Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Compromise in Order to Accomplish?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    I have an idea... and it's totally open to debate (hence it being posted for discussion).

    I have to believe anyone active in the open carry movement BELIEVES in our Constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringement. I believe that the open carry movement was born from this principle; and that the idea is to increase awareness of our 2A rights by demonstrating them.

    So far, so good.

    However, I think we are in a unique position to use these demonstrations to twist the arms of legislators into changing CPL laws. My idea is to strike a compromise based on the notion that a CPL gives us privileges in situations where our rights may otherwise be affected.

    Follow me here...

    If I own a business, and an gun owner walks in open carrying; I can ask him to leave. That's my right. As the gun owner, you have no right to override me. As a CPL holder, you can avoid the whole situation by concealing.

    We're staring to see this happening in stores across the country already. As the issue of 2A rights continue to proliferate, especially through the practice of open carry, we're finding that more and more stores are saying "No". While it's not plausible, it is possible, that stores from coast to coast simply put up "no firearms" signs; effectively stopping open carry right in its tracks. In the end, we would have accomplished nothing more than requiring citizens to acquire CPL's in order to carry.

    For sake of argument, I know that the OC movement is designed to prevent this... and I have paid homage to the fact that it's not likely to happen. But in reality, it COULD happen.

    This being said, having a CPL could end up becoming a detriment. For instance, CPL's place restrictions on where you CAN'T conceal... meaning that we HAVE to open carry if we want to be armed. If these institutions (movie theaters, bars, schools, etc, etc) place "no firearms" signs because the open carry movement has generated enough buzz, then we have effectively demonstrated ourselves right out of the right to carry in these places.

    My proposal is to spend some time lobbying legislaters to take another look at CPL restrictions. Specifically, my proposal is to campaign for the abandonment of CPL restrictions. Logically, they make no sense anyway. Consider the fact that you can't conceal in a movie theater, but you can open carry. Turn your CPL card over and read all the places that you CAN'T conceal... then ask yourself is it legal to OPEN carry there. There answer, in all cases, is "Yes". So do these CPL restriction really accomplish anything? In my eyes the answer is unequivicobly "No".

    In essense, having a CPL only allows you to open carry in these places. But shouldn't we, as staunch 2A supporters, be calling for the admission of firearms to be carried with us wherever we go WITHOUT State permission?

    I'm not happy about having to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the State to grant me permission to carry my pistol with me to the grocery store (because they sell liquor). Call me crazy, but I think I'm born with this right; so long as the store owner/manager is okay with it.

    In this veign, I believe that all CPL restrictions should be unsumarily lifted. I believe that a CPL should grant unabated, yet specific, privilidges. Chief among them should be the privilidge to conceal in places that would otherwise not allow firearms. For instance, if I owned a business and put a "no firearms" sign on my door... then you should be prohibited from open carrying (as the law stands currently), but you should NOT be prohibited from concealed carrying. If, at any time, I see your pistol... then I should be able to revoke your CPL privilidge to enter my establishment by asking you to leave. If a situation comes up where you have to draw your firearm in defense of yourself or others, then I should be absolved of any and all liabilities as a result.

    In short, I think a CPL should allow honest, law-abiding citizens (according to the background checks we must undergo to earn a CPL) the privilidhe of concealing weapons in areas that they would otherwise not be permitted. Out of sight, out of mind... no harm, no foul. And we maintain our abilities to protect ourselves and others.

    Consider that police officers do not have to adhere to store signs that say "no firearms". So it's not a far stretch to imagine a world were "privilidged" people maintain certain abilities over others. But the difference between a police officer and a CPL holder, in this case, would be that the police officer is not required to hide their firearm upon entering.

    To bring all this home, I propose that we run this by our respective State Reps. And as a matter or practice, to make honest efforts not to go out of our way to "shake things up for shock value" by open carrying. I'm not saying we should stop open carrying... don't miscontrue this. I'm simply saying that I think we should focus on bigger issues now and to not worry so much about trying to educate individual police departments. Let's start educating our LAWMAKERS.

    As for stores that put up "no firearms" signs... I say, rather than boycotting them, we continue to do our business with them as usual; albeit we conceal (if you have a CPL, at least). But when concealing, I'd suggest making sure they KNOW we're armed and that we're concealing. Ask them if them knowing that we have a gun hidden in our waistband makes them feel any safer than if we had it on our hip. The idea here is to demonstrate how foolish the mentality is... that only a "visible" gun is "scary". The next time someone gets an email from a corporate fatcat that says "Our policy is to disallow firearms on our premises", then try responding with, "lthough I really don't see how I'm less "dangerous" with a concealed pistol versus one that's completely visible, I do appreciate the warning and will simply conceal from now on."

    If, in any of these cases, the store STILL doesn't want firearms... concealed or otherwise, then I would challenge them further. "You don't want me to carry a legally concealed firearm? My question to you then is 'How are you going to know?' Are you planning on patting down every patron that walks through your doors?'" Again... the point here is to drive home the absurdity of their thoughts. In reality, there is no way in hell they are going to pat down all of their patrons... so they really cannot enforce concealed carry restrictions in their store. Now if they happen to ban YOU, specifically, because of your verbal ascertations... then, and only then, would I call for an outright boycott of their institution. To facilicate this, I'd propose gettiing with all of the other open carry movements, in all 50 States, and get one giant petition prepared in advance. I read somewhere that there are around 20,000 active members at any given point... that's enough to turn some heads at most stores. They don't have to know what State these folks are from.... names and phone numbers will suffice. Once the decision maker of one of these staunch stores gets a thick pack of paper dropped on their desk, 20,000 names long, they can randomly call (if they so desire) any number of them to verify that they are real people. At that point, we should delicately ask them which option they prefer: 1) All 20,000 people boycotting their stores, 2) To allow us to conceal carry in accordance with the law, or 3) To allow us to open carry in accordance with the law. And ask them, if they choose option 2, why they feel a hidden gun makes someone safer than an exposed gun. Perhaps ask them why they believe police officers open carry, rather than conceal carry, their pistols. Again, this should be done delicately and not in such a way that provokes debate. It should be thought-provoking; not insulting. If they still go with option 2, then let them know that while a majority of the 20,000 people will cease their boycott, that there are still some non-CPL holders on that list (perhaps even quantifying them with an actual number; say 5,000) that CANNOT shop in their store because they CANNOT legally conceal.

    My proposition, in short, is to strike a compromise on the issue of open carry versus conceal carry. To remain staunchly supportive of open carry ONLY will only cause some anti's to remain staunchly opposed to 2A rights. But by compromising on the issue, we can, perhaps coax them to compromise as well.

    I believe that this compromise will get us farther in our efforts to proliferate the true restoration of 2A rights.

    Thoughts and discussion are welcome.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    Perhaps an OC event on a large (UM. MSU etc) college campus. I don't know if I'm correct in my knowledge of the law here, so correct me if I'm wrong...but at a college, the buildings are essentially public buildings, and if that is correct, they can't kick you off or ask you to leave (right?).

    Then reporters / police / politicians could be told..."We'd love to be able to conceal while on campus, but state law won't allow us. Seeing as we can carry anyway, wouldn't make sense to allow us to conceal?"



    Rand Paul 2016

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Yooper wrote:
    Then reporters / police / politicians could be told..."We'd love to be able to conceal while on campus, but state law won't allow us. Seeing as we can carry anyway, wouldn't make sense to allow us to conceal?"
    I like the idea in theory... although I'm thinking on a much smaller, and less controversial, to BEGIN with.

    The idea of a compromise is to call a cease fire (no pun intended) on public campaigns and to try to strike a chord with lawmakers. If they balk, then I would suggest escalating campaigns that to shake things up.

    What I'd hate to see happen is a large, and controversial, demonstration that causes anti's to become so entrenched in their opinions that they never open their minds. Even worse, some rogue legislator to appeal to the populist mentality and introducing legislation that is regressive, rather than progressive, of 2A rights.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Without concord, compromise is failure on the installment plan.

    An implacable opponent is just that, adamant and immovable. Your compromise merely narrows the gap between opposing positions - towards his extreme.

