Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
That's a good one! I'd be more than happy to send it on to her as well.
That's a good one! I'd be more than happy to send it on to her as well.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Farmington Hills Parks and Rec
- Thread starter CoonDog
- Start date
Tao
Regular Member
imported post
The caveat is that there are some glaring innaccuracies. Discussed here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=39&t=361886
jmlefler wrote:
The caveat is that there are some glaring innaccuracies. Discussed here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=39&t=361886
jmlefler wrote:
Generaldet wrote:Send her this... I mean really. This is perfect.Councilwoman Nancy Bates said the city should request the Michigan Municipal League to survey communities and rally support in taking the guns in parks issue to the state legislature.
“Something needs to be done on a higher level,” she said.
Wherever there is oppression of peoples rights, we will be there to fight it.
http://web.me.com/joshtish/OC2009_04.pdf
Carry on
edit: just did it myself
Dear Councilwoman Bates,
It is my understanding that after reading the article titled "Council Revises Gun Rule" http://www.freep.com/article/C5/20090719/NEWS06/907190442/-1/NEWS0302/Council-revises-gun-rule
you wished for a review of gun ordinances by the Michigan Municipal League.
Ma'am, they've already done so in April of this year:
http://web.me.com/joshtish/OC2009_04.pdf
A full reading of this document will be very instructive; I know it was for me.
Respectfully,
J. Lefler
dougwg
Regular Member
Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
Here is my communication so far with Councilwoman Bates regarding her comments in the Free Press.
Dear Councilwoman Bates, I recently read your comments in the free press article titled "Council revises gun rule". I would like to bring to your attention that the MML has already spoken on this issue. http://web.me.com/joshtish/OC2009_04.pdf I have provided the link so that you may view the information released by the MML. Please understand that prohibiting guns does not lower crime rates. In fact, statistics show that it increases. Tighter restrictions on firearms only prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It does not stop criminals from carrying guns, they do not obey gun free zones. Please also feel fee to review the FBI crime statistics for further proof. I can understand that firearms may make some people feel uneasy, however, these are "feelings" based in fear and conjecture. They have nothing to do with facts and truths about law abiding gun owners.
Thank you,
Dear Mr.
Thank you for writing to me, I appreciate your comments regarding the gun issue. My father was a member of the NRA most of his life. My husband had a gun collection that many would have envied. As a teenager I went togun clubshoots with my Dad and learned to shoot pretty straight for a girl. The right for responsible people to have guns is not the real issue.
I do find guns in our parks or in our schools to be troubling. but an issue even more concerning to meis the constant violation of Home Rule by the state government. Local units of government should be allowed to make these kinds of decicions in concert with the will of the citizens they represent andnot have it imposed by the state.
I do appreciate your email. When I read myremarks inabbreviated form in the newspaper I expected an alert citizen to call me on it. And you did not let me down. In a broader perspective I am concerned about the control the state and federal government imposes on our daily lives. We need alert citizens to challenge and monitor political actions. Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bates
Dear Councilwoman Bates,
Thank you for your speedy reply regarding my email. I appreciate you taking the time to address my concern.
I am glad that we agree that it is every citizens duty to challenge our elected officials and law makers to hold true to their sworn duties. However, I strongly disagree that local government should in any way be allowed to create laws more strict than the state. On the broader scale I am also adamantly opposed to states being able to have stronger restrictions than the federal government as it pertains to our right to bear arms.I believe that our 2nd Amendment should be the only requireddocumentation that any law abiding citizen should need to lawfully carry a firearm, and I believe that was the intention of our founding fathers. While I do agree that thegovernmentshould be run by the people and represent their interests, I do not believe the rights that we asAmericans were guaranteedshould be infringed because it makes someone uncomfortable.On this point though, we may have to agree to disagree.
