View Poll Results: Are you for these bills or against.

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    5 29.41%
  • No

    12 70.59%
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: HB 5972 & 5973

  1. #1
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    Yes or no

    Please do not include "well if they added this or took away that..."

    Simple, yes or no.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Against.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Against

  4. #4
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Against
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Post imported post

    Hell NO!
    “A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.” “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.” George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    If I answer "yes" to the poll would I be answering to the "for" or "against" option?

    The way I read it my answer might say "no, I am for or against these bills." :?

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. – Thomas Paine

  7. #7
    Regular Member Golden Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    SW Michigan
    Posts
    254

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    If I answer "yes" to the poll would I be answering to the "for" or "against" option?

    The way I read it my answer might say "no, I am for or against these bills." :?

    Bronson
    :?Good question... I'd say it's:

    For= yes

    Against = No
    The news media plays politics more than the politicians do.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    I really wonder about legislators who craft legislation that doesn't look at the big picture by ... let me give the benefit of the doubt... accident.

    I absolutely detest legislation that is intentionally carefully crafted so as to appear to give a benefit while actually having the exact opposite effect.

    I'm not sure if HB 5972 & 5973 were crafted by folks who didn't bother to look for unintended consequences by accident .. or if there was an intent to further the gun control agenda by making OC more difficult while in full knowledge of those un?intended consequences... and I do have my own opinion considering the strong negative reaction to OC from anti gun factions and government agencies... but this much I do know....

    I am dismayed that the average gun owner is so easily tempted by a fake carrot offered in legislation to the point of not carefully looking for the big stdick hidden inside.

    Forgot to add...

    I do NOT support these bills in any way shape or form. Major rewrites whould be necessary before they would resemble anything advantageous to "we the people's" right to "keep and bear arms".
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    538

    Post imported post

    Let's say that Michigan dropped all licensing requirements for the state, meaning elimination of both LTP and CPL, dropped the CCW laws and any other statutory penalties, and merely aligned with Article I, Section 6, in essence saying that anyone could carry in any form they desire.

    Would you all be against such legislational positioning, still, because of the issue of potential violation of the BS federal school zone law?

    It seems to me that even the above "gold standard" of the Michigan Constitution would still have this problem. Seen in this light, there's NOTHING that Michigan legislators can do to the federal school zone law, except to dance around it. Anyone know how Arizona and Vermont handle this?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    There exists the problem of carrying in other states without a CPL, but I guess I would handle the state as I would handle any other buisiness that refused to recognise my rights. I dont go there.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    how about a "license to have and carry", that replaces the pistol purchase permit.
    it would be free, it would be quick to get, and it would be shall issue.
    i would replace the PPP, but not the CPL.
    it would allow OC in PFZs just like a CPL.
    you would only need to get it once, instead of everytime you buy a gun.
    doing this would negate the need to overhaul all the other gun laws you have in Michigan.
    preserving all the good stuff, but not making any more bad stuff.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Oh, you must be referring to A2.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    Oh, you must be referring to A2.
    i have no idea what A2 is....
    dougwg,,, the question in the pool is not easy to figure out.
    am i for or against? well YES I am.. maybe i mean NO!

    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Amendmnt 2

  15. #15
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    Amendmnt 2
    i think i get you,,, the proposed rewrite that allows getting the PPP as a not required
    option, to affirm your right to the GFSZ.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    There exists the problem of carrying in other states without a CPL, but I guess I would handle the state as I would handle any other buisiness that refused to recognise my rights. I dont go there.
    There exists a problem of carrying in other states WITH a CPL, the exemption says you must be "licensed to
    do so BY THE STATE IN WHICH THE SCHOOL ZONE IS LOCATED"

    So, a resident of Florida, carrying with a Florida CCW permit, CAN carry within a school zone in Florida, a resident of Michigan carrying in Florida, (permit that Florida recognizes) with a Michigan CPL CAN NOT carry within a school zone in Florida
    Rand Paul 2016

  17. #17
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    how about a "license to have and carry", that replaces the pistol purchase permit.
    it would be free, it would be quick to get, and it would be shall issue.
    i would replace the PPP, but not the CPL.
    it would allow OC in PFZs just like a CPL.
    you would only need to get it once, instead of everytime you buy a gun.
    doing this would negate the need to overhaul all the other gun laws you have in Michigan.
    preserving all the good stuff, but not making any more bad stuff.
    Similar to a Firearms Owners ID card like they have in Illinois and (I think) New Jersey?
    Rand Paul 2016

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Thanks for pointing that out. Its appreciated.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,446

    Post imported post

    READ THIS ENTIRE DECISION (Excerpts below) United States v Tait (2000)
    http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

    It seems that even if the permit to purchase is done away with If Michigan law is okay with it, then the feds are too. I would love for people to comment on this. I know of a few attorneys that stated the even now Michigan doesn't qualify for the exemption (ii). I bet they haven't seen this case law
    This case answerstwo questions. Oneof whether a Michigan purchase permit counts for exemption (ii). Seems it does. Also it addresses the question that has come up before. If Michigan expunges a felony under state law does it also count in federal law? The answer seems to be yes.