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    No gun signs are why MOC had printed up 500 of these stickers (see below). We have them for sale at $2 each. More and more stores are putting them up. I gave away a few to store owners while in Tawas. We are trying to get stores to put up our signs instead of no gun signs.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Springfield Smitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    OKC, OK (Heading back to MI very soon - thank goodness)
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    There has already been a bill introduced in Michigan that would do this. I am having trouble finding it right now, but I remember reading it on the legislature website. We just need to get attention brought back to it. If anyone has the link, maybe post it here so all can see it (since I can't find it again).

    I do like this one as well. It exempts veterans from the training requirements to get a CPL. I have been arguing about this for a while now; turns out it was introduced some time ago and in its second encarnation it has passed the House. Now, we need to get it to the Senate.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dx2...%20NOT%20carry
    -U.S. Army Veteran (2002-2005) 11BVB4 (Infantry, Airborne, Ranger, some other stuff) SGT (E-5)
    -Public Service Professional - I've done it all: LEO, FF, and EMT
    -Certified NRA Instructor
    -CPL / CCW (whatever other acronym you can think of for carrying a concealed pistol) Instructor
    -Co-founder of OKOCA

    I am not an attorney. None of my statements should be accepted, nor are they intended to be offered, as legal advice or fact of law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Without concord, compromise is failure on the installment plan.

    An implacable opponent is just that, adamant and immovable. Your compromise merely narrows the gap between opposing positions - towards his extreme.
    Eh... sometimes. But in some cases, if done properly, I think compromise can be the catalyst to break a stalemate.

    Hokey example, but stay with me on this: Playing tug-o-war with your dog. If you don't have a solid grip, you might find the rope slipping from your hand. Sometimes you have to give up a little ground to get a better grip, then pull back with more force.

    The King Leonidas approach of "Give nothing, but take everything" only works when you have the ability to execute. With many of the laws governing us, we lack this ability.

    I'm not advocating giving in to more strict laws; but rather pushing for a logical meeting of minds that puts all the facts out on the table for both sides to view... and each one of us takes turns picking things that are important to us. The Constitution would be the arbitrator.

    For instance, I'd be willing to let the State have open carry in bars, grocery stores (under the LCC rules), schools, etc, etc if they were willing to secede permission to conceal carry in said places. As it stands right now, we can barely do these things. Like it or not, the State already requires us to request permission to open carry in these places (by making us get a CPL first)... but they do not allows us to conceal. This, in effect, gives the property owners/managers the power to disarm us through "no firearms" restrictions. If we secede the issue of open carrying in these places to the State, in exchange for the privilege of conceal carrying in them, then we can circumvent property owners "no firearms" rules. In essence, we are really giving up nothing... we need permission either way. But we are gaining the ability to carry, despite property owner/managers desire not to allow us. That's a win for us... and a win for the State by not having to explain to property owners/managers that the law "forces" us to open carry on their premises.

    Once they see that there isn't rampant bloodshed by the hands of concealed pistol carriers, then we can push the issue (pulling back hard on the tug-o-war rope) on restoring the Constitutional freedom to open carry WITHOUT LICENSE in the same places. Again, we already need permission to open carry there... so why not convert that permission to concealed carry instead... prove ourselves... then make a bid to allow open carry without permission? Remember, with open carry, the property owners/managers can still prohibit open carry, if they so desire... that could be our ace in the hole to satisfy anti's when the time comes. And we could call upon years of data that show lack of incidents of concealed carriers that demonstrate the foolishness of believing that law-abiding citizens with guns are dangerous people.

    Please understand that I am not advocating giving up our right to carry under any circumstance. I am merely offering compromise in the manner in which we do so. If there weren't already laws on the books that prevented our ability to carry, it would be a non-issue. But since the world is imperfect, and these laws exist, I think we should find a compromise with legislators that allows us to carry at all times, regardless of "firearm restrictions" established by property owners.

    Please also understand that I'm not advocating striking personal property rights. But consider that a police officer can open carry a pistol onto property designated as "firearm prohibited" by the property owners. While I think "ordinary" folks should be prohibited from OPEN CARRYING in these places (only in accordance with the property owner's wishes; and not as a matter of law), I also believe that our CPL should grant us the privilege to conceal in all places at all times; without restriction (assuming open carry is also legal). Also consider that a private property owner has no cause to search you for weapons at the door... so the issue of concealing, despite their wishes, could only become "an issue" if you were to draw your firearm on their property and use it. But again, this is a "risk" they run anyway with criminals... so why disarm law-abiding citizens who have gone through the rigors of obtaining a CPL?

    If you think about it, a CPL really doesn't give us very many privilidges at present. I mean, yeah, we can drive with a gun and go to a liquor store with a gun... but beyond this, it doesn't give us much. The reality is that we don't need a CPL to carry a gun. In that it's perfectly legal to OPEN CARRY a gun in a movie theater, why would a CPL (you know, a CONCEALED PISTOL license) prohibit us from concealing there? I think it's utterly stupid... that a CPL would prohbit us from concealing in places that we can, otherwise, open carry without restriction. By forcing us to open carry, it merely empowers people to disarm us through corporate policies.

    My contention is to up the notch on what it means to have a CPL... to allow us to conceal, and thus circumvent, these policies. The same way a police officer does. In order to do this, I think the moral compromise needs to be that we will honor stores' policy on open carry prohibitions by simply concealing. Instead of making issues about "our rights to OPEN carry", let's secede that point for a bit to work on rights to CARRY, period... because we're never going to win a war to overturn property rights as it pertains to OPEN carry; so let's focus on getting the permission to CONCEAL carry in these instances. If we can show legislatures that we'd be willing to conceal, when told by a corporation that we're not welcome to open carry, I think that could go a long with them in getting rid of some the restrictions.

    Not sure if any of this makes sense. Even I had to read it over twice to make sense of it. It makes sense in my head... but getting it out into words is somewhat difficult. I'm with you on the notion of not seceding rights. I would never support that. But what I'm saying is that our rights are already restricted by legislation... so I'm proposing, on MORAL grounds, giving up some ground so we can get a better grip on the rope; and then tug back on LEGAL grounds.

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Here is Veritas' original post, and my respones are in red:




    I have an idea... and it's totally open to debate (hence it being posted for discussion).

    I have to believe anyone active in the open carry movement BELIEVES in our Constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms WITHOUT infringement. I believe that the open carry movement was born from this principle; and that the idea is to increase awareness of our 2A rights by demonstrating them.

    Although this will not be really pertinent to the discussion in general, I think this is a huge assumption which is unsupported by the facts here: you are proposing that all convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and cognitively impaired/ mentally impaired individuals would have an unfettered right to whatever they could afford ie machine guns, RPG’s, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear bombs, etc. However, I do believe that the right should not be infringed as to manner or place.

    So far, so good.

    However, I think we are in a unique position to use these demonstrations to twist the arms of legislators into changing CPL laws. My idea is to strike a compromise based on the notion that a CPL gives us privileges in situations where our rights may otherwise be affected.

    Follow me here...

    If I own a business, and an gun owner walks in open carrying; I can ask him to leave. That's my right. As the gun owner, you have no right to override me. As a CPL holder, you can avoid the whole situation by concealing.

    Are you saying this is your proposal or the current situation?

    We're staring to see this happening in stores across the country already. As the issue of 2A rights continue to proliferate, especially through the practice of open carry, we're finding that more and more stores are saying "No". While it's not plausible, it is possible, that stores from coast to coast simply put up "no firearms" signs; effectively stopping open carry right in its tracks. In the end, we would have accomplished nothing more than requiring citizens to acquire CPL's in order to carry.

    No, it’s not really possible… there will always be business owners who support carry in their store. Since we do not live in a time where one is limited to shopping in one particular store for everything we need, the choice to purchase only from those stores where firearms are allowed is a huge economic incentive for owners to allow carry. Therefore, I can't an agreement among ALL store owners to prohibit firearms.

    For sake of argument, I know that the OC movement is designed to prevent this... and I have paid homage to the fact that it's not likely to happen. But in reality, it COULD happen.

    I disagree, see above.

