Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: michigan constitution revising

  1. #1
    Regular Member kryptonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    248

    michigan constitution revising

    voted today. didn't OC. probably should have looked at sample ballot before i voted but i didn't. this had me having to make some quick decisions. one proposal i saw was one to revise the michigan constitution. as i read it the first thing i thought of was 'guess which law is going to change quick if that happens'. i didn't know it needed revisions. any thoughts? i of course voted NO. why give them a chance?

  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    You voted correctly... next time visit the SOS website and you can look at a sample ballot before hand.
    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."

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I voted no as well. This is a big bad expensive idea. Amendments work just fine. The idea of going through the whole thing properly is ludicrous, people today dont have a clue what is in the constitution, nor do they understand why its there.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    The current constitution requires an automatic proposal to be put on the ballot every 16 years to ask for a constitutional convention. It would cost too much, and I believe there would be too much special interest influence.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    I voted NO as well. I couldn't picture any positive outcomes on this matter. The only thing I could picture was some anti-gun restrictions being added.

  6. #6
    Activist Member hamaneggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,251

    Wink

    Well as of now we will have a Republican Gov,Senate and House shortly.This should be good for us for a couple years in order to get some good 2A changes done!
    Today JESUS would tell me to sell my coat and buy two Springfield XD Compact 45acp's!

    NRA LIFER,GOA,MOC Inc.,CLSD,MCRGO,UAW! MOLON LABE!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    228
    voted no on prop 1

    voted yes on prop 2. i will always vote to marginalize felons more. if it was to tattoo the word felon on their foreheads i would vote yes.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by hamaneggs View Post
    Well as of now we will have a Republican Gov,Senate and House shortly.This should be good for us for a couple years in order to get some good 2A changes done!
    The republicans have a super majority in the state senate, plus a majority in the house. Starting in January, we need to hammer them on getting rid of handgun registration, purchase permits, cpl restrictions, OC, restrictions, plus try to get them to allow us to carry uncased long guns in our vehicles.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dandridge, TN
    Posts
    377
    I also vote NO. seems to me the current one is working just fine. I do agree that with a favorable state GOV. in place now we need to push for making mich a consitiutional carry state........ no restrictions.

  10. #10
    Regular Member FatboyCykes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warren, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    voted no on prop 1

    voted yes on prop 2. i will always vote to marginalize felons more. if it was to tattoo the word felon on their foreheads i would vote yes.
    Interesting, so you think that, doing their time isn't enough? No second chances, no redemption? I don't have a horse in this race, and it's certainly not a black and white issue, loads of gray here, but this particular prop. didn't bode well with me. Not to mention it was backed by the unions, which in almost 100% of the cases is a good enough reason to pass it. No offense intended as this isn't personal to union workers but rather the leadership, but I can no longer trust, respect or support in any fashion, the vast majority of unions or their politics. They have become a cancer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member cmdr_iceman71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    412
    I voted "no" on the constitional convention propostion as well for the same reason as Kryptonian; I figured why give the antis an opening to make OC more restrictive or ban it altogether? And like stainless wrote: "people today dont have a clue what is in the constitution, nor do they understand why its there." Most are sheeple who would be too easily swayed by some fear inciting attack ad.
    "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." - President George Washington

    "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

    "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64
    Open carry could be prohibited with a simple act of the legislature and signature of the governor. Voting against a constitutional convention for the sole reason of protection open carry rights as opposed to fixing a clearly broken state government is short sighted.

    Gun rights would not have been touched as the state constitution 2nd amendment is the same as the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendement. You could change the state's amendment but you would still have the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendment.

    A con con may have been a good thing as it would have had the potential to give us a part time legislature, a one part legislature versus a senate and a house, relook the responsibilites of the state police and sheriff offices, term limits, strengthen 4th amendment protections, health insurance etc....

    There is a reason the democratic and republican parties did not want a constitutional convention, the chief reason is that politicians and special interest groups have a lot to lose and in the current state of affairs, the people would have a significant hand in reshaping state government.
    Last edited by warrior1978; 11-03-2010 at 09:31 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by FatboyCykes View Post
    Interesting, so you think that, doing their time isn't enough? No second chances, no redemption? I don't have a horse in this race, and it's certainly not a black and white issue, loads of gray here, but this particular prop. didn't bode well with me. Not to mention it was backed by the unions, which in almost 100% of the cases is a good enough reason to pass it. No offense intended as this isn't personal to union workers but rather the leadership, but I can no longer trust, respect or support in any fashion, the vast majority of unions or their politics. They have become a cancer.
    It only bans them for 20 years, so I don't see it as not giving a second chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior1978 View Post
    Open carry could be prohibited with a simple act of the legislature and signature of the governor. Voting against a constitutional convention for the sole reason of protection open carry rights as opposed to fixing a clearly broken state government is short sighted.

    Gun rights would not have been touched as the state constitution 2nd amendment is the same as the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendement. You could change the state's amendment but you would still have the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendment.

    A con con may have been a good thing as it would have had the potential to give us a part time legislature, a one part legislature versus a senate and a house, relook the responsibilites of the state police and sheriff offices, term limits, strengthen 4th amendment protections, health insurance etc....

