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

imported post

As i dont totally agree with the current situation regaurding purchases, I think we do need a way of making sure a individual is competent wether they have done there time. Now i know not all felons are a risk and should be able to exercise there rights. But some dont deserve ANY.

imported post

"They won't make your hunting rifle illegal, They'll call it a sniper gun first"

Any form of gun control is still GUN CONTROL. As for felons, I'd say it depends on there original offense.

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

Restricting a felon's rights shouldn't restrict yours unless you're also a felon.

imported post

I agree but how does one find out who is a felon

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...

It's easier for a felon to get a gun than a law abiding person.They walk down the street and hand over the cash and they have a gun. Laws printed on paper mean nothing to them! It's that simple!Laws prevent nothing when it comes to criminals!I say do away with all gun laws and the good people will have no problem taking care of crime under penalty of death!

imported post

The whole discussion is moot. The point being, when the time comes for you to have to defend you or your family, what you you rather have, a pistol on your hip, or the principle of not asking for permission for one.

We have all stated that we unequivocally agree with you. It is, however, what it is.

As for me, when/if the time comes, I will be able to legally defend my or my family's life.

imported post

FatboyCykes wrote:

The whole discussion is moot. The point being, when the time comes for you to have to defend you or your family, what you you rather have, a pistol on your hip, or the principle of not asking for permission for one.

Click to expand...

Dead freeman, or living subject? Decisions, decisions!

If the Government came for one's guns (through some form of legislation, let's say), does one hand them over (after all, it's the law) or does one shoot it out with them and risk his family in the process?

If one hands them over, he and his family live. If one doesn't, he and his family could very well die, or he could end up in prison and his family will have to live without him or firearms.

Again, dead freeman, or living subject?

imported post

I think you are preaching to the wrong people here Rubberarm. Maybe you are just playing "devils advocate", but how about bringing this matter up to other people too (maybe you have and I'm unaware of it) such as legislatures, lawyers, judges, etc...

Not saying that it isn't something that people in a group such as this shouldn't be made aware of or think about, butyouseem to be able torespond to suggestions from other people in this groupwith rebutles, meanwhile when YOU areasked "what are you going to do about it" you don't seem to have an answer.

imported post

Exactly. I do not know what to do.

Many here "agree" with me but seem apathetic about it - it's a "small" price to pay.

If that is how many here feel, how many people in the general population, or in the legislature would be sympathetic to my position? Heck, IIRC, even the NRA is in favor of background checks!

imported post

We all appreciate the point you're making, however, how much more is there to say. You have your opinions, beliefs and principles and we have ours. I don't know if you expect me to go turn my gun in tomorrow until they take away all the unfair practices in the US or what. I'm encouraged by your passion, however, I'm a realist, and as such realize that as much as I don't like it these are the rules, currently. I'll support most legislation to get them changed, but for now, again, it is what it is. You may feel like is subjection, but when a criminal who cares naught about the second amendment and all the controversy that comes with it, is "knocking" on your door, what do you honestly think will be going through your head?

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Many here "agree" with me but seem apathetic about it - it's a "small" price to pay.

Click to expand...

The people involved in Michigan open carrying are currently a small minority. A very small minority. We need to grow larger before we can suitably flex our muscles politically.

We have a lot of prices that need to be paid. Police harassment, fees to notarize gun registrations, compliance with tyrannical laws. It's a lousy situation no matter how you look at it, and no matter what anyone does, it is not likely to improve soon.

Bringing about change requires 2 things. Patience and perseverance. Merely having a hissy fit will get you nowhere. Get involved to whatever legally permissible extent you wish to, and go from there. The bigger we get, the better we can lobby Michigan law makers. Until then, suggesting that the second amendment get reinstated in Michigan will not be taken seriously in Lansing.

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

Exactly. I do not know what to do.

Many here "agree" with me but seem apathetic about it - it's a "small" price to pay.

If that is how many here feel, how many people in the general population, or in the legislature would be sympathetic to my position? Heck, IIRC, even the NRA is in favor of background checks!

Click to expand...

Im sure if the NRA ie ME had a choice there would be no firearm laws,but you have to work with what you have as far as legislators and government. They know as I do that you first have to elect people who understand our God given rights.Then they can start eliminating the laws that are on the books already. Thats why they grade all the people that are running throughout the country before every election, according to their records on gun laws. If everyone who owns a gun in this country voted for the person who believe's and has shown by his or her record that they are pro-gun,then the Clintons,the Obama's,Feinstiens,Schumers and all anti-gunners would never be elected! The people do not know or understand their rights,let alone the constitution due to the lack of education in those area's.Thats what the NRA,MOC,MCRGO etc etc do to the best of their ability, minus the help of 95% of the media as we all know.Thats where word of mouth and printouts help! PS- the NICS was all the NRA could manage to get into the Brady bill with Clinton and the Dems in the majority!

imported post

RA... I'm with you. At the same time, I'd also rather be armed than not. I don't morally accept things as they are, but I have stomached them in order to keep a pistol. It's like a starving person forcing down a meal that they cannot stand. It tastes like crap, but without it, they're dead. And I hear you on the "living subject" versus "dead freeman" thing. However, if all of the freemen just rolled over and died, what hope would there be for the remaining living subjects? I feel that it is our duty to eat a nasty crap-burger once in awhile in order to maintain the energy to oppose unjust and unlawful systems.

It is eventually going to give way to one of those "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situations. There are those that think they cannot beat the system so they join it... and there are those that join the ranks of "criminals" by ignoring unConstitutional laws. I prefer to call these people "Patriots". The way I see it, Patriots are not crossing the line into criminal territory... the criminal line is crossing them.