    This being said, having a CPL could end up becoming a detriment. So it's a detriment to at least to be able to carry in these areas, as opposed to not being able to carry?? For instance, CPL's place restrictions on where you CAN'T conceal... meaning that we HAVE to open carry if we want to be armed. If these institutions (movie theaters, bars, schools, etc, etc) place "no firearms" signs because the open carry movement has generated enough buzz, then we have effectively demonstrated ourselves right out of the right to carry in these places.

    Since the places you mentioned above all restrict OC to CPL holders only, I don’t think that OC in general will have an effect on the policies in bars, schools, and movie theaters. Even if they did, "No Firearms" signs in Michigan do not in and of themselves make carrying a firearm illegal, rather it just provides notice that the owner does not want firearms on the premises. I carry in these places with the assurance that being asked to leave is most likely the most severe restriction, as I never read signs. Furthermore, if I am asked to leave, at least on my way out I can ask the owner or owner’s agent to reconsider. I have done this successfully two separate times.

    My proposal is to spend some time lobbying legislaters to take another look at CPL restrictions. Specifically, my proposal is to campaign for the abandonment of CPL restrictions. Logically, they make no sense anyway. Consider the fact that you can't conceal in a movie theater, but you can open carry. Turn your CPL card over and read all the places that you CAN'T conceal... then ask yourself is it legal to OPEN carry there. There answer, in all cases, is "Yes". So do these CPL restriction really accomplish anything? In my eyes the answer is unequivicobly "No".

    I agree with you here, especially since the law allows other “non law-enforcement” CPL holders that right. A member of a Posse or a Dept. of Corrections guard has no general police powers but yet, in the interest of providing a means to protect themselves, they are allowed unrestricted CPL CC carry.

    In essense, having a CPL only allows you to open carry in these places. But shouldn't we, as staunch 2A supporters, be calling for the admission of firearms to be carried with us wherever we go WITHOUT State permission?

    I agree, see previous response. But later, you are saying no carrying of firearms w/out a CPL, so isn't that "permission".

    I'm not happy about having to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the State to grant me permission to carry my pistol with me to the grocery store (because they sell liquor). Call me crazy, but I think I'm born with this right; so long as the store owner/manager is okay with it.

    In this veign, I believe that all CPL restrictions should be unsumarily (???) lifted. I believe that a CPL should grant unabated, yet specific, privilidges. Chief among them should be the privilidge to conceal in places that would otherwise not allow firearms. For instance, if I owned a business and put a "no firearms" sign on my door... then you should be prohibited from open carrying (as the law stands currently), (You misunderstand the law, see below)but you should NOT be prohibited from concealed carrying. If, at any time, I see your pistol... then I should be able to revoke your CPL privilidge to enter my establishment by asking you to leave. If a situation comes up where you have to draw your firearm in defense of yourself or others, then I should be absolved of any and all liabilities as a result.

    This is the way it is currently, as a “No Firearms Sign” does not make the carrying of firearms illegal in Michigan. Currently, if the store owner sees your firearm, he could ask you to leave and not come back. So what is the difference between current law and what you are proposing??? I think you misunderstand current law regarding signage...

    In short, I think a CPL should allow honest, law-abiding citizens (according to the background checks we must undergo to earn a CPL) the privilidhe of concealing weapons in areas that they would otherwise not be permitted. Out of sight, out of mind... no harm, no foul. And we maintain our abilities to protect ourselves and others.

    Consider that police officers do not have to adhere to store signs that say "no firearms". So it's not a far stretch to imagine a world were "privilidged" people maintain certain abilities over others. But the difference between a police officer and a CPL holder, in this case, would be that the police officer is not required to hide their firearm upon entering. (Neither are a number of citizens who are not peace officers)


    I have broken no law by carrying in a business w/ a “No Firearms Sign”, except for those places explicitly prohibited by law as to manner or place.

    To bring all this home, I propose that we run this by our respective State Reps. And as a matter or practice, to make honest efforts not to go out of our way to "shake things up for shock value" by open carrying. I'm not saying we should stop open carrying... don't miscontrue this. I'm simply saying that I think we should focus on bigger issues now and to not worry so much about trying to educate individual police departments. Let's start educating our LAWMAKERS.

    So, you will be asking that they not change the law, and that in the meantime we won’t OC. If you are proposing that they change the legally restricted, no cc zones, I support that we do ask that they be changed. However, I would support that change upon the fact that currently, individual citizens, with NO POLICE POWERS, are allowed by virtue of their job or volunteer activities to CC in legally restricted areas while other non-police officer citizens are not. Equality before the law would, I believe, be a more cogent argument.

    As for stores that put up "no firearms" signs... I say, rather than boycotting them, we continue to do our business with them as usual; albeit we conceal (if you have a CPL, at least). But when concealing, I'd suggest making sure they KNOW we're armed and that we're concealing. Ask them if them knowing that we have a gun hidden in our waistband makes them feel any safer than if we had it on our hip. The idea here is to demonstrate how foolish the mentality is... that only a "visible" gun is "scary". The next time someone gets an email from a corporate fatcat that says "Our policy is to disallow firearms on our premises", then try responding with, "lthough I really don't see how I'm less "dangerous" with a concealed pistol versus one that's completely visible, I do appreciate the warning and will simply conceal from now on."

    What is the difference between OC and “CC with notification that I am carrying”? As property owners, they could, even with any legal changes, tell you to leave immediately. Why not OC now and, if they ask you to leave, discuss it then. Or, CC if you don’t want to get into it or otherwise choose to not let them know you are carrying.

    If, in any of these cases, the store STILL doesn't want firearms... concealed or otherwise, then I would challenge them further. "You don't want me to carry a legally concealed firearm? My question to you then is 'How are you going to know?' Are you planning on patting down every patron that walks through your doors?'" Again... the point here is to drive home the absurdity of their thoughts. In reality, there is no way in hell they are going to pat down all of their patrons... so they really cannot enforce concealed carry restrictions in their store. Now if they happen to ban YOU, specifically, because of your verbal ascertations... then, and only then, would I call for an outright boycott of their institution. To facilicate this, I'd propose gettiing with all of the other open carry movements, in all 50 States, and get one giant petition prepared in advance. I read somewhere that there are around 20,000 active members at any given point... that's enough to turn some heads at most stores. They don't have to know what State these folks are from.... names and phone numbers will suffice. Once the decision maker of one of these staunch stores gets a thick pack of paper dropped on their desk, 20,000 names long, they can randomly call (if they so desire) any number of them to verify that they are real people. At that point, we should delicately ask them which option they prefer: 1) All 20,000 people boycotting their stores, 2) To allow us to conceal carry in accordance with the law, or 3) To allow us to open carry in accordance with the law. And ask them, if they choose option 2, why they feel a hidden gun makes someone safer than an exposed gun. Perhaps ask them why they believe police officers open carry, rather than conceal carry, their pistols. Again, this should be done delicately and not in such a way that provokes debate. It should be thought-provoking; not insulting. If they still go with option 2, then let them know that while a majority of the 20,000 people will cease their boycott, that there are still some non-CPL holders on that list (perhaps even quantifying them with an actual number; say 5,000) that CANNOT shop in their store because they CANNOT legally conceal.

    All this discussion can currently take place. Also, if you don’t feel comfortable OCing, then do what you are proposing… this requires no change to the current situation.

    My proposition, in short, is to strike a compromise on the issue of open carry versus conceal carry. To remain staunchly supportive of open carry ONLY will only cause some anti's to remain staunchly opposed to 2A rights. But by compromising on the issue, we can, perhaps coax them to compromise as well.

    I believe that this compromise will get us farther in our efforts to proliferate the true restoration of 2A rights.

    Thoughts and discussion are welcome.

    So basically, you are saying that you are going to ask the legislature to change the law as regards CC in legally restricted places, make no changes in regards to private businesses, and in return, we **promise** not to OC?? I have to vehemently disagree with you! I think the argument can be made that CC should be allowed in currently restricted areas by CPL holders for two logical reasons: 1, CPL holders can, with few exceptions, OC in those places currently. If they can OC, why not allow CC? and 2, Currently, although law enforcement officers are allowed to CC in “CPL No CC Zones”, so are others who have NO PEACE OFFICER PRIVELEGES and don’t need to be even “on-duty”: judges, reserve police officers, private detectives, posse members, parole officers, probation officers, motor carrier officers, capitol security officers.

