Important Pro-Gun Bills to be Considered in Michigan on Tuesday!

imported post

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. "
-- Mark Twain (1866)

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Nothin like steppin on Private property rights!

Click to expand...

You mean like Smoking bans in bars, etc. The government can tell private property owners to outlaw smoking (Not a right), but they won't stand up for a right (Firearm possession). Don't get me started.:banghead:

imported post

Venator wrote:

You mean like Smoking bans in bars, etc.

Click to expand...

smoking bans in bars?!? now i dont smoke... but i'd like to see where that is...

and i dont see this as stepping on private property rights. actually... its giving us our private property rights back. my vehicle is MY private property and anything in it is my private property.

sure... you could tell me to keep my private property off your private property. no problem. but as an employeer... providing parking for my private property, you shouldn't be able to control whats inside of my private property that you allowed me to put onto your private property.

so as long as its in my private property... they shouldn't worry about it. its just like if you had some friends in your vehicle with you. you get stopped. your friends had illegal drugs in your vehicle. according to law enforcement/law(i believe)... its considered your private property! and only because its inside of your private property and you control what is in your private property. its your responsibility.

imported post

viperar15 wrote:

Venator wrote:

You mean like Smoking bans in bars, etc.

Click to expand...

smoking bans in bars?!? now i dont smoke... but i'd like to see where that is...

and i dont see this as stepping on private property rights. actually... its giving us our private property rights back. my vehicle is MY private property and anything in it is my private property.

sure... you could tell me to keep my private property off your private property. no problem. but as an employeer... providing parking for my private property, you shouldn't be able to control whats inside of my private property that you allowed me to put onto your private property.

so as long as its in my private property... they shouldn't worry about it. its just like if you had some friends in your vehicle with you. you get stopped. your friends had illegal drugs in your vehicle. according to law enforcement/law(i believe)... its considered your private property! and only because its inside of your private property and you control what is in your private property. its your responsibility.

Click to expand...

Smoking bans are all over the country and has been proposed in Michigan. I can't remember where but one town even banned smoking in your own backyard. Google smoking bans.

imported post

Venator wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

Nothin like steppin on Private property rights!

Click to expand...

You mean like Smoking bans in bars, etc. The government can tell private property owners to outlaw smoking (Not a right), but they won't stand up for a right (Firearm possession). Don't get me started.:banghead:

Click to expand...

First they have not been able to pass that yet, until they do they have not violated any rights.

Who said smoking is not a right? remember the 9th Amendment.

The government tells people what to do all the time, doesn't mean it is right.

I am against the smoking ban, & I don't smoke.

I am for the Employer retaining his right to his private property rights. He has to try and keep his liability insurance premiums down, he has a right to believe that not allowing fire arms on the premises will make for a safer work place.

I work at a shop that does not allow "weapons", on paper, but has allowed me to keep a firearm in my P.O.V., regardless he has a right to his belief, I don't agree with it but then again I don't have to work there. He doesn't owe me a job.

Remember the B of R is to limit government it does not protect your rights on some ones Private Property.
"Just debating, Not arguing...

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Venator wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

Nothin like steppin on Private property rights!

Click to expand...

You mean like Smoking bans in bars, etc. The government can tell private property owners to outlaw smoking (Not a right), but they won't stand up for a right (Firearm possession). Don't get me started.:banghead:

Click to expand...

First they have not been able to pass that yet, until they do they have not violated any rights.

Who said smoking is not a right? remember the 9th Amendment.

The government tells people what to do all the time, doesn't mean it is right.

I am against the smoking ban, & I don't smoke.

I am for the Employer retaining his right to his private property rights. He has to try and keep his liability insurance premiums down, he has a right to believe that not allowing fire arms on the premises will make for a safer work place.

I work at a shop that does not allow "weapons", on paper, but has allowed me to keep a firearm in my P.O.V., regardless he has a right to his belief, I don't agree with it but then again I don't have to work there. He doesn't owe me a job.

Remember the B of R is to limit government it does not protect your rights on some ones Private Property.
"Just debating, Not arguing...

Click to expand...

Aaah yes that pesky 9th Amd.

imported post

JUST AN FYI

A letter to a Michigan Representative from the NRA on this Bill.

