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?

You voted correctly... next time visit the SOS website and you can look at a sample ballot before hand.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

hamaneggs said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

ElectricianLU58 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

FatboyCykes said:

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.

Click to expand...

It only bans them for 20 years, so I don't see it as not giving a second chance.

warrior1978 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

warrior1978 said:

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....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

kryptonian said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ElectricianLU58 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

warrior1978 said:

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.

Click to expand...

warrior1978 said:

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.

Click to expand...

What if the got rid of article 6 of the constitutuon? Then all your gun rights could be gone, not just OC.

This was mentioned in my talk with the state rep, names like soros, brady, pelosi, and obama came up, think about it.

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.