    Is it legal to give citizens, who are not peace officers, the right to carry but deny that right to others who may have a more legitimate reason to fear they may be harmed by others? I don’t think so.

    I don’t mean to be overly critical, but your proposal is terrible. Other than changing the current legally prohibited CC zones for CPL holders, your proposal basically does nothing but severely restrict 2A rights. To tell you the truth, if CPL ownership became a necessity in order to carry a firearm openly or concealed (which is basically what you are proposing) and in return, you eliminate the “No CC Zones”, I think many here, including myself, would vehemently oppose you.

    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Double post due to computer connection issues.....
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    So basically, you are saying that you are going to ask the legislature to change the law as regards CC in legally... To lift the restrictions, yes. Why can you OC in theater, school, bar, etc but not CC? It doesn't make sense. It's a useless restriction.

    ...restricted places... On the contrary: To lift restrictions on places that we, currently, CANNOT CC. We already need "permission" to open carry in certain places (by obtaining a CPL first); yet even though we must obtain the CPL to open carry, we do not have the option to conceal carry. My charge is that by FORCING us to open carry and making illegal to conceal carry, we empower the property owners to completely prohibit pistols by saying "no firearms". "No firearms' signs can be averted by simply concealing. But if concealing is illegal, then we are SOL.

    ...make no changes in regards to private businesses... No real "change", per se... just a better understanding of ramifications. If a business has a sign that says "no firearms", I will not open carry there. I may, however, choose to conceal carry. My proposition is for the law to clearly explain what my responsibilities are when choosing to conceal carry despite a "no firearms" sign. I believe that, with all of the background checks that are made in regards to CPL holders, that we should have the privilidge to conceal carry in despite of "no firearms" signs... just as a peace officer can open carry in said same.

    ...and in return, we **promise** not to OC??... No. What I'm saying is that we shift our focus from strictly open carry to focusing on the subject of proliferating our 2A rights. If a business owner does not want you to open carry, you can't do anything about that. I'm saying, instead of boycotting them, to find a compromise with them to allow conceal carry. And if they won't compromise on that, well, then to decide to boycott if you must.

    I think the argument can be made that CC should be allowed in currently restricted areas by CPL holders for two logical reasons: 1, CPL holders can, with few exceptions, OC in those places currently. If they can OC, why not allow CC? Precisely what I have said.

    and 2, Currently, although law enforcement officers are allowed to CC in “CPL No CC Zones”, so are others who have NO PEACE OFFICER PRIVELEGES and don’t need to be even “on-duty”: judges, reserve police officers, private detectives, posse members, parole officers, probation officers, motor carrier officers, capitol security officers. I'm aware. But for sake of not "over-explaining", I limited my example to peace officers. Listing every party would confuse the subject.

    Is it legal to give citizens, who are not peace officers, the right to carry but deny that right to others who may have a more legitimate reason to fear they may be harmed by others? I don’t think so. We're not talking about GIVING RIGHTS. Nobody GIVES anyone a RIGHT. We are born with them. I am talking about granting privilidges. We all have the right to carry; period. My discussion on conceal carry deals with privilidges. While, personally, I don't think that carrying a gun in any manner (concealed or open) is a privlidge, but rather a right; our legislators disagree. They continue to view conceal carry as a privlidge. Until this changes, then I am proposing making the privilidge more universal, practical, and useful.

    I don’t mean to be overly critical, but your proposal is terrible. I'd think so too if I misunderstood as much as you have.

    Other than changing the current legally prohibited CC zones for CPL holders, your proposal basically does nothing but severely restrict 2A rights. Negative. It empowers us to carry in more places that are currently deemed "restricted" or that could become restricted by a sign that says nothing more than "no firearms".

    To tell you the truth, if CPL ownership became a necessity in order to carry a firearm openly or concealed (which is basically what you are proposing) This is not anywhere CLOSE to what I'm proposing.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    "Consider that police officers do not have to adhere to store signs that say "no firearms". So it's not a far stretch to imagine a world were "privilidged" people maintain certain abilities over others. But the difference between a police officer and a CPL holder, in this case, would be that the police officer is not required to hide their firearm upon entering."


    This is not entirely correct. LE is (on or off-duty) expected to respect the rights of a businesses that are posted, unless they are in the course of their duties.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    Although this will not be really pertinent to the discussion in general, I think this is a huge assumption which is unsupported by the facts here: you are proposing that all convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and cognitively impaired/ mentally impaired individuals would have an unfettered right to whatever they could afford ie machine guns, RPG’s, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear bombs, etc. However, I do believe that the right should not be infringed as to manner or place. I have never said anything remotely close to this. Don't put words in my mouth.

    What I said was that our 2A rights enumerates our right to keep and bear arms without infringement. That's a fact. If you want t to argue with this, then argue with the Constitution; not with me.

    It is already a well understood principle that you can voluntarily waive rights. Committing felony's, for instance, causes you to wave certain rights. The right to keep and bear arms, for instance.

    Are you saying this is your proposal or the current situation? I am obviously talking about the current situation, as this is how things are currently.

    No, it’s not really possible… It is possible, although not likely to occur. But I have already said that it's not likely to occur. You cannot say for certain that there won't come a point where every business owner in a community or State decides to implement "no firearms" in their corporate policies. I'm saying that as long as this "risk" exists, that there should be something in place that gives us the privilege of carrying, despite the corporate policy. Law officers, among others, have this privilege already... so it's not a stretch to imagine extending it to CPL holders.

    there will always be business owners who support carry in their store. Again, while you may be right, there is no way to assert, as a matter of fact, that it will happen. There are large differences between "probability" and "possibility".

    Since we do not live in a time where one is limited to shopping in one particular store for everything we need I beg to differ. We are seeing, more and more lately, behemoth retailers coming in and shutting down all of their competition; effectively making them the only choice in the community. Walmart and Meijer do it all the time. If Walmart adopted a staunch "no firearms" policy in all of their stores, then communities in which Walmart is the only store are severely limited on their ability to carry while shopping.

    So it's a detriment to at least to be able to carry in these areas, as opposed to not being able to carry?? No. Once again, you misunderstand the scope.

    I'm saying that a CPL can be a detriment to our 2A rights when it FORCES us to open carry in an area that we should, logically, be able to conceal carry. The detriment exists when the property manager decides they don't want open carry on their premises and puts up a sign saying so. Since the CPL doesn't allow us to conceal carry, and the property owner won't allow us to open carry, the detriment is that we become unarmed.

    For instance, CPL's place restrictions on where you CAN'T conceal... meaning that we HAVE to open carry if we want to be armed. If these institutions (movie theaters, bars, schools, etc, etc) place "no firearms" signs because the open carry movement has generated enough buzz, then we have effectively demonstrated ourselves right out of the right to carry in these places.

    Since the places you mentioned above all restrict OC to CPL holders only... Wrong. The places I mentioned are not restricted to CPL holders only, but rather we are restricted from conceal carrying. A movie theater, for instance (one of the places I mentioned), does not require a CPL to open carry within. You cannot, however, conceal carry there. Bars and schools (as I mentioned), require a CPL to open carry, but you cannot conceal carry.

    I am proposing that we lift the conceal carry restrictions in all of the above.


    "No Firearms" signs in Michigan do not in and of themselves make carrying a firearm illegal, rather it just provides notice that the owner does not want firearms on the premises. I understand this. However, then we face the high probability of dealing with the inconvenience of being asked to leave. In the cases with movie theaters, bars, schools, etc... if we are limited to ONLY open carrying, we run a very high probability of being unwelcome. However, if we are given the legal option to conceal, then we can remain armed while going about our business unabated. Hence the reason for my proposal to lift the conceal carry restrictions.

    I agree with you here, especially since the law allows other “non law-enforcement” CPL holders that right. A member of a Posse or a Dept. of Corrections guard has no general police powers but yet, in the interest of providing a means to protect themselves, they are allowed unrestricted CPL CC carry. If you agree with me here, then you agree with everything I have written up until this point. This paragraph (that you agree with) merely summarizes my support based on everything written up until this point.

    I think you have misunderstood or miscontrued much of what I've written, however.