Dear Representative:

On behalf of our Michigan membership, we strongly urge you to support HB 5302 (Opsommer) and HB 5303 (Sheltrown). These important bills strengthen the Second Amendment rights of Michigan citizens and employees by allowing them to store their guns in locked vehicles in parking lots without retribution from employers.

Lawfully stored firearms in vehicles allow thousands of Michigan citizens to have a safe and secure place to store their guns while at work. Many of these individuals are either CPL holders or hunters who responsibly secure their guns in vehicles during the workday.

These bills passed the House Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee on a vote of 9-1. Now, a few companies have insisted on complete exemptions, denying the rights of lawful gun owners to lock their guns in their own personal vehicles in parking lots.

Forty-eight states have adopted concealed carry laws with an impeccable success during the last 25 years, and in the last few years, 10 of these states have adopted parking lot storage laws to accommodate gun owners. Additional states are planning to introduce this legislation in 2010.

This issue is of great importance to our members, and we have made this our top legislative priority for 2009. Please vote for HB 5302 and HB 5303, unamended.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Darin Goens
NRA-ILA, MI State Liaison

imported post

Venator wrote:
Smoking bans are all over the country and has been proposed in Michigan. I can't remember where but one town even banned smoking in your own backyard. Google smoking bans.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ahhh... ok. yea... you can't smoke on your own porch in CA (if i remember correctly).

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

PDinDetroit wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

Nothin like steppin on Private property rights!

Click to expand...

Agreed! Like stepping on the private property rights in my vehicle.

Click to expand...

Don't bring your vehicle to their private property, your not being forced to park there.

Click to expand...

I am forced to unless I wish to:

A) Leave my career with this company and industry (12+ Years).

or

B) Pay for Public Parking ($250+ per month), which is only available at 1 of the 2 locations I work from currently.

I have seriously considered option B, but pay-cuts this year have made that impractical.

The question I ask: Should their (A) private property rights (parking lot) overrule my (B) private property rights (vehicle)?

I agree it is a difficult question and a slippery slope. If A overrules B, then they can specify everything in your own personal vehicle be "their way" (music type you listen to, gas octane rating usage, etc). The automakers have done this to some degree by forcing "other brand owners" to park in farther away parking lots, but were unsuccessful in keeping them off property completely (so there are some limitations).

There must be a balance of some sort on this. I believe that HB 5302 is a good balance - it allows people to carry firearms in their vehicle in the parking lot only, not anywhere else on property.

imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

PDinDetroit wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

Nothin like steppin on Private property rights!

Click to expand...

Agreed! Like stepping on the private property rights in my vehicle.

Click to expand...

Don't bring your vehicle to their private property, your not being forced to park there.

Click to expand...

I am forced to unless I wish to:

A) Leave my career with this company and industry (12+ Years).

or

B) Pay for Public Parking ($250+ per month), which is only available at 1 of the 2 locations I work from currently.

I have seriously considered option B, but pay-cuts this year have made that impractical.

The question I ask: Should their (A) private property rights (parking lot) overrule my (B) private property rights (vehicle)?

I agree it is a difficult question and a slippery slope. If A overrules B, then they can specify everything in your own personal vehicle be "their way" (music type you listen to, gas octane rating usage, etc). The automakers have done this to some degree by forcing "other brand owners" to park in farther away parking lots, but were unsuccessful in keeping them off property completely (so there are some limitations).

There must be a balance of some sort on this. I believe that HB 5302 is a good balance - it allows people to carry firearms in their vehicle in the parking lot only, not anywhere else on property.

Click to expand...

I don't know your particular case but I volunteered to fill out the application asking for a job. For a long time I had to park across the street in a party store lot, but as I came to respect the Whole Constitution as well as the 2nd I saw things a lil more different than others.
As a former Lib it was hard to take some of the things I learned as an adult by reading the Constitution, as oppossed to the things I was taught as a young adolescence in school, and from misinformed adults. If I had always looked at the Amendments this way I would have tried to find a job that was pro gun, or move to a city with like minded people etc.

Your Car moves you have the option to change location, Land & homes are stationary, that makes me at a disadvantage. If your vehicle over rides my property then you can come to my drive way and park. That I know is not fair & that is the bottom line. Fair has to be equal for all.

The auto makers cow towed to the unions on the parking issue.

