Normally, I would let a post containing what I believe to be a "rant" slide on by. I slept on it prior to responding and still feel I need to respond to it. There are elements of the post, along with PM's sent by same, that are directed towards myself that I feel need to be addressed other than by PM. So, here we go!
Has anyone FOIA'd MCOLES, MML, MAC, and held their feet to the fire? I don't remember seeing anything about it. So far, all I've seen is people screaming, "It's the law! It's the law!". Nor have I read any filed complaints to the commandant of the MSP.
Sounds like good suggestions, although they haven't been made until now - WHY???
Please expand upon how and what you FIOA these organizations for and detail actions to be taken with each to help achieve compliance with MCL 123.1102. I am interested in how one would attack the problem utilizing these methods, so we all can use this in future efforts.
BTW - your supposition about "all you have seen is screaming" about the issue is not supported by direct fact. If it was true, Royal Oak would not have voted to change the Festival Contract by a slim 4-3 vote due to direct efforts by multiple organizations' members (OCDO, MOC, MGO).
I think this is just another case of people looking to government to solve their problem, rather than trying to do it themselves (no offense PDdetroit). It's the same mentality of passing a law banning guns in order to stop murder, when murder is already illegal. Just like all gun laws, the were allowed because the people expected someone else to do their dirty work in protecting their rights.
Well, I do take offense Sir since I am the one who has suggested this action, took up the action, and posted a possible solution on multiple sites. These statements above, and expressed in PM, do indeed attack my "mentality" by comparing my thought processes, intent, and approach to that of an ANTI-GUN PERSON.
Is this really how you see me and what I am suggesting?
Additionally, you state that this is a case where "I want government to handle the problem for me". How do you reconcile this with your own statement above of "Nor have I read any filed complaints to the commandant of the MSP"? This statement suggests you do believe that there is a "time and place" where government should intervene on behalf of We The People. I also believe this where appropriate. I did not suggest only the government to handle this as is evidenced by inclusion in the changes for persons initiating Civil Actions to be reimbursed for costs!
The changes I have suggested compel specific officials to enforce the CURRENT LAW, not make NEW LAW TO BAN OR ALLOW ANYTHING (lone exception for ammunition components). I believe it is a waste of time for us to be forced to go to each "local unit of government" to ensure compliance with MCL 123.1102 where there are more important issues to spend limited resources on.
Are you for doing away with our government?
The 2nd Amendment to the USC prohibits any of this.
Article I, Section 6 prohibits any of this.
MCL 123.1102 prohibits any of this.
So, since they choose to ignore any of that, lets pass another law, thereby demonstrating that it isn't a right (because we need regulation to protect it, and rights need no such protection since they are guaranteed). And of course, we'll expect them to honor that new law, since they ignored all the other ones. This isn't how you hold our leaders and servants feet to the fire. It's how you bow down.
You sir are naive to think that rights need no protection. All of the LAWS you stated above are meant for just that purpose. It is OBVIOUS that the BILL OF RIGHTS was proposed and passed TO ENSURE RIGHTS PROTECTIONS.
I propose both INDIVIDUAL ACTION and CHANGES TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW. My proposal is backed-up by direct facts by my postings here on OCDO.
Sir, it is offensive that you infer I am "bowing down" to government in any shape, form, or manner. My direct actions speak otherwise.
Are you allowing radical thoughts to impair your view of reality?
How much money does doing this cost? How much money does a FOIA cost (ask Stilly how much New Era's FOIA cost)? How much money has been spent on hot dogs, gas, trifolds (my gun shop prints theirs on their own paper with their own ink, and he did it before I even told him where to find it), and other miscellaneous items. How much money has been spent on pens, key chains, and anything else. How many of us have contacted federally licensed lawyers to see their take (outside the ones posted by our former prez.)?
Again, I believe it is a waste of time for us to be forced to go to each "local unit of government" to ensure compliance with MCL 123.1102 where there are more important issues to spend limited resources on.
I have discussed this with lawyers on both MGO and through the Optional Legal Coverage I elected to use from my work. The result? The actions of a "local unit of government" in this instance do not rise to a "Criminal Level" and will have to be addressed by Civil Actions. These legal opinions are backed up by Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. City Of Chicago being Civil Actions as well, actions that went all the way "up the chain" to the US Supreme Court.
The changes I propose TO ENSURE ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW are comprised of exactly this - Civil Actions. In these proposed changes, it also includes that COSTS DUE TO ACTIONS OF A PERSON be reimbursed if successful where today there is no such protection. It is obvious that this will help to engage Persons and Lawyers willing to take on a "local unit of government" in civil actions, thereby "holding their feet to the fire".
BTW - this is OCDO, not MOC. To date, I have yet to become an MOC Member and do not even have an ID on their site, although I do work closely with those who are members.
Don't get me wrong. I've thought this very same sort of line before about, "putting teeth into 123.1102." Thing is, there are already "teeth" in the law, so putting more in will do no more good than those already in place if we refuse to use them. All it will do is demonstrate that we are still willing to appeal to them who already violate us.
If there truly were "teeth" in this law, then we have had almost 20 YEARS OF NON-COMPLIANCE by "local units of government". To me, it is obvious that it is not working. I believe the proposed changes and our actions to date clearly state "we will not stand idly by while you trample our rights".
Before someone yells, "But we already tried that!", stop and realize that there are more than one way to skin a cat.
There is a picnic/charity this coming Saturday in the middle of the LP. It's location is central, so it should be accessible to all (carpool anyone). There have already been press releases on it. People leave fliers at all the sporting goods stores, and all the gun shops.
Do we only want to reach gun owners? We used to look forward to engaging people who weren't necessarily anti-gun, but yet were because they'd been programed by society. And, when we engage them in a civil manner, they would move over to our side. Now, people seem to have lost that skill of persuasion, so they resort to talking down to people who, "just don't know any better, but I'll help you.", and say, "Well, it's the law, so you have to do it.". What you don't win with diplomacy, you can take with force, but with force you will alienate people. Before you try to say that this line of thinking is defeatist, or "not fighting for our rights out of fear", stop. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean I can't. When I see someone on a comment section or message board spouting off about how they should respect our rights, and "it's the law" (the theme is always the same that basically the "poor libtard/sheeple" doesn't know any better), I don't even bother because that is a form of force used to subject others. Again, just because your (not any particular individual) can't do it, doesn't mean that everyone else is equally lacking.
First of all, I could care less what someone's political bent/slant is. I try my level best not to let my political stances come into play here on OCDO. By doing so, I take one more "argument point" out of the equation when dealing with others. I also refused to comment on other issues to ensure the "waters were not muddied" (like the Royal Oak Medical Marijuana Issue).
You say it is up to We The People to hold government's feet to the fire to follow the law. Then, you turn around and state we will alienate people by stating "it is the law" and forcing it to be followed. Can you clarify this for me?
I will utilize the Royal Oak ABE Festival Contract Issue as an example here. You insinuate we have lost the skill of persuasion but yet we prevailed in this effort by doing exactly that while presenting ourselves professionally in the City Commission Meetings and in the Media. The Mayor of Royal Oak even stated to our members that "maybe it was not such a big deal after all". We have now educated many thousands of persons that OC is Legal in Michigan. We have members of the news media who are actually DEFENDING our position on this and who have partnered with us in specific instances. We have many freedom-loving persons who have "come out of the woodwork" to support us. Every News Article that I can find to date has stated that "firearms at the ABE Festival were no issue at all". Every person in my business and personal "circles" has stated support for this effort, most of whom are not Gun Owners at all! The direct evidence again is contrary to your statements.
All this being said, I am hopeful you will review what I have written and take it into consideration. I asked you via PM to review this specifically because I value your input. Due to your recent postings and PM's, I am beginning to rethink that position.
) ), I've sent you a PM.