    I agree, see previous response. But later, you are saying no carrying of firearms w/out a CPL, so isn't that "permission". I never say this anywhere, because I do not support it. What you may be misunderstanding are my thoughts about what private property rights mean. If a private property owner does not want firearms on their premises, then they CAN refuse you entry by openly carrying. However, having a CPL would circumvent the issue. In other words, having a CPL in these cases would be a privilege, as we can circumvent corporate policies prohibiting firearms.

    I am not saying I believe we should have a CPL to carry. Carrying is our RIGHT. What I'm saying is that if private property rights preempt our right to carry, THEN we should be able to invoke CPL privileges to carry anyway. Out of sight, out of mind. What they don't see, they can't enforce upon us. But with the current CPL restrictions, we don't always have this privilege.

    This is the meat and potatoes of what I'm saying.

    This is the way it is currently, as a “No Firearms Sign” does not make the carrying of firearms illegal in Michigan. Currently, if the store owner sees your firearm, he could ask you to leave and not come back. So what is the difference between current law and what you are proposing??? I think you misunderstand current law regarding signage... I understand this is how the law is. For sake of clarification, I am merely reiterating it so that it is understood that I think it should remain unchanged. In addition, I'm seeking clarification on the law if/when someone who is carrying concealed, despite a "no firearms" policy, draws and fires their weapon. If a bank says "no firearms", you can still conceal carry. But if a bank robber comes in and you engage them... what liabilities have been created as a result of you disregarding the sign? I'm seeking clarification on this; and if the liabilities are unfavorable to the CPL holder, to change them in such a way that they are more in line with that of an off-duty LEO in that our CPL has given us a privilege to do something that most other segments of society are unable to unless/until they have earned that privilege. (Note: Do not confuse this issue with the RIGHT to carry. I am speaking about privileges to conceal carry when private property rights preempt your right to carry).

    Again, the important thing here is that Michigan makes it illegal to conceal in some areas. I am simply explaining how the law already has provisions for conceal carry... so why not extend them to these currently "illegal" zones.


    So, you will be asking that they not change the law, and that in the meantime we won’t OC. No.

    If you are proposing that they change the legally restricted, no cc zones, I support that we do ask that they be changed. Yes.

    However, I would support that change upon the fact that currently, individual citizens, with NO POLICE POWERS, are allowed by virtue of their job or volunteer activities to CC in legally restricted areas while other non-police officer citizens are not. Equality before the law would, I believe, be a more cogent argument.
    I think we support the same end result, but on different grounds. For me, equality in the law is a dangerous path; because then we may only back our legislators into a corner to say "Fine... CC is illegal (in said zones) for EVERYONE. Now you're equal." As long as precedence has been established that makes it "okay" for Congress to deem these areas "illegal", I think we should be fighting to overturn it on grounds other than "Well he gets to do it, so why not me?"

    Any mother can tell you how this works. Two kids fighting over a game. Brother A complains to mom that Brother B gets to play it longer than he does. Mother gets tired of hearing the complaining and simply says, "Well NOBODY gets to play it now. Go outside." I'm simply saying that all of the parties who have staunch opinions in this matter should stop trying to outdo eachother and simply find a compromise so that we're all happy.

    Let's stop beating stores over the head that don't allow open carry. It's their right to prohibit that, if they wish. While we may not like it, we have no legal basis to force them to do anything different. So I'm proposing that we refocus those energies on lobbying our lawmakers to lift restrictions on conceal carry so that we can continue to remain armed. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell.

    What is the difference between OC and “CC with notification that I am carrying”? Exactly my point. There is no difference; either way you're armed. I suggested this is a tactic to get STORES to understand this. For instance, the next time a store manager asks someone to conceal their gun, instead of saying "No, because the law allows me to open carry..." maybe say, "Does a hidden gun make me any less "dangerous" than an exposed gun?" The idea is to change the way react, and in turn, to provoke more thought in the minds of these folks.

    As property owners, they could, even with any legal changes, tell you to leave immediately. Sure they could. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason. Maybe they don't like your shoes? I understand this.

    I'm saying, however, that when corporate responds to an inquiry with something like "Our policy is to prohibit firearms yadda yadda yadda..." to respond with, "Fine... you don't want to see firearms on your premises; so I guess I'll just make sure I hide mine whenever I shop there." The idea is to show them how stupid their thought process is... that a visible firearm is somehow more dangerous. By telling them "Fine, I'll just hide my gun when I come in from now on", you invoke thought. In their mind they're probably thinking, "Great... now how do I stop guns from entering my property?" The answer is: They can't. So why would they want to stop law-abiding citizens from carrying? Even more curious, if they're really so "afraid" of guns, why would they not want to know who is carrying them? At least with open carry, you know who's armed. With conceal carry, they have no idea and will have to wonder who, in their store, is armed.

    If they turn around and say, as a result of your response, that YOU specifically, are banned. THEN I would call for a boycott, 20,000 names long, to get them to understand that they are alienating gun owners.

    But as long as a store is willing to concede you the privilege to conceal carry, then I don't think we should be beating them over the heads. Beating them over the heads over their personal property RIGHTS isn't much different than folks beating us over the heads over our right to carry. I think we should respect their rights, even though we disagree with them. Only when they demonstrate a mentality that is too far to one side (COMPLETE disregard for 2A rights by banning someone who is a CPL holder from entering), would I call for an all out "attitude adjustment".

    All this discussion can currently take place. It can, but it doesn't happen a lot. Ny belief is that some of the stores are too far left, and some of us OC'ers are too far right. When two groups are on two opposite ends of an extreme, nothing gets accomplished. I'm saying that next time a store asks you to conceal, and you are a CPL holder, to go ahead and do it. But in doing so, to provoke thought. Say, "Yeah... I guess I'll go ahead and conceal but only because I have a CPL. You should know, however, that carrying a gun without permission is a right and that not everyone can conceal. The next person you ask to conceal may not be legally permitted to do so... you could be alienating people for doing nothing more than excersizing a Constitutional freedom. Let me ask you, by the way, why you feel safer by someone hiding a gun in their pocket than you do with someone carrying a gun in a visible holster?"

    This, in opposition, to putting up an argument and threatening to boycott their store. THIS is the compromise that I'm speaking about. To meet folks halfway on the issue for the purpose of helping them to better understand the matter.

    Also, if you don’t feel comfortable OCing, then do what you are proposing… this requires no change to the current situation.
    I don't feel uncomfortable OCing. This isn't about mine, or anyone elses, comfort level. It's about a group of people trying to accomplish a goal. I'm proposing that folks meet on common ground when interacting with others. It is not my desire for someone to threaten a store with a boycott... a store that I might shop at... because they don't allow open carry. I believe that all this will do is push the store to adopt more strict policies. If an OCer in Ohio pushes Meijer corporate too far, that could affect what we're trying to do here in Michigan.

    Whenever an OCer interacts with others, they very well might be forming a lasting impression, in that persons mind, that will affect how they view every OCer for the rest of their lives. I want our reputation to be one that's positive, friendly, and willing to compromise in return for said same. I AM NOT WILLING TO COMPROMISE MY RIGHTS. Understand that. I am, however, willing to accept other people's rights to deny me entry to their establishment for open carrying IF they are willing to consider the issue, and in the meantime, not bust my chops about conceal carrying. And while I know that they won't know if I'm conceal carrying or not; I would TELL them I am to help them understand that the "threat level" doesn't change just because I hide my gun. I'm still safe, whether they can see my gun or not.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    This is not entirely correct. LE is (on or off-duty) expected to respect the rights of a businesses that are posted, unless they are in the course of their duties.
    Police officers, even when off duty, can carry weapons in many places that you or I cannot; albeit concealed. An off duty police officer can conceal a gun in a bar, movie theater, stadium, school, etc, etc.

    A weapon that remains concealed gives a property owner no cause to believe you are violating their "no firearms" provision. If they don't know, they can't enforce it upon you. Add to this, the fact, that carrying a concealed firearm despite a "no firearms" sign on private property does not mean you are breaking any law. You are trespassing, at best, and that's only if you saw the sign and entered, or were asked to leave and refused.

    An off duty police officer can be asked to leave an establishment just as easily as any one of us. And yet they still have the privilege of carrying (concealed or otherwise) many places that we don't.