I can empathize with your concern of firearms in parks and how it may alarm some citizens. Crime knows no boundaries, and it seems lately more often than not there have been innocent people being shot by criminals in places like churches, university campuses, high schools, etc. The one thing these places have in common is that they are pistol free zones -- places where criminals know that most likely citizens will most likelynot be able to protect themselves. So I hope you can understand my concern of, placing more restrictions on where law abiding citizens can have the ability to defend themselves. Restrictions do not stop gun violence.
Like most citizens, I agree with you. I am also concerned about the role that our government imposes on our daily lives. But not just federal and state, local as well. I believe it was former President Reagan who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, and I pray that one day our government will uphold our constitution as it was meant to be without intrusion. And, we will truly be for the people by the people. Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Here is my communication so far with Councilwoman Bates regarding her comments in the Free Press.
Dear Councilwoman Bates, I recently read your comments in the free press article titled "Council revises gun rule". I would like to bring to your attention that the MML has already spoken on this issue. http://web.me.com/joshtish/OC2009_04.pdf I have provided the link so that you may view the information released by the MML. Please understand that prohibiting guns does not lower crime rates. In fact, statistics show that it increases. Tighter restrictions on firearms only prevents law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It does not stop criminals from carrying guns, they do not obey gun free zones. Please also feel fee to review the FBI crime statistics for further proof. I can understand that firearms may make some people feel uneasy, however, these are "feelings" based in fear and conjecture. They have nothing to do with facts and truths about law abiding gun owners.
Thank you,
Dear Mr.
Thank you for writing to me, I appreciate your comments regarding the gun issue. My father was a member of the NRA most of his life. My husband had a gun collection that many would have envied. As a teenager I went togun clubshoots with my Dad and learned to shoot pretty straight for a girl. The right for responsible people to have guns is not the real issue.
I do find guns in our parks or in our schools to be troubling. but an issue even more concerning to meis the constant violation of Home Rule by the state government. Local units of government should be allowed to make these kinds of decicions in concert with the will of the citizens they represent andnot have it imposed by the state.
I do appreciate your email. When I read myremarks inabbreviated form in the newspaper I expected an alert citizen to call me on it. And you did not let me down. In a broader perspective I am concerned about the control the state and federal government imposes on our daily lives. We need alert citizens to challenge and monitor political actions. Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bates
Dear Councilwoman Bates,
Thank you for your speedy reply regarding my email. I appreciate you taking the time to address my concern.
I am glad that we agree that it is every citizens duty to challenge our elected officials and law makers to hold true to their sworn duties. However, I strongly disagree that local government should in any way be allowed to create laws more strict than the state. On the broader scale I am also adamantly opposed to states being able to have stronger restrictions than the federal government as it pertains to our right to bear arms.I believe that our 2nd Amendment should be the only requireddocumentation that any law abiding citizen should need to lawfully carry a firearm, and I believe that was the intention of our founding fathers. While I do agree that thegovernmentshould be run by the people and represent their interests, I do not believe the rights that we asAmericans were guaranteedshould be infringed because it makes someone uncomfortable.On this point though, we may have to agree to disagree.
I can empathize with your concern of firearms in parks and how it may alarm some citizens. Crime knows no boundaries, and it seems lately more often than not there have been innocent people being shot by criminals in places like churches, university campuses, high schools, etc. The one thing these places have in common is that they are pistol free zones -- places where criminals know that most likely citizens will most likelynot be able to protect themselves. So I hope you can understand my concern of, placing more restrictions on where law abiding citizens can have the ability to defend themselves. Restrictions do not stop gun violence.
Like most citizens, I agree with you. I am also concerned about the role that our government imposes on our daily lives. But not just federal and state, local as well. I believe it was former President Reagan who said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, and I pray that one day our government will uphold our constitution as it was meant to be without intrusion. And, we will truly be for the people by the people. Thank you for your time and for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Good job!
Good job!
CoonDog
Regular Member
imported post
Thanks for sending that in, jmlefler!
Thanks for sending that in, jmlefler!
