Responce to my email--They still dont get it!

imported post

Dear Mr. xxx,

Thank you for taking the time contact me and share your thoughts on gun
control in our state. I appreciate your insight and knowledge of this issue.

Unfortunately I believe we have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Certainly the events at places like Virginia Tech were tragic beyond
reason but I don't believe repealing firearm free zoning laws in
educational settings is the answer in preventing another tragedy of
occurring. This seems to be the argument that if everyone is armed,
criminals will think twice about committing a violent act but numerous independent studies done by organizations like the CDC and The American Journal of Economics and Sociology have shown that gun control laws do have a positive effect on reducing the amount of violent crime. In terms of the second amendment infringement of recent handgun laws in Michigan, these would be subject to judicial interpretation and at this
time I know of no legal challenges that have been brought to court on the constitutionality of this issue.

I've also looked into the questions you had regarding the legality of
open carrying on school grounds and the apparent contradiction under
the law in regard to open vs. concealed carrying. In this case Michigan's
law is more lenient than the Federal Law. Though Michigan law permits
open carry in firearm free zones to a licensed CPL holder, the Federal gun Free School Zones Act of 1996 does not permit carrying within 1000 feet of a school. So though an individual with a CPL wouldn't be subject to state prosecution they would still be subject to prosecution at the federal level. I hope that answers your question.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. if you have any
further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

GILDA Z. JACOBS
State Senator
14th District









I think we need an official definition on the pistol free zones- in reguards to federal law. -gosir

imported post

"Though Michigan law permits open carry in firearm free zones to a licensed CPL holder, the Federal gun Free School Zones Act of 1996 does not permit carrying within 1000 feet of a school. So though an individual with a CPL wouldn't be subject to state prosecution they would still be subject to prosecution at the federal level."



So, all the folks with permits in Utah who OC and CC in/on school property are subject to prosecution by the Feds. :quirky

imported post

"(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm--

"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located

Click to expand...

If you have a CPL there is no 1000' rule for you.

If you don't have a CPL, I would think it would be best to stay 2000' away from a school just to be safe from the feds.

imported post

To be blunt, but as kind as possible, she is a lost cause. She is one of those people that cannot accept facts. I don't think she's capable of coming to terms with the fact that her beliefs are wrong. She has long been one of the most notoriously anti gun people in the state. But by all means, please, argue away with her, and post the results.

imported post

Her lack of education on pertinent laws is astounding. People who argue based on emotion should not be allowed in government. Cold, hard facts are needed to make these decisions.

imported post

She is incorrect, since all MI CPL licenses are limited to residents of Michigan and they undergo a background check, there is an exception for CPL holders in Michigan. She obviously does not know the law. See: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

She also seems to be unable to understand scientific research.

I believe that the American Journal of Economics and Sociology data to which she refers stems from this article:
The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation (April 2005). The researchers found that gun laws have a VERY weak effect on gun deaths, and ONLY in those states that had extremely restrictive gun laws. The researchers also presented evidence that other factors have a much stronger effect and since these factors are also found to a larger degree in the restrictive states, the researchers posited that the effect size of restrictive gun laws is much less than believed.

Also, according to the CDC's own data (http://www.cdc.gov), incidents of death or injury involving firearms among all age groups has dropped almost 20% between the years 1998-2004; among children the drop has been even more pronounced. Between those same years the number of people living in states allowing concealed carry almost doubled and the number of firearms held by private citizens increased by about 12%. (BATFE.gov)

So, I guess "facts" for Ms Jacobs are not important. Instead, she disagrees with a constituent and manufactures data to purportedly "support" her beliefs... um, I'd say she is blatantly dishonest.

imported post

dougwg wrote:

"(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm--

"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

"(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located

Click to expand...

If you have a CPL there is no 1000' rule for you.

If you don't have a CPL, I would think it would be best to stay 2000' away from a school just to be safe from the feds.


I live closer than 2000' from a school Now what do I do. rhetorical no answer needed. :cuss:

Such stupid laws.

We want Vermont gun laws now. That is no gun laws.

Click to expand...

imported post

Yes, after talking with Sgt Tom Deasy yesterday we both, after reviewing the law, came to the conclusion that if you did not have a CPL and you lived within the 1000' of a school you WOULD be in violation of the federal law if you were OC'ing and stepped off of your property.

The only way around this is to have your gun unloaded and encased till you are outside the 1000' rad.



Again, this is WITHOUT a CPL.

imported post

Does anyone know the Federal law about schools and guns that was over ruled by the USSC?