    I stand by my assertion.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Since the places you mentioned above all restrict OC to CPL holders only... Wrong. The places I mentioned are not restricted to CPL holders only, but rather we are restricted from conceal carrying. A movie theater, for instance (one of the places I mentioned), does not require a CPL to open carry within. You cannot, however, conceal carry there. Bars and schools (as I mentioned), require a CPL to open carry, but you cannot conceal carry.
    A non CPL holder can not carry a firearm in a theater.

    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  15. #15
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    So basically, you are saying that you are going to ask the legislature to change the law as regards CC in legally... To lift the restrictions, yes. Why can you OC in theater, school, bar, etc but not CC? It doesn't make sense. It's a useless restriction.

    And I agreed w/ you that the CC restrictions are ridiculous but your "compromise" is equally so.

    ...restricted places... On the contrary: To lift restrictions on places that we, currently, CANNOT CC. We already need "permission" to open carry in certain places (by obtaining a CPL first); yet even though we must obtain the CPL to open carry, we do not have the option to conceal carry. My charge is that by FORCING us to open carry and making illegal to conceal carry, we empower the property owners to completely prohibit pistols by saying "no firearms". "No firearms' signs can be averted by simply concealing. But if concealing is illegal, then we are SOL.
    I think you are mixing a "business owner" w/ a legally restricted area. If we get rid of the CPL CC prohibited zones, which I agreed with, this issue would be gone.

    ...make no changes in regards to private businesses... No real "change", per se... just a better understanding of ramifications. If a business has a sign that says "no firearms", I will not open carry there. I may, however, choose to conceal carry. My proposition is for the law to clearly explain what my responsibilities are when choosing to conceal carry despite a "no firearms" sign. I believe that, with all of the background checks that are made in regards to CPL holders, that we should have the privilidge to conceal carry in despite of "no firearms" signs... just as a peace officer can open carry in said same.

    ...and in return, we **promise** not to OC??... No. What I'm saying is that we shift our focus from strictly open carry to focusing on the subject of proliferating our 2A rights. If a business owner does not want you to open carry, you can't do anything about that. I'm saying, instead of boycotting them, to find a compromise with them to allow conceal carry. And if they won't compromise on that, well, then to decide to boycott if you must.

    I think the argument can be made that CC should be allowed in currently restricted areas by CPL holders for two logical reasons: 1, CPL holders can, with few exceptions, OC in those places currently. If they can OC, why not allow CC? Precisely what I have said.

    and 2, Currently, although law enforcement officers are allowed to CC in “CPL No CC Zones”, so are others who have NO PEACE OFFICER PRIVELEGES and don’t need to be even “on-duty”: judges, reserve police officers, private detectives, posse members, parole officers, probation officers, motor carrier officers, capitol security officers. I'm aware. But for sake of not "over-explaining", I limited my example to peace officers. Listing every party would confuse the subject.

    I think the listing of non-LEO exceptions ARE important, as this is very strong argument for removing the CPL CC prohibitions.

    Is it legal to give citizens, who are not peace officers, the right to carry but deny that right to others who may have a more legitimate reason to fear they may be harmed by others? I don’t think so. We're not talking about GIVING RIGHTS. Nobody GIVES anyone a RIGHT. We are born with them. I am talking about granting privilidges. We all have the right to carry; period. My discussion on conceal carry deals with privilidges. While, personally, I don't think that carrying a gun in any manner (concealed or open) is a privlidge, but rather a right; our legislators disagree. They continue to view conceal carry as a privlidge. Until this changes, then I am proposing making the privilidge more universal, practical, and useful.
    Facetious reply... as I have emphatically stated and you have failed to understand... I THINK THE CPL RESTRICTIONS NEED TO GO.
    I don’t mean to be overly critical, but your proposal is terrible. I'd think so too if I misunderstood as much as you have.

    I disagree... it is you who don't understand what you are proposing. Signage regarding firearms has no affect in making a behavior illegal. The case law is clear and so is the MCL.... no confusion on my part. You say you will compromise by "allowing: cc in businesses if there is a sign there... not illegal now. So you are getting nothing in regards to businesses. In regards to CPL NO CC Zones, you say that you wnat to be able to legally CC, I agreed emphatically. In return you are proposing that... oops, I don't see anything specific that you are proposing. Perhaps I missed it... what are you proposing for this allowing CC by CPL holders everywhere? Just that we will only CC? (I don't think you are because you are just "promising" to CC... yeah, government agents never uphold a "promise" by force of law.

    Other than changing the current legally prohibited CC zones for CPL holders, your proposal basically does nothing but severely restrict 2A rights. Negative. It empowers us to carry in more places that are currently deemed "restricted" (I agreed with you here) or that could become restricted by a sign that says nothing more than "no firearms". "NO FIREARMS" SIGNS DO NOT MAKE A CARRYING FIREARMS ILLEGAL!!!!!! What you are proposing is we would ask far legislative decree (Rgulation) as what power such signage has. The only change would be that it would have the force of law... ie illagal to carry w/ a sign displayed, which based on "property rights" issues, many legislators may support doing.

    To tell you the truth, if CPL ownership became a necessity in order to carry a firearm strike *openly or concealed** (which is basically what you are proposing) This is not anywhere CLOSE to what I'm proposing.

    But is a possibility. For example, I have a cpl and walk into a store w/ signs posted. Currently, no law is broken. But, if we do as you propose and ask the legislature to decide the ability of signs to make a behavior illegal, and they decide that it does as some other states have, now you have turned a legal bahavior into an illegal one. NO thanks.

    The outcome after following your proposal is worse than current law where I would only violate it if concealed in very specific areas and if openly, I have broken no law. And, I have broken no law for CC or OC in a business that prohibits firearms, if I leave when I am asked.

    If this is not what you are proposing, then
    please tell me EXACTLY what you ARE proposing. If you could, very simply state the change that you are proposing to current law, and the "possible" compromise you are proposing on the CPL holder's part. Because the way I see it, instead of going off on a tangent and declaring your misunderstanding of law regarding signage and allowing the strong possibility of further regulation, why not simply state:

    "I am proposing that we change the law to state that "OC is not permitted in the current "CPL Restricted Areas" and in return we are allowed to CC". Is this what you are proposing? See 29 words and doesn't broach the issue of signage, because Michigan does not make the "NO FIREARMS" signs have the force of law.


    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    Veritas,

    What I think you are proposing is for guns owners to stay in the closet until we get all our gun rights back. I'm fine with any business that wants to ban firearms, but we have had more luck getting large corporations to welcome lawful carry than there are those that oppose it. And if they do oppose it we can try and change that policy.

    In my experience the only place I have been asked to cover was a Mom and Pop coffee shop, guess what? there are thousands of places I can get coffee. It's really more common with the small stores. Granted there are some large retail stores that may ban firearms, but we're stillworking on changing their policy.

    I think the OC movement has done far more good than bad in regards to firearm rights.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    Veritas wrote:
    DrTodd wrote:
    Since the places you mentioned above all restrict OC to CPL holders only... Wrong. The places I mentioned are not restricted to CPL holders only, but rather we are restricted from conceal carrying. A movie theater, for instance (one of the places I mentioned), does not require a CPL to open carry within. You cannot, however, conceal carry there. Bars and schools (as I mentioned), require a CPL to open carry, but you cannot conceal carry.
    A non CPL holder can not carry a firearm in a theater.

    You're right and I stand corrected. Not sure what I was thinking about.

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I have a bigger problem w/ the sign issue... just leads to a possible decision we don't like. Also, since people don't want to get CPL or can't afford, what do they do under Veritas' proposal. Too many hopes for the legislature to uphold granting more privileges and, if we give in on any point, it opens the door for further regulation.

    Instead of compromise, let's argue using the illogic of not prohibiting concealed carry for some citizens w/ a CPL, with no special job-related need to carry, while forcing others to openly carry, even if they are specifically threatened and are unable to legally cc in some places. It seems a specific threat trumps a general privelege, and it would be even wiser to just have no legally restricted areas where cc is prime facie illegal.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    And I agreed w/ you that the CC restrictions are ridiculous but your "compromise" is equally so. That's your opinion. Although my opinion is that my right to open carry is no more important than a property owner's right to prohibit open carry. The compromise here is that I will respect their right to prohibit open carry (by not arguing with them or boycotting them) in exchange for their compromise to not give me a hard time about conceal carrying (even though they're aware that I'm armed).