CoonDog
Regular Member
imported post
Great comments Generaldet and the follow-up was awesome. Thanks for reaching out like that!
Great comments Generaldet and the follow-up was awesome. Thanks for reaching out like that!
CoonDog
Regular Member
imported post
Generaldet wrote:
I find it interesting that councilwoman Bates' concern is local control of "these kinds of decisions". Note that Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states. That is to say that the states will be made up of laws, not men, and that the law will protects the rights of citizens against oligarchy or democracy.
When councilwoman Bates states that she thinks the city council should represent their citizens when infringing our rights, it's not clear whether she seeks this infringement through the power of the council (oligarchy) or because she's taken an informal survey of the populous and believes it to be the wishes of the mob (democracy).
Either way, if I may parse her words, when the council seeks to implement local infringements on guaranteed rights, it's not seeking local control of the laws, but local control of THE CITIZENS. It is this tyranny, even on the local level, that we're up against. I'm glad that I live in a preemption state that prevents local oligarchs from stomping on my rights.
Generaldet wrote:
I find it interesting that councilwoman Bates' concern is local control of "these kinds of decisions". Note that Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states. That is to say that the states will be made up of laws, not men, and that the law will protects the rights of citizens against oligarchy or democracy.
When councilwoman Bates states that she thinks the city council should represent their citizens when infringing our rights, it's not clear whether she seeks this infringement through the power of the council (oligarchy) or because she's taken an informal survey of the populous and believes it to be the wishes of the mob (democracy).
Either way, if I may parse her words, when the council seeks to implement local infringements on guaranteed rights, it's not seeking local control of the laws, but local control of THE CITIZENS. It is this tyranny, even on the local level, that we're up against. I'm glad that I live in a preemption state that prevents local oligarchs from stomping on my rights.
wrcken2
Regular Member
imported post
Hey look what I found at the City of St. Clair Shores MI.
Short version
20.230 Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited. Sec. 67A-20. (1)No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.
Anybody have a problem with me using this letter to St. Clair Shores to get the ordinance changed???
Hey look what I found at the City of St. Clair Shores MI.
Short version
20.230 Firearms and dangerous instruments prohibited. Sec. 67A-20. (1)No person except an authorized City employee, park guard, or law enforcement officer, shall bring onto park property or have in his possession on park property any firearm or ammunition, any explosive, dynamite cap, fireworks, airgun, pellet gun, spring gun, slingshot, cross bow, bow and arrow, any device by means of which a projectile can be propelled, any device which can be loaded with blank cartridges, any trapping device, any incendiary bomb or material, any smoke or stink bomb, any tear gas or other disabling chemical or agent, any acid or caustic substance, or any inflammable liquid except fuel contained in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, lantern, camp stove or camp heater, and not more than one gallon of liquid fuel in a closed metal container.
Anybody have a problem with me using this letter to St. Clair Shores to get the ordinance changed???
autosurgeon
Regular Member
imported post
Fire away!!!
Fire away!!!
CoonDog
Regular Member
imported post
wrcken2
Feel free to copy and use any of the information on this site. Your progress serves us all.
Please start a new thread so we can follow along on your progress.
Let 'er rip!
wrcken2
Feel free to copy and use any of the information on this site. Your progress serves us all.
Please start a new thread so we can follow along on your progress.
Let 'er rip!
wrcken2
Regular Member
imported post
OK
Will start a new thread. I will also paste a copy of the letter before I send it.
OK
Will start a new thread. I will also paste a copy of the letter before I send it.
dougwg
Regular Member
imported post
wrcken2 wrote:
wrcken2 wrote:
Before you send it let someone proof read it.
jmlefler
Regular Member
imported post
Ms. Bates reply is very interesting....
"Dear Mr.
Thank you for writing to me, I appreciate your comments regarding the gun issue. My father was a member of the NRA most of his life. My husband had a gun collection that many would have envied. As a teenager I went togun clubshoots with my Dad and learned to shoot pretty straight for a girl. The right for responsible people to have guns is not the real issue.
I do find guns in our parks or in our schools to be troubling. but an issue even more concerning to meis the constant violation of Home Rule by the state government. Local units of government should be allowed to make these kinds of decicions in concert with the will of the citizens they represent andnot have it imposed by the state.
I do appreciate your email. When I read myremarks inabbreviated form in the newspaper I expected an alert citizen to call me on it. And you did not let me down. In a broader perspective I am concerned about the control the state and federal government imposes on our daily lives. We need alert citizens to challenge and monitor political actions. Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bates"
It is almost word for word the reply I rec'd from her as well. Rather than "the right for responsible people..." was worded "gun ownership" in the email to me. She spoke a bit more about Home Rule and the desire to have decisions made locally. The rest of the blah, blah was the same.
It may be telling that she speaks of shooting with her Dad, and that he was an NRA member and her husband had large gun collection but nothing of her current involvement with guns and shooting.
By the same token, we reached her and she did promptly reply.
Carry on.
Ms. Bates reply is very interesting....
"Dear Mr.
Thank you for writing to me, I appreciate your comments regarding the gun issue. My father was a member of the NRA most of his life. My husband had a gun collection that many would have envied. As a teenager I went togun clubshoots with my Dad and learned to shoot pretty straight for a girl. The right for responsible people to have guns is not the real issue.
I do find guns in our parks or in our schools to be troubling. but an issue even more concerning to meis the constant violation of Home Rule by the state government. Local units of government should be allowed to make these kinds of decicions in concert with the will of the citizens they represent andnot have it imposed by the state.
I do appreciate your email. When I read myremarks inabbreviated form in the newspaper I expected an alert citizen to call me on it. And you did not let me down. In a broader perspective I am concerned about the control the state and federal government imposes on our daily lives. We need alert citizens to challenge and monitor political actions. Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bates"
It is almost word for word the reply I rec'd from her as well. Rather than "the right for responsible people..." was worded "gun ownership" in the email to me. She spoke a bit more about Home Rule and the desire to have decisions made locally. The rest of the blah, blah was the same.
It may be telling that she speaks of shooting with her Dad, and that he was an NRA member and her husband had large gun collection but nothing of her current involvement with guns and shooting.
By the same token, we reached her and she did promptly reply.
Carry on.
Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
I appreciate her taking the time to respond to my email. Perhaps we should invite them out to a get together.
I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could possibly think MORE government and MORE restrictions helps the citizens. It's like all units of government feel that their "subjects" would be lost without their "guidance". As if we are all unable to govern ourselves. I don't know, maybe a little bit of a rant but I can't help but feel that way.
I appreciate her taking the time to respond to my email. Perhaps we should invite them out to a get together.
I just can't wrap my head around how anyone could possibly think MORE government and MORE restrictions helps the citizens. It's like all units of government feel that their "subjects" would be lost without their "guidance". As if we are all unable to govern ourselves. I don't know, maybe a little bit of a rant but I can't help but feel that way.
springerdave
Regular Member
imported post
Generaldet, for City Councilman!springerdave.
Generaldet, for City Councilman!springerdave.
Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
lol thanks. I like the sound of that.
lol thanks. I like the sound of that.
springerdave
Regular Member
imported post
Those of us with good writing and debate skills need to be on boards from the Township level all the way to the White House!springerdave.
Those of us with good writing and debate skills need to be on boards from the Township level all the way to the White House!springerdave.
SpringerXDacp
New member
imported post
springerdave wrote:
springerdave wrote:
Providing, of course, he does not hangout with Hamilton after the meetings.
Generaldet
Regular Member
imported post
SpringerXDacp wrote:
SpringerXDacp wrote:
No problem there. Drinking and driving and bar fights is not my thing. lolspringerdave wrote:Providing, of course, he does not hangout with Hamilton after the meetings.