    There is a reason the democratic and republican parties did not want a constitutional convention, the chief reason is that politicians and special interest groups have a lot to lose and in the current state of affairs, the people would have a significant hand in reshaping state government.
    The main reason I voted against it was because people kept saying that one of the main goals was to merge charter townships with cites, and I wanted no part of that. The cities can keep their high taxes and weed ordinances.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by warrior1978 View Post


    A con con may have been a good thing as it would have had the potential to give us a part time legislature, a one part legislature versus a senate and a house, relook the responsibilites of the state police and sheriff offices, term limits, strengthen 4th amendment protections, health insurance etc....
    All these things can be adressed with law, or amendments, and can be done with the opinions of the public, it's not worth risking the RKBA. Sure there is the fed A2, but you should know that means very little until you get to a very expensive high court.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    NEVER TRUST ANYONE WITH THE CONSTITUTION!

    Once it is opened all bets are off. They can claim to have our rights safeguarded then remove them wholesale. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by kryptonian View Post
    voted today. didn't OC. probably should have looked at sample ballot before i voted but i didn't. this had me having to make some quick decisions. one proposal i saw was one to revise the michigan constitution. as i read it the first thing i thought of was 'guess which law is going to change quick if that happens'. i didn't know it needed revisions. any thoughts? i of course voted NO. why give them a chance?
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    Remember that you said if you ever get an IRS audit and that honest mistake you made becomes a felony like 3 people I know. One I know is serving time because his CPA gave him bad advice. The guy was told to do things that the court clearly stated he should have not trusted his CPA and there is no provisions for ignorance of the laws.

    Frankly almost everything is a damned felony today, that 30 years ago was not even a crime or was a misdemeanor. A violent felon is not the same as a non violent felon.

    If a police officer pounces on you because you have a gun in your holster and you pull away not knowing he was a cop, you can and will be charged with felony resisting. Many have who were honest citizens who dared to question a cop's illegal actions.

    No I think going to damned far is fascist.

    I remember when I was 18 and fought the CCW charge and it was thrown out of court for open carry. A deputy was placing in the car and said watch your head then took and with great force palmed my head into the roof of the car and laughed and said " I told you to watch your head". He almost knocked me unconscious and left a nasty bump on my head and not a damned thing was done despite my complaints. Do I trust a cop? Hell NO! And I have friends who are cops. if they want to get you on a felony they can and will if they decide to and you will have a snow balls chance in hell fighting it unless you have witnesses.




    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricianLU58 View Post
    voted no on prop 1

    voted yes on prop 2. i will always vote to marginalize felons more. if it was to tattoo the word felon on their foreheads i would vote yes.
    Last edited by Bailenforcer; 11-03-2010 at 02:02 PM.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bailenforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    City
    Posts
    1,077
    The folly of youth...

    They could in FACT end open carry despite your assertions. You are dead wrong!

    Term limits can be done without a con con. if they won't limit themselves now how will they do it with an open constitution?
    Get real!

    They have fought us since the 1970's on a part time legislature and nothing will change that till the people petition a vote on it PERIOD!

    Really? Both parties were against it? Show me the proof. They have in fact pushed it for years I am betting you are kinda young and don't remember the 1970's and 80's. The democrats wanted one years ago. NO and HELL NO!







    Quote Originally Posted by warrior1978 View Post
    Open carry could be prohibited with a simple act of the legislature and signature of the governor. Voting against a constitutional convention for the sole reason of protection open carry rights as opposed to fixing a clearly broken state government is short sighted.

    Gun rights would not have been touched as the state constitution 2nd amendment is the same as the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendement. You could change the state's amendment but you would still have the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendment.

    A con con may have been a good thing as it would have had the potential to give us a part time legislature, a one part legislature versus a senate and a house, relook the responsibilites of the state police and sheriff offices, term limits, strengthen 4th amendment protections, health insurance etc....

    There is a reason the democratic and republican parties did not want a constitutional convention, the chief reason is that politicians and special interest groups have a lot to lose and in the current state of affairs, the people would have a significant hand in reshaping state government.
    Exo 22:2 "If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.
    Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, with all his weapons ready, guards his own house, all his belongings are safe.

  18. #18
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by warrior1978 View Post
    Open carry could be prohibited with a simple act of the legislature and signature of the governor. Voting against a constitutional convention for the sole reason of protection open carry rights as opposed to fixing a clearly broken state government is short sighted.

    Gun rights would not have been touched as the state constitution 2nd amendment is the same as the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendement. You could change the state's amendment but you would still have the U.S Constitution 2nd Amendment.

    A con con may have been a good thing as it would have had the potential to give us a part time legislature, a one part legislature versus a senate and a house, relook the responsibilites of the state police and sheriff offices, term limits, strengthen 4th amendment protections, health insurance etc....

