DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
He was at a range I was at a few years ago. He is not only pro-2a, he owns and uses firearms... and he's also a very good shot.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Royal Oak Further Attempts to Usurp Second Amendment Rights
- Thread starter PDinDetroit
- Start date
He was at a range I was at a few years ago. He is not only pro-2a, he owns and uses firearms... and he's also a very good shot.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
I was hopin ghe would run too, I have a feeling if Bernero wins it will not be good for the 2A in MI. Not sure where Snyder stands.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
Yep I remember when he promised that he would guide Jen on 2A matters..
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
I guess Royal Joke has an unlimited war chest of money to spend on legal battles, and the eventual payouts. Maybe I need to take a drive and stroll in Royal Joke to see if they will violate my rights.
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
This quote goes well with Royal Oak's attempts to steal and dismantle our liberties, and rights. The shoe fits now wear it Royal Oak.
" The Smell of the Weimar
Republic is in the Air "
-Gore Vidal
" The Smell of the Weimar
Republic is in the Air "
-Gore Vidal
FatboyCykes
Regular Member
Thank you Dr.Todd, while a registered R, I find myself, like much of America, leaning much more Libertarian, than I ever thought I would. Both parties are rotten, both parties are made up of politicians, in it to win. While I will never claim that there isn't a clearly defined difference between the parties and their political/social agendas, we need to be reminded that we're dealing with people, imperfect and fallible human beings. I appreciate your examples to those who would pull a full party ticket w/o realizing who their voting for.
Michigander
Regular Member
Also don't forget that Bush didn't do almost anything for gun owners. The token measures he signed that I can think of are nation wide police carry, and NICS check destruction, which means nothing when you consider 4473's.
Obama has him beat by signing the carry at National Parks law.
But I think the real measure of the concern of freedom and security that a president might have, indeed a direct indication of his support or hostility towards the constitution itself, is whether or not he signs the Patriot act. Both Bush and Obama have made that pretty clear for us.
Obama has him beat by signing the carry at National Parks law.
But I think the real measure of the concern of freedom and security that a president might have, indeed a direct indication of his support or hostility towards the constitution itself, is whether or not he signs the Patriot act. Both Bush and Obama have made that pretty clear for us.
Slave
Regular Member
Sad. I hope Michigan doesn't cave and change our preemption law.
I know I harp on people here for assuming that repubs are the magical party of gun rights, but this just goes to show, that no party is pro 2A, just individuals.
We need to start rallying and hitting our senate now and make sure they know that a vote for removing preemption is a vote for the candidate who will bring it back. No matter what the party is.
It's still funny that Dr. Todd posted and smashed the whole perception that Libs are gonna take our guns and Cons are gonna save them
I know I harp on people here for assuming that repubs are the magical party of gun rights, but this just goes to show, that no party is pro 2A, just individuals.
We need to start rallying and hitting our senate now and make sure they know that a vote for removing preemption is a vote for the candidate who will bring it back. No matter what the party is.
It's still funny that Dr. Todd posted and smashed the whole perception that Libs are gonna take our guns and Cons are gonna save them
stainless1911
Banned
Good post.
Unless they are completely blind, they won't change it. The law was made to help to avoid confusion and conviction of the law abiding as they move around in a free state. Modifying the law would be self defeating. In more ways than one. Removal of the PFZs would be the next logical step.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
I could be wrong, but didn't Bush sign the Nation Parks carry law first, then a judge put a stay on it? Bush also signed the bill that stopped gun manufactures from being sued when someone uses their product to commit a crime, a very important bill if you ask me. All Obama has really done is sign the Amtrack bill with teh Vitter Amendment
Edit- here a link to when Bush signed Nat'l PArk carry bill-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20081205/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_guns_national_parks
Last edited:
autosurgeon
Regular Member
I don't know why so many people hated or hate Bush. He wasn't perfect but at least he spoke his mind and didn't let polls guide his every move.
And yes He backed the original Nat Park carry order.
And yes He backed the original Nat Park carry order.
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
Is there any way to find out how many municipalities have jumped on the bandwagon for trying to change MCL 123.1102? I'm thinking of a letter to my State Reps that local municipalities are using the gun control issue to transfer the power of the Legislature to make laws to themselves.... eventually leaving the field wide open to what ever gun control ordinances each and every village, city, township, county, wants to enact.
Of course it wouldn't be worded exactly like that... but the implication would certainly be clear.
But it would be necessary to know how many municipalities are involved. It would be nice to know what organizations... LE, civic, etc., have signed on as supporters too.
I just don't have the resources to find out all that stuff...
Of course it wouldn't be worded exactly like that... but the implication would certainly be clear.
But it would be necessary to know how many municipalities are involved. It would be nice to know what organizations... LE, civic, etc., have signed on as supporters too.
