DetroitBiker
Regular Member
Michigan's largest teachers' union say the open-carry "loophole" must be closed
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
We need to start referring to PFZ laws as "loopholes in the law that permit only criminals to carry guns".
We need to start referring to PFZ laws as "loopholes in the law that permit only criminals to carry guns".
28.425o Premises on which carrying concealed weapon prohibited
Sec. 5o. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an individual licensed under this act to carry a concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section 12a(1)(f), shall not carry a concealed pistol on the premises of any of the following:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mich-lawmaker-Ban-openly-carried-guns-in-schools-4353821.php
This article contains an answer that many people have been seeking for a while.
Nice to see the MI media thinks this is so important that we get to read about it in a San Fransico publication. Q since you are directly quoted, would you please post your quotes. I ask because many here have the attention spans of a nat on speed.
I ask because many here have the attention spans of a nat on speed.
Huh? What did you say? :lol:
DanM said:We need to start referring to PFZ laws as "loopholes in the law that permit only criminals to carry guns".
Or we could call places under 28.425o. what they really are: Places that only prohibit those licensed to carry a concealed pistol from carrying concealed pistols or carrying tasers.
Quoted for truth!No, I intentionally worded it my way to use the exact same tactic the "open carry loophole" people use. The tactic consists of two parts:
1)Use the word "loophole" to make it seem there's an error that needs to be fixed.
2)Frame the "loophole" as allowing something that sensible people would reject ("permit only criminals to carry guns")
This two-part tactic is used on us all the time by anti-gunners. We should use it as often as possible on them.
After all, there's a lot of people who want to keep areas prohibiting legal CC, but who in their right mind would oppose getting rid of loopholes that permit only criminals to carry guns in certain places?
See the difference in how it's presented?
Yes, it's really just semantics, but semantics have been demonstrated to have real effects on how people answer poll questions, decide on an issue, etc.
We need to start referring to PFZ laws as "loopholes in the law that permit only criminals to carry guns".