    There is a reason the democratic and republican parties did not want a constitutional convention, the chief reason is that politicians and special interest groups have a lot to lose and in the current state of affairs, the people would have a significant hand in reshaping state government.
    What if the got rid of article 6 of the constitutuon? Then all your gun rights could be gone, not just OC.
    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.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This was mentioned in my talk with the state rep, names like soros, brady, pelosi, and obama came up, think about it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932
    voted no on the con con.

    i voted in favor of allowing felons to hold office. Once you have done your time and paid your debt t society, you should have your rights restored.

    if you are such a dangerous person that you cannot be trusted to vote, hold office, or own firearms, then you should still be in prison.

    The biggest problem i have with felons loosing their rights for a lifetime (or 20 years in this particular case) is that it is much to easy to become a felon. Look at the college kids who were charged with a felony for throwing snowballs. Not that i condone their actions, but a felony? seriously??

    IMO a felony should constitute an actual crime. "Crimes" of possession like moonshine, drugs, or guns should not be a felony. If you use a gun to commit a robbery, or commit a robbery to score drugs, then you should be prosecuted for the robbery, not for the mere possession of inanimate objects.

    for the record, i do not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or do illicit drugs.

    with so many people being on board with the tea party values (libertarian) i am surprised more people were not in favor of allowing felons to hold office.
    Last edited by lapeer20m; 11-03-2010 at 02:48 PM.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Its the term felon that sounds so bad which is the problem, that's why the anti crowd has used it so liberally, they know this very well, and make the most out of it. We need to work as hard to change the peoples reaction to the term felon, as anything else we do to further gun rights.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291
    I absolutely voted an enthusiastic YES on the ConCon.

    We must replace, not reform. No legislator will willfully propose an amendment for a part-time legislature - never have, never will. You got a million bucks for a citizen initiated amendment? Good luck with that. If the 'amendment process' is so easy, why, according to the Michigan Constitution, do you have to be 21 to vote when the Federal Law says you only need to be 18 (since 1971!)? An 'easy' fix? Then why haven't we fixed it? Which legislator will put forth an amendment for a unicameral legislature? It was the apportionment between the House and Senate that was the major debate in the '61-63 ConCon. The Senate was apportioned 80/20 between population and land area (thus to provide representation to the West side of the State) and the House was 100% population. Great idea, except SCOTUS shot it down. Look to our Federal Consititution - the Senate provides representation for the States in that each State, large or small, got equal representation (that is until the 17th amendment) - the House, strictly 'the people'. What is the difference in representation in the MI House and Senate? Does the Senate represent the Counties? The Cities, Villages or Townships? No, both the House and Senate represent 'the people'. So why two Houses? Cut costs by consolidating with a unicameral, part-time legislature. The cost recovery would be a net gain over the cost of any ConCon. This is just one of a host of real changes that could be made at a ConCon that our current legislature just doesn't have the spine to confront.

    This comes down to raw fear - fear of the 'bad guys' doing something to the MICon, then convincing a majority of citizens to vote for it - what might be overlooked is that we get the last say. Are the people so smart as to reject an unpleasant amendment, an amendment that institutes a policy you fear -say, repeal MI's constitutional recognition of our RKBA, yet are so stupid that they would accept some half-baked Constitution? You see, there is no difference between the final say of the people in accepting an amendment through the 'just use the amendment process folks', and the final say of the people in accepting changes to the MI Constitution. Oh yeah, the Drain Commissioner - a MICon requirement.

    And, BTW, the 'bad guys' hold the same fear that those that expressed it here do - to them, we are the 'bad guys'. It's just that we're more afraid of them than they are of us. The public employee unions are scared to death that we'll push for a revocation of the Public Employee Relations Act, or make them pay for their own HC, or do something stupid like Right to Work. Which legislator will take on the public sector unions? There's too much money there. They need us to back them up with reassurances that we'll elect them regardless but there is such a disconnect between Lansing and 'the people' that they're easily swayed by the folks they see every day - the unions.

    The legislators are afraid we'll take away their Senate or their full-time gig. THERE IS NOTHING in the MICon that calls for a full-time legislature - they just turned it into one when they voted themselves enough salary so they didn't have to keep a 'real' job. They work part-time now - it's just that we have to watch 24/7, 365 because they're never really out of session. The general session is 3 days/week - Tues-Thus. Then comes the 'vacations' and 'holidays'. At least with a 'part-time' legislature we'd know when we're safe from any legislation.

    I'm jus' sayin'

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The Michigan government has proven that they cannot be trusted with our money, the old constitution, our laws, and our rights, I am not therefore, about to trust them with a new constitution.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    The Michigan government has proven that they cannot be trusted with our money, the old constitution, our laws, and our rights, I am not therefore, about to trust them with a new constitution.
    The people of Michigan are the one's trusted to determine whether any new constitution is worthy, not the Michigan gov't. The end of the process is a state-wide vote by the people on acceptance of any Constitution.

    I don't understand your argument, it appears that you don't trust the Michigan government today, yet they remain in power - if you trust the people more than the gov't, then allowing for a ConCon was the way to go. IMHO

    J

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    If the will of the people was represented by the representatives, then we wouldn't have things like gun control, prohibition, smoking bans, over taxation, and most traffic violations.

Posting Permissions

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