I just don't have the resources to find out all that stuff...
sasha601
Regular Member
Also, guys, please remember that George Bush refused to sign AWB extension and let it to expire. This how we got or hi cap mags back cheap and now we do not have to castrate our black rifles to make them legal.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
Actually, he supported the AWB and said he would sign a new one if congress gave it to him. He did not "push" for a new one though, and the republican led congress wansn't eager to send him one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/assault.weapons.ban/index.html
Last edited:
sasha601
Regular Member
That is true. I forgot.
Jerbear1098
Regular Member
Didn't Ferndale try this and MCRGO won in the Michigan’s Court of Appeals ?
MCRGO vs Ferndale. 2003
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=18&zoneid=100
Above is the link to their victory for the exact same thing. I guess the cities don't talk to each other. Ferndale and Royal Oak is right next to each other. Doh !!!! :banghead::banghead:
*** PRESS RELEASE ***
MCRGO Wins Ferndale Lawsuit!
Michigan’s Court of Appeals in a unanimous, lengthy opinion reminds local government of its proper role.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) is pleased to announce that Michigan’s Court of Appeals has found in favor of properly licensed residents who choose to carry in accordance with strict state laws. In 2001, the city of Ferndale adopted an ordinance prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying their licensed, inspected firearms in City buildings. MCRGO immediately filed suit on behalf of Michigan sportsmen and women everywhere. While the Circuit Court found in favor of the ordinance, today Michigan’s Court of Appeals announced, “Ferndale’s ordinance is pre-empted by State law and, consequently, we reverse.”
MCRGO Director Chuck Perricone was appreciative of the unanimous decision. “Local governments are of course entitled to a reasonable level of sovereignty, but not where State law already exists or when their action conflicts with constitutional rights.” Perricone shepherded the passage of Michigan’s Concealed Carry Law during his tenure as Speaker of the House. “Ferndale burned through significant tax dollars on this. It’s the criminals carrying illegally they should be focusing on, not the law-abiding citizens that their own local gun boards approved.”
MCRGO President Dr. David Felbeck was more blunt: “It’s a shame that a private, non-profit group of Michigan citizens such as MCRGO is compelled to file an expensive lawsuit to stop locally elected officials from ignoring state law.” With respect to the lawsuit itself, Dr. Felbeck went on to state, “Michigan’s firearms owners need to know that MCRGO is the only group that cared enough to defend their rights in court.”
Michigan’s legislature passed the Firearm Preemption Law in 1990 (MCL 123.1102) to prevent local governments like Ferndale from passing ordinances that restrict firearm ownership. Carol Bambery, MCRGO’s Corporate Counsel, was responsible for the lawsuit and argued her case just this past January. “Today, the Court of Appeals has unanimously held that the Legislature’s enactment of 123.1102 prohibited the enactment of such local ordinances,” she said. She went on to point out that, “since this is a published decision, all such local ordinances are now illegal.”
Since the enactment of Ferndale’s ordinance, MCRGO has filed suit in a number of jurisdictions to preserve the state’s ability to prohibit the enactment of local ordinances in patchwork fashion. State Senator Alan Cropsey, a long-time advocate of CCW and MCRGO Board Member, stated, “This is a tremendous victory for the right to bear arms in self defense. I am proud to serve on the Board of the only organization that had guts enough to stand up and take these oppressive local governments to court.”
State Representative Sue Tabor, Chair of the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee, expressed the same sentiment. “Thank goodness MCRGO was willing to fight for our rights. That dedication is why I’m proud to sit on their Board.”
MCRGO counts over 32,000 members statewide. Founded in 1996, the group was the leading state-based advocate of CCW and is now regarded as a potent political force. MCRGO continues to work closely with citizens and legislators to develop new safety and training initiatives while defending rights set forth in the state and federal constitutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Gillam has his work cut out for him again, and he's b!tching he has no help in his office due to budget cuts. Drinkwine should be the real culprit that needs to have the heat put on. It was his idea for this crap anyway.
Sorry, rant over...
MCRGO vs Ferndale. 2003
http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=18&zoneid=100
Above is the link to their victory for the exact same thing. I guess the cities don't talk to each other. Ferndale and Royal Oak is right next to each other. Doh !!!! :banghead::banghead:
*** PRESS RELEASE ***
MCRGO Wins Ferndale Lawsuit!
Michigan’s Court of Appeals in a unanimous, lengthy opinion reminds local government of its proper role.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) is pleased to announce that Michigan’s Court of Appeals has found in favor of properly licensed residents who choose to carry in accordance with strict state laws. In 2001, the city of Ferndale adopted an ordinance prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying their licensed, inspected firearms in City buildings. MCRGO immediately filed suit on behalf of Michigan sportsmen and women everywhere. While the Circuit Court found in favor of the ordinance, today Michigan’s Court of Appeals announced, “Ferndale’s ordinance is pre-empted by State law and, consequently, we reverse.”