    I think you are mixing a "business owner" w/ a legally restricted area. If we get rid of the CPL CC prohibited zones, which I agreed with, this issue would be gone. I am ABSOLUTELY mixing them, because when you mix a "non-conceal zone" with "property rights", then end result could very easily be "complete firearms ban". My desire is to avoid this.

    ...make no changes in regards to private businesses... No real "change", per se... just a better understanding of ramifications. If a business has a sign that says "no firearms", I will not open carry there. I may, however, choose to conceal carry. My proposition is for the law to clearly explain what my responsibilities are when choosing to conceal carry despite a "no firearms" sign. I believe that, with all of the background checks that are made in regards to CPL holders, that we should have the privilidge to conceal carry in despite of "no firearms" signs... just as a peace officer can open carry in said same.

    I think the listing of non-LEO exceptions ARE important, as this is very strong argument for removing the CPL CC prohibitions. Agreed. My argument is that a CPL has earned us the privilege of carrying in a similar manner as a LEO. If an off-duty LEO, private detective, judge, etc, etc can conceal carry in a bar, why can't we?
    I disagree... it is you who don't understand what you are proposing. Signage regarding firearms has no affect in making a behavior illegal. I do understand this. There is no point in arguing it. You simply do not understand what I'm saying; either because you are misreading it or because I am not explaining it thoroughly.

    The case law is clear and so is the MCL.... no confusion on my part.
    You say you will compromise by "allowing: cc in businesses if there is a sign there... not illegal now. So you are getting nothing in regards to businesses. I understand the law. What I'm proposing is that we ACCEPT that CC is legal and not beat businesses over the head to change their policy on OC. I'm saying to accept what we have and not to try to force businesses to accept our right to open carry. But in doing so, to make sure they know that we will still be armed, albeit concealed. My hope is that the realize the absurdity of "no firearms" policies and realize that they can't stop them, so they may as well join the effort to educate (or, at the very least, to stay out of the way).

    In regards to CPL NO CC Zones, you say that you wnat to be able to legally CC, I agreed emphatically. In return you are proposing that... oops, I don't see anything specific that you are proposing. Perhaps I missed it... what are you proposing for this allowing CC by CPL holders everywhere? Just that we will only CC? (I don't think you are because you are just "promising" to CC... yeah, government agents never uphold a "promise" by force of law. I am not proposing anything with the government. Rather, I am proposing a shift in our paradigm.

    If a store asks an OCer to leave, our knee jerk reaction is to boycott them. I'm saying we should rethink this. To respect their personal property rights and not to place our right to carry any higher on the totem pole then their rights. I'm saying that, if so permitted, to go ahead and agree to conceal... but in doing so, to make sure the store knows you may still choose to arm yourself, but will not consent to any questioning or searches regarding a hidden firearm. And then, and only then, if the store discriminates against you for being a CPL holder, to boycott and make a fuss.

    "NO FIREARMS" SIGNS DO NOT MAKE A CARRYING FIREARMS ILLEGAL!!!!!! By themselves, no. But when you cannot legally conceal, and a store prohibits you from openly carrying; you are effectively DISARMED. This is all I'm saying. You keep trying to divide the issues of "property rights" and "CPL restrictions" while I am trying to point out the detriments of what happens when they are mixed together.

    What you are proposing is we would ask far legislative decree (Rgulation) as what power such signage has. I am not. I am asking for legislative protection for a CPL holder who enters private property, despite a "no firearms" policy, and pulls their gun out to fire it. Obviously, I am not seeking to protect law breakers, but rather to seek legislative clarification (and to protect, if necessary) a CPL holder who makes his weapon visible (and fires it) in protection of himself and others when a private property owner, under law, has said "no firearms".

    In essense, I am seeking the same legislative protection (if it does not already exist) for CPL holders in these zones as an off-duty LEO would have.

    But is a possibility. For example, I have a cpl and walk into a store w/ signs posted. Currently, no law is broken. For sake of argument, I'll agree (even though, technically, you have trespessaed... but you can play stupid and pretend you didn't see the sign). Part of what I'm proposing is to remove the threat of being charged with trespassing by having a CPL; just the same that a LEO wouldn't be charged for trespassing (or could they?) for doing the same.

    But, if we do as you propose and ask the legislature to decide the ability of signs to make a behavior illegal, and they decide that it does as some other states have, now you have turned a legal bahavior into an illegal one. NO thanks.
    This is not any part of my proposal. I'm not asking lawmakers to give signs more power; but rather to give our CPL's more power. The power, for instance, to enter (without fear of being charged with trespassing) carrying a concealed weapon. Once the weapon becomes visible, then I'm all for being charged with trespassing. UNLESS that weapon became visible while using it to protect yourself or others.

    On the contrary of making these signs more powerful, I'm seeking to make them NOT APPLICABLE to CPL holders; just as they are not applicable to other "privilieged" segments of society (i.e. law enforcement, judges, PI's, etc). I am proposing that the power of the signs remain UNCHANGED as they apply to open carriers; because private property rights should not have to take a back seat to someone's right to carry UNLESS THEY HAVE OBTAINED A LICENSE (just like police, judges, private investigators, CPL holders, etc).


    "I am proposing that we change the law to state that "OC is not permitted in the current "CPL Restricted Areas" and in return we are allowed to CC". Is this what you are proposing? See 29 words and doesn't broach the issue of signage, because Michigan does not make the "NO FIREARMS" signs have the force of law.
    Because this is not what I'm proposing. To change the law to make OC illegal in certain areas (unless you have a CPL) effectively infringes our right to keep and bear arms.

    For instance, I think it's a violation to tell us we can't open carry in bars, liquor stores, movie theaters, etc UNLESS we "get permission first" (CPL). These are CPL restricted areas, are they not? I'm proposing that we scrap that whole thing... make it legal to open carry, without restriction, UNLESS the property owner says we can't. At which point, a CPL could be used to avoid the private property restrictions.

    The reason why the issue of signage is raised is because it IS an issue. If you are legally prohibited from concealing, then to make weapons outright BANNED in public places (private property) would only require a sign. Yes, I know that that the practice of CARRYING the gun, despite the sign, is not illegal... but you are still breaking the law (trespassing) and can still be asked to disarm or leave under threat of same violation of law (trespassing).

    Are you willing to endure countless trespassing violations in oder to arm yourself? I'm not sure I want that hassle. This is why the issue of signage MUST be raised in addition to the issue of CPL restrictions and priviliges.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Laingsburg, for the time right now., Michigan, USA
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever. because i will not be able to get a cpl for another few years, because i got a driveing while lic suspended ticket a few years back, and i got another three or four more years to wait before i can get a cpl.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    I have a bigger problem w/ the sign issue... just leads to a possible decision we don't like. You're focusing on giving the sign more power over the CPL, and I'm focusing on giving the CPL more power over the sign. I think that's the difference between our perspectives.

    I'm not asking for lawmakers to consider redefining what a sign means, but to consider redefining what a CPL means. The signs "power" (for lack of a better word), for all intents and purposes, will remain unchanged. Only the CPL's power will change... as in the power to avoid prosecution for trespassing (or any other prosecutions that may come from needing to legally use your weapon in defense of yourself and others) for choosing to conceal.

    Also, since people don't want to get CPL or can't afford, what do they do under Veritas' proposal. Too many hopes for the legislature to uphold granting more privileges and, if we give in on any point, it opens the door for further regulation. This doesn't just apply to CPL holders. I'm calling for the opening of firearm carrying in all areas that currently require a CPL. Schools, bars, movie theaters, etc. But only if weapons are OPEN CARRIED in such places. Currently, you NEED a CPL to open carry in these places. I'm saying we should scrap that... I'm saying that a CPL should have nothing to do with the practice of open carrying; that it should deal with CONCEAL carry ONLY. In addition to making it legal to open carry in these places without a CPL, I propose that the CPL lift the restrictions that currently prohibit us from concealing in said same.