As far as the bills, will they protect my boss from lawsuits when an employee goes out to his vehicle gets the fire arm and walks in and starts shooting unarmed workers?

imported post

As far as the bills, will they protect my boss from lawsuits when an employee goes out to his vehicle gets the fire arm and walks in and starts shooting unarmed workers?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually the following text is in the bill, if you had read it you would know. Excerpt:

(4) Except in cases of gross negligence, a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of another person's act involving a firearm or ammunition that is transported or stored as described in subsection (1).

imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:

As far as the bills, will they protect my boss from lawsuits when an employee goes out to his vehicle gets the fire arm and walks in and starts shooting unarmed workers?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually the following text is in the bill, if you had read it you would know. Excerpt:

(4) Except in cases of gross negligence, a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of another person's act involving a firearm or ammunition that is transported or stored as described in subsection 4

Click to expand...

Gross negligence? That sounds like thousands of dollars in attorney fees to fight that in court. This is just another way for lawyers to make even more money.

I see no protection from insurance rates soaring because of the risk.

Civil Only? sounds like another way for lawyers to make their way into my boss's wallet.

Bottom line it is an intrusion of his Private property

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. James Madison.

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

PDinDetroit wrote:

As far as the bills, will they protect my boss from lawsuits when an employee goes out to his vehicle gets the fire arm and walks in and starts shooting unarmed workers?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually the following text is in the bill, if you had read it you would know. Excerpt:

(4) Except in cases of gross negligence, a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of another person's act involving a firearm or ammunition that is transported or stored as described in subsection 4

Click to expand...

Gross negligence? That sounds like thousands of dollars in attorney fees to fight that in court. This is just another way for lawyers to make even more money.

Gross Negligence is not easy to prove IMO. Example: They would have to prove that a specific person had displayed Violent Tendencies in the workplace over multiple occurrences and the company did nothing to deal with the issue BEFORE an actual shooting took place.

I see no protection from insurance rates soaring because of the risk.

There are a number of states (Oklahoma being the first) that have passed this law, so it should be easy to research. Can you support your supposition that Insurance Rates will indeed soar?

Civil Only? sounds like another way for lawyers to make their way into my boss's wallet.

This is the way a company would be sued! http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/suing_being_sued/lawsuit_civil.htm

Bottom line it is an intrusion of his Private property

It is also an intrusion on the private property rights within my vehicle!

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. James Madison.

Nice quote. Now explain just how someone's property is being seized and put into service for others by the bill if it becomes law. Note: "Into Service", IMO, means that the property owner no longer benefits from the property in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

No one has "absolute rule" on property under their control, there are still many laws/regulations/etc that must be abided by. If we did, then I could kill all the deer I want at any time on property under my control. Property owners are told what to do with their parking lots all the time, especially when it comes to things like the Americans with Disabilities Act (not that I necessarily agree).

Oh, by the way, neither my company nor my client own the parking area I currently utilize - they have leased the space. There is nothing from the parking area owner posted as to firearms or ammunition being not allowed there. The only regulations about this are from both my company and my client as to "No Firearms" on the premises under their control on company internal websites (wording is slightly different).

imported post

PDinDetroit wrote:

conservative85 wrote:

PDinDetroit wrote:

As far as the bills, will they protect my boss from lawsuits when an employee goes out to his vehicle gets the fire arm and walks in and starts shooting unarmed workers?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually the following text is in the bill, if you had read it you would know. Excerpt:

(4) Except in cases of gross negligence, a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or state service agency is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of another person's act involving a firearm or ammunition that is transported or stored as described in subsection 4

Click to expand...

Gross negligence? That sounds like thousands of dollars in attorney fees to fight that in court. This is just another way for lawyers to make even more money.

Gross Negligence is not easy to prove IMO. Example: They would have to prove that a specific person had displayed Violent Tendencies in the workplace over multiple occurrences and the company did nothing to deal with the issue BEFORE an actual shooting took place.

I see no protection from insurance rates soaring because of the risk.

There are a number of states (Oklahoma being the first) that have passed this law, so it should be easy to research. Can you support your supposition that Insurance Rates will indeed soar?

Civil Only? sounds like another way for lawyers to make their way into my boss's wallet.

This is the way a company would be sued! http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/suing_being_sued/lawsuit_civil.htm

Bottom line it is an intrusion of his Private property

It is also an intrusion on the private property rights within my vehicle!