    Feds recognises any states felon restoration rights.

    This Court finds that Michigan law provides for the automatic reinstatement of all civil rights of convicted felons following release from custody and completion of probation. Thus, once [the defendant] completed his sentence ..., all or essentially all of [his] civil rights-namely, his right to vote, to hold public office, and to serve on a jury-were "restored automatically by the force of the very [Michigan] laws that suspend[ed] them."

    Also it seems that any license to possess a firearm is counted as an exclusion from the 1000’ rule. In this case the person had a permit to possess a handgun issued in Michigan and Alabama and was in Alabama school zone. The court said the Michigan permit counted. It also states that if the state is happy with how they handle firearm possession then so is the fed. At least that’s my understanding. Read the decision for your self.

    The grand jury's second count against Tait charges him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) (the "Gun-Free Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm ... if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license....

    18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

    The Gun-Free
    School Zone Act dictates that Tait violated federal law via possessing a handgun in a school zone unless Tait was licensed by Alabama, and either Alabama or Escambia County verified that Tait was qualified to receive the license.5 As Tait did possess a handgun in a school zone, and Tait was licensed in Alabama, the issue boils down to whether Alabama or Escambia County adequately verified that Tait was qualified to receive the license.

    Alabama's licensing requirements are lenient: The sheriff of a county may, upon application of any person residing in that county, issue a qualified or unlimited license to such person to carry a pistol ... if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.

    Ala.Code 13A-11-75 (1975). The government argues that Tait's license is void for purposes of 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) for two reasons: first, because Alabama's requirements for verifying an applicants' qualifications are too relaxed to ever qualify their licensees for 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) protections; and second, because Tait was not a suitable person to be licensed under Alabama law. According to the government, these licensing deficiencies resulted in Tait receiving a void license which did not qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii).

    The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011-12, 141 L.Ed.2d 303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected.7

    The government next argues that Tait failed to qualify for an Alabama license, even under Alabama's lax standards, because Tait was not a suitable licensee. The government maintains that Tait was not suitable based on Alabama Code section 13A-11-72(a), which provides: "No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence shall own a pistol or have one in his ... possession or under his ... control." Ala.Code 13A-11-72(a) (1975). The government's argument fails due to a recent Eleventh Circuit opinion, United States v. Fowler, 11th Cir., 1999,
    198 F.3d 808 (1999). The Fowler court held, "Without an express limitation on the certificate restoring civil and political rights ..., under Alabama law the restoration of civil and political rights restores the firearm rights limited by 13A-11-72(a)." Id.

    The government tries to distinguish Fowler on two bases: first, that the defendant in Fowler received a written pardon restoring his civil rights (whereas Tait's civil rights were restored via operation of Michigan law); and second, that the Fowler case involved the interpretation of 922(g) rather than 922(q). Both distinctions are irrelevant. First, the Supreme Court held in Caron, "Massachusetts restored petitioner's civil rights by operation of law rather than by pardon or the like. This fact makes no difference." Caron,
    524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011, 141 L.Ed.2d 303. The critical issue is whether civil rights were restored unconditionally-not how the civil rights were restored. Tait's civil rights were restored, without reservation; thus Tait is entitled to the same protections as any other person without state-imposed limitations on his civil rights-including the protections of the 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception.

    As for the government's second point, the fact that this court was evaluating 922(g) rather than 922(q) in Fowler is entirely irrelevant. Utilizing Fowler's line of reasoning, this court holds that Tait's firearms rights were restored for purposes of exceptions to 922(g) as well as 922(q). Fowler held that a felon's right to firearms was completely restored for purposes of removing 13A-11-72(a) limitations. Fowler,
    198 F.3d 808. Tait's suitability for firearms licensing was equally restored. To hold otherwise would be non-congruous with Fowler. We therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed Count Two of the indictment against Tait.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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