    So these folks who can't afford CPL's would now be Constitutionally-protected in open carrying their pistol in Meijer (or other liquor stores), movie theaters, etc. without comitting a felony. And, in the event that these private property owners put up a sign that can charge you with trespassing for open carrying, that a CPL holder should be able to circumvent that by conceal-carrying in said same without committing felony CCW.

    I propose allowing the property owners the right to post signs preventing open carriers from entering without being charged with trespassing (as things currently stand... I am merely proposing that it remains unchanged). NOTE: I am not suggesting these signs make it illegal to carry a firearm, but rather. they make it illegal for YOU TO ENTER with a firearm. There are no firearms violations, but you would be trespassing. I support protecting private property rights in this manner.

    However, I support that those with CPL's should be able to disregard these signs in public places (I'm talking about places open to the public, but that are privately owned, which is different from private residences), as we can already. But I seek to add the element of protection for CPL holders only (as part of our earned privilige) of not facing charges of trespassing (or any other offense), if we are to draw our weapon in defense of ourselves or others.

    This is pretty much it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    This is not entirely correct. LE is (on or off-duty) expected to respect the rights of a businesses that are posted, unless they are in the course of their duties.
    Police officers, even when off duty, can carry weapons in many places that you or I cannot; albeit concealed. An off duty police officer can conceal a gun in a bar, movie theater, stadium, school, etc, etc.

    A weapon that remains concealed gives a property owner no cause to believe you are violating their "no firearms" provision. If they don't know, they can't enforce it upon you. Add to this, the fact, that carrying a concealed firearm despite a "no firearms" sign on private property does not mean you are breaking any law. You are trespassing, at best, and that's only if you saw the sign and entered, or were asked to leave and refused.

    An off duty police officer can be asked to leave an establishment just as easily as any one of us. And yet they still have the privilege of carrying (concealed or otherwise) many places that we don't.

    I stand by my assertion.
    Veritas, I did not say you were wrong nor am I disagreeing with you. I simply mentioned you were not entirely correct. Yes, I am fully aware of the legalities of No Firearms signs with respect to CPL holders here in Michigan while frequenting a posted business. I completely understand the frustration involved with CPZ's, especially, for CPL holders. IOW, don't shoot the messenger, mmmkay?

  23. #23
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    I think you need to research property rights, and then come back to your idea. I could discuss this until I'm blue in the face, but without this understanding, you will not see the folly of your endeavor. I understand what you are trying to do but it is really an impossibility. There is absolutely no way that property rights will be lessened to the degree you wish... it even is not as weak as you aver in regards to the LEO on the premises.

    Like I said, the argument for the removal of all no carry zones (CPL or not) is very strong, and other restrictions on carrying firearms are also logically questionable, if not violative of 2A rights.

    But you are asking to solve another problem which I believe does not exist. If you find any information to the contrary by way of recent court cases, I'm listening. Show me a number of cases where signage, firearms, and trespassing have come into play in any business, and I may support your argument. Until then, I think you are potentially creating a huge problem.





    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    390JOE wrote:
    with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever.
    I agree. And if this were the case (which I hope it becomes), then what good, really, would a CPL be?

    Right now, we realistically "need" CPL's to carry. Unless you're walking everywhere you go (to work, to school, to the store, etc), or you are disarming yourself and storing your weapon for transport every time you get in a vehicle, you pretty much need to have a CPLt o carry. If you plan on grocery shopping in most stores (that sell liquor), you need to have a CPL to carry.

    These are all situation in which you should be able to carry, without prior permission from the State, in accordance with 2A rights. If this became the case (and I again, I support it becoming so), then why would many people go through the hassle of getting a CPL? Most probably wouldn't... not unless they really just had an aversion to open carrying. And I suppose there are many people out there, for whatever reason, that prefer to conceal carry rather than open carry. For these folks, going through the hassle of getting a CPL may be justified. But I believe that MOST people get a CPL because they THINK they need it to carry, or they simply realize that it's just EASIER to carry with one. I am certainly one of those people... I have a CPL only because it's EASIER to carry... not because I think I need it, or because I have an aversion to my pistol being visible.

    All this aside, even if lawful (open) carry became legal everywhere, those who live in repressive communities or have dealings with anti 2A businesses are still not out of the woods. Someones local theater might put up a "no firearms" sign. A rural Walmart, the only store in town, might do the same. Maybe your friendly, neighborhood, bank says "No Guns". This is where a CPL would come in handy. Now folks have the ability to lawfully conceal their firearms and enter these businesses. If they're not being searched at the door (such as they might at a concert venue or some bars), the property owners don't know you're armed, and therefore have no cause to pursue trespassing charges against you; or to make you choose between protecting yourself or conducting busnesses that may be necessary in your life. Score one point for the CPL for allowing you to be armed, despite "house rules" that forbid you to enter with a gun.

    These would be situations in which private property rights are being upheld (no firearm "exists" if they never know you have it), but that your CPL privilige has allowed you to remain protected. Same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

    Now, you're in one of these repressive community stores when a gunman comes in opening fire. You are concealing a pistol, and in defense of yourself and others, you draw it and return fire. You're the hero of the day... except for one problem: You have trespassed by bringing a firearm onto the premises, even though the owner's sign said "NO". It may be a slap on the wrist, but you still face charges.

    A CPL should protect you from this; same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

  25. #25
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    390JOE wrote:
    with my understanding of oc we should be able to open carry when ever, where ever, and how ever.
    I agree. And if this were the case (which I hope it becomes), then what good, really, would a CPL be?

    Right now, we realistically "need" CPL's to carry. Unless you're walking everywhere you go (to work, to school, to the store, etc), or you are disarming yourself and storing your weapon for transport every time you get in a vehicle, you pretty much need to have a CPLt o carry. If you plan on grocery shopping in most stores (that sell liquor), you need to have a CPL to carry.

    These are all situation in which you should be able to carry, without prior permission from the State, in accordance with 2A rights. If this became the case (and I again, I support it becoming so), then why would many people go through the hassle of getting a CPL? Most probably wouldn't... not unless they really just had an aversion to open carrying. And I suppose there are many people out there, for whatever reason, that prefer to conceal carry rather than open carry. For these folks, going through the hassle of getting a CPL may be justified. But I believe that MOST people get a CPL because they THINK they need it to carry, or they simply realize that it's just EASIER to carry with one. I am certainly one of those people... I have a CPL only because it's EASIER to carry... not because I think I need it, or because I have an aversion to my pistol being visible.

    All this aside, even if lawful (open) carry became legal everywhere, those who live in repressive communities or have dealings with anti 2A businesses are still not out of the woods. Someones local theater might put up a "no firearms" sign. A rural Walmart, the only store in town, might do the same. Maybe your friendly, neighborhood, bank says "No Guns". This is where a CPL would come in handy. Now folks have the ability to lawfully conceal their firearms and enter these businesses. If they're not being searched at the door (such as they might at a concert venue or some bars), the property owners don't know you're armed, and therefore have no cause to pursue trespassing charges against you; or to make you choose between protecting yourself or conducting busnesses that may be necessary in your life. Score one point for the CPL for allowing you to be armed, despite "house rules" that forbid you to enter with a gun.

    These would be situations in which private property rights are being upheld (no firearm "exists" if they never know you have it), but that your CPL privilige has allowed you to remain protected. Same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.

    Now, you're in one of these repressive community stores when a gunman comes in opening fire. You are concealing a pistol, and in defense of yourself and others, you draw it and return fire. You're the hero of the day... except for one problem: You have trespassed by bringing a firearm onto the premises, even though the owner's sign said "NO". It may be a slap on the wrist, but you still face charges.

    A CPL should protect you from this; same as an off-duty LEO, judge, private investigator, etc, etc.
    A sign has no power in and of itself, whether you have a CPL or not, so the point is moot.

    Nothing will inherently protect you from charges... they can charge anything. Like I said, I agree on the no carry zones and, if looked at logically, they will be defeated. But to ask that the signage issue be explored has the potential for huge problems with no possible benefit. The the only place signage MAY come into play is an "entertainment facility", and there are ways around that. A place is only prohibited by law or by the owner specifically informing you that it is prohibited. You can change the law, but the owner will always have the right to ask you to leave. That is all. They can not successfully prosecute someone for ignoring these signs... if they can, please cite and I will reconsider. You are asking for an assurance which can not be provided.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •