Do you have a RIGHT to OC or CC here in Michigan?

imported post

I am a bit envious of all you CC'ers. I am especially envious of you OC'ers. Heck, I am even envious of all you handgun owners.

Just about everyone here talks about their RIGHT to OC. And, I guess, on the surface at least, it appears as though we have that RIGHT. However, here in Michigan, as I have pointed out in another post, one must ask permission from the Government to purchase a handgun. One must also ask permission from the Government to CC. And even though one does not have to ask permission to OC, I cannot get over the fact that permission was granted by the Government simply to own the handgun that an OC'er is carrying. Therefore, wether or not OC becomes everyday commonplace all over Michigan, I still cannot see it as a RIGHT when I know that the person carrying asked permission to own that handgun (this assumes the person is a law-abiding citizen, of course).

So my envy is temperred with the knowledge that each and every one of you asked permission from the Government for the PRIVILEGE to own a handgun.

In light of my statements above, do you believe you have a RIGHT to OC or do you believe it is a PRIVILEGE?

imported post

Handguns require a Permit to purchase/CPL, so yes, you have to ask.

You maintain the RIGHT to OC with long arms, though.

MICHIGAN Article II, Section 5
. Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Click to expand...

imported post

I believe that it is still our right no matter what. Yes I had to file paperwork etc. and I don't agree with that, but just because state legislature forces me to abide by their rules right now, to me anyway doesn't make it any less my right. They are the ones who are in the wrong with all their red tape. For me the 2nd amendment is my carry permit. It's the right that our forefathers gave us (not a God given right). Hopefully one day we will have a country that can openly carry and obtain firearms without hassle or persecution from others.

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

For me the 2nd amendment is my carry permit.

Click to expand...

That seems contradictory to me: On the one hand, Amendment II enumerates a RIGHT, while on the other hand you have a carry PERMIT. PERMIT, which means some entity granted you PERMISSION to carry it.

imported post

There are 2 ways you can look at it. On the face of it, Michigan is completely out of line with the second amendment. This is not New York or California, and it is despicable that the politicians still require us to register handguns.

On the other hand, if you get a CPL, Michigan is one of the most free states in the country for carrying.

And as ziggy pointed out, you can carry long guns, which I will say again is something that we should do like they did in ohio recently. Specifically they walked around with slung and unloaded rifles after talking it over with the police to make sure there would be no problems. There is no reason at all why we couldn't do that here, particularly in a smaller town with a police chief who is pro gun.

imported post

Michigander wrote:

On the other hand, if you get a CPL, Michigan is one of the most free states in the country for carrying.

Click to expand...

See, this is Doublethink to me. In other words, I have a lot of freedom to exercise my right, as long as I ask permission first.

I'm sorry, but as long as I have to ask permission, I do not view it as a right.

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Generaldet wrote:

For me the 2nd amendment is my carry permit.

Click to expand...

That seems contradictory to me: On the one hand, Amendment II enumerates a RIGHT, while on the other hand you have a carry PERMIT. PERMIT, which means some entity granted you PERMISSION to carry it.

Click to expand...

You're logic is correct in the terms that you put it but faulty on the bigger picture. What I'm referring to is that I was given a right in my "Bill of Rights" but government has decided to step on those rights. I believe that just because a government feels they have to monitor and control everything and try to take liberties and rights from the people that doesn't make them correct. It's still a right that was given to me and we must fight to get that back. To me it's the same as when the settlers stole the country from the Cherokee, Lakota, Choctaw and hundreds of other native tribes. It was their right to be here, it's their land (and still is) yet Native Americans were forced to register and live in camps and be slaughtered by the thousands by the U.S. gov. They made the indian feel it was a "privilege" just to be alive and on a reservation. Same as many other similar examples across the world.

One day, maybe not in our life time, the people will take those rights back.

imported post

That's because that's what it is, that is how it is set up. Believe me, I share your anger and frustration about CPL's. Few people are as spiteful as I am about the fact they exist, and that the state extorts money from people in order to have a right its own constitution protects. People who have been here for more than a couple months know how often I bitch about this. It REALLY drives me nuts. Moving back from Arizona, and losing the right to carry in a car or a grocery store was incredibly infuriating. Not to mention once again having to worry about some nonsense about where I can drive to with my pistol in the trunk. I mean sheesh! The nerve of the treasonous tyrants that make Michigans laws! I will always be bitter as hell about Michigan's blatent disregard for the safety of its residents.

When the idea of getting rid of concealed pistol free zones for CPL holders was getting tossed around the legislature, I wouldn't contact any reps, because I don't believe that giving the state 110 bucks or so makes someone more capable or knowledgeable with firearms than the next guy or gal. A "right" that the government extorts money to obtain is not a right, it is a privilege given to those who have the money and initiative to obtain it.

Nevertheless CPL's are shall issue, and IF you have one, you have more legal ability to carry than most people in the gold star states.

I side with you, that is a fact. But that doesn't change the fact that there are 2 ways to look at it.

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

What I'm referring to is that I was given a right in my "Bill of Rights" but government has decided to step on those rights. [...] It's still a right that was given to me and we must fight to get that back.

Click to expand...

Off-topic a bit, but the "Bill of Rights" gave no rights to anyone. The Bill of Rights enumerated inalienable rights that already existed. The phrase, "...endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights..." comes to mind.

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Generaldet wrote:

For me the 2nd amendment is my carry permit.

Click to expand...

That seems contradictory to me: On the one hand, Amendment II enumerates a RIGHT, while on the other hand you have a carry PERMIT. PERMIT, which means some entity granted you PERMISSION to carry it.

Click to expand...

So if this truely is the case then what are you going to do to change it Rubberarm?

imported post

you could also look at it this way. While being checked out first before the purchase of a handgun you know the person carrying is not a mental case or a felon at least at the time of purchase.

imported post

T Vance wrote:

So if this truely is the case then what are you going to do to change it Rubberarm?

Click to expand...

As MOC grows, and becomes better respected by politicians, it will probably become more able to effectively lobby for things like this.

imported post

T Vance wrote:

So if this truely is the case then what are you going to do to change it Rubberarm?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to do about it.

imported post

Devildog wrote:

you could also look at it this way. While being checked out first before the purchase of a handgun you know the person carrying is not a mental case or a felon at least at the time of purchase.

Click to expand...

Actually, whether or not a person was convicted of a felony, if he/she has served his/her sentence and/or paid his/her fine, and is no longer on parole or probation, then his/her right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed either.

If such a person cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they should not be free to roam the streets either.

imported post

Regardless of what the 'law of the land' says, every person has the RIGHT(or an obligation) to defend themselves.

Just ask the Drug dealers and gang bangers if they picked up there PtP, or there CPL?

I agree that if you want to remain a law abiding citizen you've got to 'ask permission', and that is asinine. There is a simple phrase I've said for awhile, "The law only effects the law abiding".

Almost 86% of felons worst fear was that the person they were robbing had a gun.

Not to mention all the stopped sexual assaults, and potential violence that are never reported. It's sad to say, but unless people 'evolve' into a peaceful species. I don't see the need for personal protection being far behind.

"Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day."

Denver GR examiner-

Beware anyone that says they're are going to make you safer:" A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have"

Just look at the bill that's out now: "The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" Could remove all 2nd A rights of American citizens, as well as close down the gun industry entirely.

imported post

BreakingTheMold wrote:

Regardless of what the 'law of the land' says, every person has the RIGHT(or an obligation) to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

But in this case, I'm specifically referring to handguns. Sure, I don't need to ask the Government for permission to buy a knife, or shovel, or a bow and arrow, or a sling-shot, or an aluminum baseball bat, or crow-bar, or a big stick off a tree, or learning martial arts, etc. So denying me the right to keep and bear handguns does not, in and of itself, deny me the right to defend myself. But it does deny me the right to defend myself in what is usually going to be the most effective and efficient method and tool at my disposal.

imported post

True but there are alot of people who served there sentance and then commited another more serious crime. And odds are they will do it again mybe not all but most. Example while serving in the military overseas i seen a person who should have not been alowed to handle a weapon let alone be in the service of this country, because of the things he did to others then to himself.

imported post

Devildog wrote:

True but there are alot of people who served there sentance and then commited another more serious crime. And odds are they will do it again mybe not all but most. Example while serving in the military overseas i seen a person who should have been alowed to handle a weapon let alone be in the service of this country, because of the things he did to others then to himself.

Click to expand...

And do you think that being a felon and going on to commit "another more serious crime" means that he would follow the laws concerning the purchase of handguns?

imported post

No i do not but mybe it will make it harder for them to get hands on one.

imported post

Devildog wrote:

No i do not but mybe it will make it harder for them to get hands on one.

Click to expand...

So I should be alright with a right being taken from me so that "maybe" it will make it harder for a convicted felon to get his hands on one? That's not a good trade, IMHO.