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism. James Madison.

Nice quote. Now explain just how someone's property is being seized and put into service for others by the bill if it becomes law. Note: "Into Service", IMO, means that the property owner no longer benefits from the property in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

No one has "absolute rule" on property under their control, there are still many laws/regulations/etc that must be abided by. If we did, then I could kill all the deer I want at any time on property under my control. Property owners are told what to do with their parking lots all the time, especially when it comes to things like the Americans with Disabilities Act (not that I necessarily agree).

Oh, by the way, neither my company nor my client own the parking area I currently utilize - they have leased the space. There is nothing from the parking area owner posted as to firearms or ammunition being not allowed there. The only regulations about this are from both my company and my client as to "No Firearms" on the premises under their control on company internal websites (wording is slightly different).

Click to expand...

I believe my company has the exact same situation. Just to clarify if the company does not own the land outright then they can not restrict firearms in your car in the parking lot correct? May be a dumb question but confirmation would be nice.

imported post

Private Property over rules all state laws on Possession. there fore if the congress pass this law it will be unconstitutional period.

I never said private property over rules state law on killing! there is a law against killing, but there is no law that says a man has to let you bring your car on his private property, so there for he can tell you not to bring your car, gun, papers, or anything you might consider private property.

Sounds as if you can bring your car and your gun to work if your employer does not own the lot. so congrats!

imported post

I believe my company has the exact same situation. Just to clarify if the company does not own the land outright then they can not restrict firearms in your car in the parking lot correct? May be a dumb question but confirmation would be nice.

Click to expand...

Nope, not a dumb question in my book.

It would depend upon the Lease Contract. I am not able to gain access to the one in question in my case. My bet is that they have something like this covered since it is "premises under their control", which I believe a lease provides for.

Both the MI Senate and MI House Of Representative have similar bills to HB 5302. It is likely to pass both, IMO.

imported post

Private property: We will fire you for self-defense at work. This is a life-free zone.
Private property: We will fire you for not being nude at work. This is a clothes-free zone.

Which is more of a fundamental right? Being alive? Or being clothed?

Private property rights are not some monolith which we should all bow down to, even if it gets us killed or gravely injured. Nobody has the right to order me to "lay down and die" - no matter the position of power they are in. Whoever does should go straight to life in prison with the criminals they love and want to protect so much.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Private property: We will fire you for self-defense at work. This is a life-free zone.
Private property: We will fire you for not being nude at work. This is a clothes-free zone.

Which is more of a fundamental right? Being alive? Or being clothed?

Private property rights are not some monolith which we should all bow down to, even if it gets us killed or gravely injured. Nobody has the right to order me to "lay down and die" - no matter the position of power they are in. Whoever does should go straight to life in prison with the criminals they love and want to protect so much.

Click to expand...

Then don't work there, no one is forcing you to go there. You don't have a right to work there!
Private property rights are just as important as the 2nd, that's why it is protected by the 4th amendment.
Last but not least, the Bill of Rights Limits Government against intrusion of private citizens rights/property. It does not protect you from private citizens.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

N6ATF wrote:

Private property: We will fire you for self-defense at work. This is a life-free zone.
Private property: We will fire you for not being nude at work. This is a clothes-free zone.

Which is more of a fundamental right? Being alive? Or being clothed?

Private property rights are not some monolith which we should all bow down to, even if it gets us killed or gravely injured. Nobody has the right to order me to "lay down and die" - no matter the position of power they are in. Whoever does should go straight to life in prison with the criminals they love and want to protect so much.

Click to expand...

Then don't work there, no one is forcing you to go there. You don't have a right to work there!
Private property rights are just as important as the 2nd, that's why it is protected by the 4th amendment.
Last but not least, the Bill of Rights Limits Government against intrusion of private citizens rights/property. It does not protect you from private citizens.

Click to expand...

In other words, go homeless and die from exposure or starvation. Again, nobody has the right to order me to "lay down and die" - no matter the position of power they are in.

I said rights, which pre-exist the Constitution, but if you want to bring the numbers into it... The 4th? Even if you meant the 4th, no other amendment ends with "... shall not be infringed." In other words, no other amendment trumps staying alive. Without being alive, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. The Founders understood being alive trumps everything, and to ban life is to wage war against humanity, and the U.S., inclusive.