MCRGO Director Chuck Perricone was appreciative of the unanimous decision. “Local governments are of course entitled to a reasonable level of sovereignty, but not where State law already exists or when their action conflicts with constitutional rights.” Perricone shepherded the passage of Michigan’s Concealed Carry Law during his tenure as Speaker of the House. “Ferndale burned through significant tax dollars on this. It’s the criminals carrying illegally they should be focusing on, not the law-abiding citizens that their own local gun boards approved.”
MCRGO President Dr. David Felbeck was more blunt: “It’s a shame that a private, non-profit group of Michigan citizens such as MCRGO is compelled to file an expensive lawsuit to stop locally elected officials from ignoring state law.” With respect to the lawsuit itself, Dr. Felbeck went on to state, “Michigan’s firearms owners need to know that MCRGO is the only group that cared enough to defend their rights in court.”
Michigan’s legislature passed the Firearm Preemption Law in 1990 (MCL 123.1102) to prevent local governments like Ferndale from passing ordinances that restrict firearm ownership. Carol Bambery, MCRGO’s Corporate Counsel, was responsible for the lawsuit and argued her case just this past January. “Today, the Court of Appeals has unanimously held that the Legislature’s enactment of 123.1102 prohibited the enactment of such local ordinances,” she said. She went on to point out that, “since this is a published decision, all such local ordinances are now illegal.”
Since the enactment of Ferndale’s ordinance, MCRGO has filed suit in a number of jurisdictions to preserve the state’s ability to prohibit the enactment of local ordinances in patchwork fashion. State Senator Alan Cropsey, a long-time advocate of CCW and MCRGO Board Member, stated, “This is a tremendous victory for the right to bear arms in self defense. I am proud to serve on the Board of the only organization that had guts enough to stand up and take these oppressive local governments to court.”
State Representative Sue Tabor, Chair of the Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee, expressed the same sentiment. “Thank goodness MCRGO was willing to fight for our rights. That dedication is why I’m proud to sit on their Board.”
MCRGO counts over 32,000 members statewide. Founded in 1996, the group was the leading state-based advocate of CCW and is now regarded as a potent political force. MCRGO continues to work closely with citizens and legislators to develop new safety and training initiatives while defending rights set forth in the state and federal constitutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like Gillam has his work cut out for him again, and he's b!tching he has no help in his office due to budget cuts. Drinkwine should be the real culprit that needs to have the heat put on. It was his idea for this crap anyway.
Sorry, rant over...
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
I've listed the bill of rights and the links showing G. Bush, Jr's opinion of each one... nuff said
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Speak_out__but_at_you.shtml
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
"Cheney breaks with Bush's Whitehouse" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803802.html?hpid=topnews
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2006/09/7867.ars
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/terror/main1462748.shtml
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
http://www.aclu.org/organization-ne...m-reaffirmation-rule-law-during-times-nationa
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/211033/23
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Of course as it stands now preemption is the law of the land. That doesn't mean that preemption can't be change via legislation.
Hence the ever vigilant portion of my sig line.
We must all keep an eye on this. The new weapon in our arsenal is the McDonald decision. It would be hard pressed for Michigan to start restricting our 2A rights after that decision. They can try, but it would be a tougher battle now.
coffee4meplz
Regular Member
I have been watching ABE since the start, I am proud of MOC, OCDO and all the American's that stood up to RO government. This is not just a win for 2a rights! It's a win that shows government officials that "We the People" are willing to stand our ground and fight for our god given and constitutional rights! "We the People" will no longer let government do things that are illegal! The press has made it about "Guns" , not the illegal activity of local governments! All Americans need to stand up and fight for our rights on all levels, not just the 2A.
What is really disturbing to me now, Royal Oak wants to pass PFZ for public buildings. I know there is case law and preemption but it's the fact of them trying to do it. When Government see's people standing up against them, they will try to limit or remove the activities of the citizens by creating new laws!
Since I have discovered "Open Carry" it has opened my eyes to so many other things. I refuse to be a sheep anymore. Thanks OCDO, MOC and all true American's for opening my eyes and ears!
What is really disturbing to me now, Royal Oak wants to pass PFZ for public buildings. I know there is case law and preemption but it's the fact of them trying to do it. When Government see's people standing up against them, they will try to limit or remove the activities of the citizens by creating new laws!
Since I have discovered "Open Carry" it has opened my eyes to so many other things. I refuse to be a sheep anymore. Thanks OCDO, MOC and all true American's for opening my eyes and ears!
sasha601
Regular Member
coffee4meplz,
I am glad that you refuse to be complacent anymore when governments try to violate our rights. think that one of the the biggest reason people do not take an active stand is because people do not believe things will change. Too many people believe the effort will be in vein. Not true. We are the force! We can change things for better. ABE incident proved it again