Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Concealed Weapons Amedment Rejected by Senate

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Regular Member malignity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,101

    Post imported post

    It's extremely dangerous policy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noting that her state demands fingerprinting, federal background checks, a course of training, and verification by a local sheriff before issuing a permit to carry a concealed gun.

    What a crock of . Seriously? If I leave the state of Michigan, all of a sudden I'm more likely to commit crime in another state? Right.
    All opinions posted on opencarry.org are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of opencarry.org or Michigan Open Carry Inc.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    if you think thats bad, you should hear what the gov? of new york had to say about us.:shock:

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote: One more battle lost by the NRA!

    First, the Sotomayor debacle....now this...

    For all we know, the NRA secretly supported defeat of this amendment for its own nefarious aims.

    It would not surprise me in the least!



  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
    Nothing passed, therefore nothing changes.

    Welcome to OCDO Hercprsound. Please add your location under your username. Go to My Account and then to Profile.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    SpringerXDacp wrote:
    hercprsound wrote:
    Ok does anybody understand what will happen to the reciprocity and recognition that we had? does it still exist, or no? I have a book titled "2009 travelers guide to the firearm laws of the fifty states" by Scott kappas. in the back of this book there is a state by syate list of states that recognize permits from other states. Is this now irrelivent??
    Nothing passed, therefore nothing changes.

    Welcome to OCDO Hercprsound. Please add your location under your username. Go to My Account and then to Profile.
    I dont get it, If this diddnt change anything then what did it do? it seems like a big deal

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    36

    Post imported post

    I went to account then profile, but Im not sure how to get my location on here

  9. #9
    Regular Member drew68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    if you think thats bad, you should hear what the gov? of new york had to say about us.:shock:
    I'd like to know what the gov of new york said.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    hercprsound wrote:
    SNIP
    I dont get it, If this diddnt change anything then what did it do? it seems like a big deal
    For example, Iowa and Nebraska,does not recognize CPL's from Michigan and if this Bill became Law then Michigan CPL holders would be allowed to carry in those states.

    The Bill was rejected and therefore will not become Law. So now, we're right where we were before the Bill was even created.





  11. #11
    Regular Member UtahRSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    146

    Post imported post

    Found this aboutNew York Senator Gillibrand.

    "Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand moments ago issued the following statement on the concealed carry amendment introduced by Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota:


    I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful measure and side in favor of law enforcement and state’s rights. I strongly believe that the gun laws that are right for New York are not necessarily right for South Dakota, and vice versa."
    My comment: Is the reason stricter gun laws areright for New York becausepeople in South Dakota are better people and don't need the strict gun laws? Of course not!

    Senator Gillibrand should be ashamed for her statement.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Macomb County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    If you think thats bad you should have listened to Bloomberg:

    "This bill is an anti-police, pro-gun-trafficker bill," Bloomberg said on the eve of the vote. "It is a bill that will make the police's job much more difficult and much more dangerous, and it will make the streets of our country -- not just big cities, it's small towns as well -- it will make them much more dangerous than they have to be."

    Welcome to the socialist states of America. The comments are preposterous!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072202893.html

  13. #13
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Post imported post

    Although I tepidly supported this measure, I think that people on both sides of the issue are ascribing too much importance to this. I don't think it's failure is a huge loss, just as I feel that it's passage would not have been a huge gain. Had this passed, States would have been free to change their CC laws to even more oppress their citizens who CC (and visitors w/ licenses), and would have done nothing for those in states not issuing permits.
    If we can get the SC to "incorporate" the 2nd amendment to the states, I think some of the "gun control" issues that brought this forward would be decided as "unconstitutional", and we get away from the notion of giving special privileges to "some".
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    To me, the issue isn't about safety or crime blah blah blah. We all know that's a bunch of horse crap anyway.

    No... for me, the issue is State's rights. Call me crazy, but I'll support voluntary reciprocity, but not federally-mandated recognition of another State's CPL laws.

    Until carrying concealed is recognized as a Constitutional RIGHT, then States have the liberty of requiring permission to conceal. It violates a State's rights when another State is allowed to grant permission for folks to carry within their borders.

    For the record, I believe that "keeping and bearing arms" is NOT limited to "visible arms". Keeping and bearing can be concealed, as well. Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid it, then it is our right. However, States have found a way to turn that right into a privilege. We have to fight one battle at a time... and winning a victory that violates State rights in order to proliferate a privilege that SHOULD be a right is really not any sort of victory. It simply further degrades the Constitution.

    This bill should never have been introduced. No State has the right to dictate how another State regulates it's privileges. A REAL bill would seek to declare, on a FEDERAL level, that concealed carry is Constitutionally protected... this way no State can label it as a privilege, and therefore avert these inter-State squabbles.

    My two cents... you can keep the change.

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

    Post imported post

    Veritas wrote:
    To me, the issue isn't about safety or crime blah blah blah.* We all know that's a bunch of horse crap anyway.

    No... for me, the issue is State's rights.* Call me crazy, but I'll support voluntary reciprocity, but not federally-mandated recognition of another State's CPL laws.

    Until carrying concealed is recognized as a Constitutional RIGHT, then States have the liberty of requiring permission to conceal.* It violates a State's rights when another State is allowed to grant permission for folks to carry within their borders.

    For the record, I believe that "keeping and bearing arms" is NOT limited to "visible arms".* Keeping and bearing can be concealed, as well.* Since the Constitution does not specifically forbid it, then it is our right.* However, States have found a way to turn that right into a privilege. * We have to fight one battle at a time... and winning a victory that violates State rights in order to proliferate a privilege that SHOULD be a right is really not any sort of victory.* It simply further degrades the Constitution.

    This bill should never have been introduced.* No State has the right to dictate how another State regulates it's privileges.* A REAL bill would seek to declare, on a FEDERAL level, that concealed carry is Constitutionally protected... this way no State can label it as a privilege, and therefore avert these inter-State squabbles.

    My two cents... you can keep the change.
    I agree 100%... only changing "concealed carry" to both cc AND Open Carry... but still, would be the best way to move beyond the bs...
    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    662

    Post imported post

    DrTodd wrote:
    I agree 100%... only changing "concealed carry" to both cc AND Open Carry... but still, would be the best way to move beyond the bs...
    Yeah I sort of failed to make the distinction there: RTKBA should apply to ANY manner of carrying, concealed or open.

Posting Permissions

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