If someone really wants to, they can own a pistol in this country without having to ask permission. Criminals and Patriots find a way to do it every day. And then if Uncle Sam ever comes knocking on their door trying to take their pistol, they simply hand over what's registered and keep hidden what's not.

I'm not suggesting that anyone violate any laws, nor am I suggesting that I do so myself. I'm simply opining that it's something that people are going to be driven to do as time goes on.

imported post

I can certainly see where lawful handgun owners in Michigan are coming from.

But when I hear all the talk about a "right" to open carry a handgun, I can't help but know that, in practice, it is not a "right" at all. Yet we all go on pretending that it is a "right."

It's hypocritical to profess as a right something for which one practices as a privilege.

imported post

RubberArm wrote:

I can certainly see where lawful handgun owners in Michigan are coming from.

But when I hear all the talk about a "right" to open carry a handgun, I can't help but know that, in practice, it is not a "right" at all. Yet we all go on pretending that it is a "right."

It's hypocritical to profess as a right something for which one practices as a privilege.

Click to expand...

Thought provoking.

imported post

Before we can ever get rid of pistol registrations, we need to get rid of the prison system. If someone commits a serious crime, stone the bastards and let their bodies sit and rot back to the earth as a warning for others. Then you don't have to worry about felons buying a pistol. Would probably reduce violent crime even more than citizens carrying their guns!

imported post

OC an AR... no "permission" needed,

I have contradicting sentiments on this subject...probably because i haven't quite figured out my own personal convictions on this subject?

Personally I think that there are MANY people who should NOT be allowed to carry fire-arms... either because they are a danger to themselves or to others....and have a documented history as such....however people that are "dangerous" can just as easily use a lead pipe, or a knife, or brass knuckles, or a rock to harm someone as they could a gun...

But I have conflicting feelings bc I am quite Libertarian in my views... I think the less government involvement in my/everyone's lives (especially pertaining to rights given to us by our Constitution/BoR)

Maybe a way to solve the problem... REQUIRE EVERYONE to carry, openly or concealed... at all times people might think twice about committing violent crimes/sexual assaults/etc. if you can guarantee that the other person is armed

Ever see Penn & Teller's show "Bullshit" where they talk about gun control....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE

imported post

stephgrinage23 wrote:

OC an AR... no "permission" needed,

I have contradicting sentiments on this subject...probably because i haven't quite figured out my own personal convictions on this subject?

Personally I think that there are MANY people who should NOT be allowed to carry fire-arms... either because they are a danger to themselves or to others....and have a documented history as such....however people that are "dangerous" can just as easily use a lead pipe, or a knife, or brass knuckles, or a rock to harm someone as they could a gun...

But I have conflicting feelings bc I am quite Libertarian in my views... I think the less government involvement in my/everyone's lives (especially pertaining to rights given to us by our Constitution/BoR)

Click to expand...

Someone can correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe there are at least a couple of states where there is no required background check, registration, safety inspection, permit to purchase, etc. for handguns; only age and residency in that state is required. Perhaps those states have no one that is a danger to themselves or others? Well, somehow they manage.

And a bit OT, the Constitution enumerates rights that existed prior to it's authorship.

imported post

hamaneggs wrote:

Im sure if the NRA ie ME had a choice there would be no firearm laws, [...]

Click to expand...

Are you so sure about that?

BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###
WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN


"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
[align=left]

That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.
[/align] Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."

The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by: CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968) Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows: The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.
When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.


###
END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
source: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247

imported post

Michigander wrote:

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.

-- I think it's equally unfair in New York or California.
We need to get rid of registration as soon as possible. I think it is doable, since Heller seems to pretty much bring the registration scheme into question, at least for visitor's to the state who are prohibited from bringing in an unregistered pistol, and they are prohibited from registering because they are not residents. Need to get also get, at the very least, the possibility of OC in a vehicle. Those two goals would make Michigan one of the best states for firearm rights.

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

--When Michigan first went to "shall" issue, and I started doing research on the subject, I too was shocked. What even shocked me more was that the person who probably did the most for the OCers in regards to the laws of this state was none other than Jennifer Granholm. As AG, she wrote some very "pro-carry" opinions see AG opinion 7098, 7101, 7120, 7121, and especially 7113. I may disagree with her policies since becoming Governor, but I think her legal reasoning was quite sound. And all this from someone who was very "anti-shall issue". I also give her respect for her statement, very early after initial data regarding CPL's in Michigan (after the change in legislation), she came out and admitted that her assertion that there would be blood in the streets after shall issue, was very wrong. I think she is one of the strongest supporters of "shall" issue there is.

You may say Mike Cox has been supportive, and I would agree BUT there are some sore points with me: AG opinion 7123, 7133, and 7136. All limited or came down against expansive interpretation.

So, I consider OC/CC as a right, but one that is limited. Therein lies the problem. The Supreme Court has decided that rights can be limited within reason. They often use the "Yelling fire in a Theatre" argument, which really is in no way logically similar to firearm restrictions. Gun rights have been severely limited for a long time. This needs to stop... we need to actively push for those changes which restore the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" to its proper place in our society.

Remember too that the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" proceeded the founding of this country... in fact it is deeply connected to the basic right of self-defense. So any constitution or law notwithstanding, the right is not one given by any government; it is one that has and shall always exist.

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.

Click to expand...

For a person without a CPL, the carrying of a long gun is less restricted than the carry of a pistol. You may have known this. I think it odd that someone bent on destruction could do much more damage with a rifle than even the most powerful pistol: in terms of accuracy, power, a pistol pales in comparison. But, the average Joe on the street is much more wary of pistols than long guns.