifically responsible for the insertion of concessions that we do not need to give up at this time are not acting as a "competent negotiator". I have no information that TheQ or anyone else at MOC is specifically responsible for the insertion of those concessions. The shoe doesn't fit them, so they're not to wear it. So, I hope that clears it up. TheQ felt insulted by me. I apologized privately to him about that and assured I meant no insult to him.

    TheQ offered speculation that the first concession was in order to "get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard" and the second concession may be to address that "some counties have a 'policy' of saying your training is no good after 1 year. There was a desire to make a clear ruling on this matter in statute in a reasonable timeframe, as to preempt any question on the topic in the future."
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post1902159

    Paraphrasing my responses to those speculations:

    The grass-roots may want to follow up with the representatives who felt there was a need to have the concessions in order to have "a remote possibility" of the bill being heard. Who were those representatives that felt specifically we needed a pre-emptive concession limiting our pool of people we could use as references? Perhaps, particularly, their constituents here and elsewhere can talk to them and get that concession struck out of the bill.

    This bill moves the process away from the counties and to the MSP. MSP seems to be pretty good on such things as basing policies, bulletins, PR communication, etc. sticking to the letter of the law, and I don't think we've ever had a problem of their organization reading something into the law that isn't there. But, in case we want to prevent them from establishing their own policy on training "expiration", let's consider language to the effect of "the licensing agency shall not promulgate nor enforce any policy with regard to setting limits on the time elapsed between training and application."

    I think it's possible to talk to the relevant legislator(s) responsible for these bad concessions and convince them they are not necessary and strip them out or make the language much better. We need to know who the legislator(s) is/are in order to do this grass roots activity that all of us, including MOC, wants us to engage in.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  8. #8
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly View Post
    I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

    I'm not saying the bill is bad by any means and I would support it fully in its current form. What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.

    Mike

    PS: Thanks for re-opening the thread much appreciated.
    Because we already tried that last session in the house and senate. I know many, including me, tried to lobby their reps to get the bill to a committee. It never even got that far. At least this one has a better chance of passing.
    "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

  9. #9
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mikestilly
    I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

    . . . What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.
    Because we already tried that last session in the house and senate. I know many, including me, tried to lobby their reps to get the bill to a committee. It never even got that far. At least this one has a better chance of passing.
    So, we can't wait to make those compromises to get the RINO governor's support, we've got to make those compromises now to get some RINO legislators' support. Who are those RINO legislators, so we can start planning to unseat them?

    The answer to that question is relevant to this bill, in case it fails and a better version without the compromises off-the-bat is to be introduced in the future.
    Last edited by DanM; 02-28-2013 at 02:11 PM.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  10. #10
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    "Nobody wants to do gun stuff now," said state Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, one of the leading gun-rights advocates in the Senate and sponsor of several of the far-reaching bills.

    One of his bills -- the one that would have allowed concealed pistol license holders with special training to be able to carry weapons in schools, day care centers, churches, stadiums and bars -- was vetoed by Gov. Rick Snyder in December because it didn't allow those facilities the ability to opt out and become gun-free zones.
    Green has introduced a replacement that would allow schools, hospitals and churches to opt out and be gun-free zones. But the bill wouldn't prohibit people from openly carrying guns in any building -- which is the law in most places in the state now.
    "There's no sense in me trying to meet the governor halfway," Green said. "I don't want to send him a bill that he's going to veto, but this gives us room to negotiate."




    http://www.freep.com/article/2013022...ts-in-Michigan
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  11. #11
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    "Nobody wants to do gun stuff now," said state Sen. Mike Green
    So, Sen. Green answers my question. With the exception of himself and other sponsors or co-sponsors of pro-gun bills, which I presume he meant to exclude, the rest of the Republicans in the legislative and executive branch are RINOs.

    Time to get to work now to throw the RINO bums out. Join your local TEA party and make a difference, folks! I have (Lakes Area TEA Party).

    If we want bills like this to succeed, without horrible compromises, we may have to wait until next session and, in the meantime, do what we can to get real pro-gun representatives to defeat the do-nothing ones.
    Last edited by DanM; 02-28-2013 at 02:54 PM.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  12. #12
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    SB 213 Tracking and commentary

    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    So, Sen. Green answers my question. With the exception of himself and other sponsors or co-sponsors of pro-gun bills, which I presume he meant to exclude, the rest of the Republicans in the legislative and executive branch are RINOs.

    Time to get to work now to throw the RINO bums out. Join your local TEA party and make a difference, folks! I have (Lakes Area TEA Party).
    That'd be great -- except many tea parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican establishment. This was proven when 2 tea party leaders sold out Courser at the last minute on the convention floor and told their delegates to vote for Schostak. If not for this last minute betrayal, Courser would have won the very close race!
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  13. #13
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    That'd be great -- except many tea parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican establishment. This was proven when 2 tea party leaders sold out Courser at the last minute on the convention floor and told their delegates to vote for Schostak. If not for this last minute betrayal, Courser would have won the very close race!
    The bad news is the Republican establishment was barely able to hang on.

    The good news is the Republican establishment was barely able to hang on.

    That was a bitter day, but the silver lining is that, once again, those predicting that the TEA party is going away were shown to be VERY wrong.

    I'm sure Schostak and the rest of the establishment didn't celebrate their "win" too heartily that night. Courser was defeated, but he and his supporters sent a loud and clear message.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  14. #14
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Re: SB 213 Tracking and commentary

    As sheep they shall be led. Having "Leaders" implies there are "followers".
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Posting Permissions

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