I seem to remember the 1000' rule, but thought that it was overruled. I know that it was later implemented in another manner, but don't know the details.

imported post

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/gun_free_school_zones.txt

and

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf



hrmmmmm

But...


[align=left]

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to
do so by the State in which the school zone is located
or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before
an individual obtain

Click to expand...

[/font][/font]s [/font][/font][/font]such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political
subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;
[/font][/font]

Click to expand...

Seeing that non-CPL holders still need to obtain a "License to purchase" I guess if you purchased your pistol with a Purchase Permit you should be covered and not have to worry about the 1000' rule.

Clear as mud!

So I guess if you got your pistol legally with a PP or if you have a CPL the 1000' is void for you.

[/font][/font]

[/align]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

Does anyone know the Federal law about schools and guns that was over ruled by the USSC?

I seem to remember the 1000' rule, but thought that it was overruled. I know that it was later implemented in another manner, but don't know the details.

Click to expand...

It was but they slapped in "has moved in or affected interstate commerce" to claim authority under the commerce clause and it hasn't been challenged since

imported post

Thanks guys.

imported post

Dougwg, would you mind running that past Sgt. Deasy one more time? The part about P Permit. He'll most likely respond with - a license to purchase is just that and gives you no more ----. Anyway I'd be interested to hear what he says.springerdave.

imported post

Gosirr since you have already started this conversation with "GILDA Z. JACOBS
State Senator 14th District" Would you mind asking her exactly what CDC study or report she was referring to? I don't know of one that said gun control laws actually helped reduce any form of gun crime or violence.

I would be interested in reviewing them.

imported post

This is old news, but it should provide us a little bit more insight into the sort of person she is when it comes to firearms. There is more good information to be found on the link too, I highly suggest clicking on it.



http://www.huronpointe.org/HB5471.htm

1. Gilda Jacobs (D), Oakland County. One of the legislature’s prime anti-gunners. She used to claim that she only opposed “those gun nuts who want CCW’s” and always supported hunting and the “rights of Sportsmen” After a year of saying that, she turned around and voted against every pro-hunting bill that came into the House, demonstrating her sincerity and blowing her credibility out the window. She’s also famous for a press conference she held to try to fan the flames against the CCW law. She displayed a number of the scariest-looking firearms she could get from the State Police post and she told the reporters that if CCW passed, we’d all carry these weapons. They were a collection of “assault carbines” and shotguns. While showing off the guns, she very negligently allowed the muzzle of a shotgun to sweep the audience more than once, causing people to duck. She then laughed it off, claiming the people “were just joking” because “they all knew the gun wasn’t loaded.” When Jacobs was asked if she’d checked to make sure the gun wasn’t loaded, she reportedly replied: “I didn’t have to check it…The State Police wouldn’t give me a loaded gun.” And this is the person who claims that WE are dangerous with guns. 517-373-0478 gjacobs@house.state.mi.us

imported post

Leader wrote:

Gosirr since you have already started this conversation with "GILDA Z. JACOBS
State Senator 14th District" Would you mind asking her exactly what CDC study or report she was referring to? I don't know of one that said gun control laws actually helped reduce any form of gun crime or violence.

I would be interested in reviewing them.

Click to expand...

I have been planning a re: email, but im remodeling my computer room and my pc is in pieces. Ive been surfing on my wifes laptop for a week now,and it really sucks.

imported post

dougwg,

I think you are correct as it appears a pistol purchase permit would qualify. As to the history, it is correct that it was deemed unconstitutional and replaced with the part that the firearm needs to have traveled over state lines; something that, unless the firearm was made here in Michigan, most would have done.

imported post

The CDC? (the center for disease control) Thats who I'd want doing a study on guns cause you know their studies are not skewed... If you do wish to keep arguing with a Bleeding Heart Liberal (BHL) then send her a copy of John Lott's book "More Guns Less Crime" This was a 20 yr. study of all different crimes btw all different age groups, and all different social backgrounds. All the major cities in the study that loosen their gun control laws seen a drop in violent crime. John Lott is neither a pro-gunnor is he a anti-gun just a professor http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

Youare waisting valuable time trying to change her mind. We need to change her position from politics to house wife. We need to concentrate on finding like minded common sense people to run against her.

imported post

I have seen nothing to indicate that the CDC supports "gun control" and believe that Ms Jacobs fabricated her claims; I am glad though, that you did find something to support her statement. Could you cite the article(s) here?