Re: URGENT! Please remind your friends, post at gun clubs and shops. Thank You!

goarep · Nov 29, 2010

Calls needed immediately!

We need to flood the below numbers with calls immediately to prevent
the House from passing this bill!

Please call immediately and let these legislators know you are mad and oppose the Confiscation Bill SB 212! HEARING IS tomorrow SO CALLS NEED TO BE MADE RIGHT NOW AFTER BUSINESS HOURS (LEAVE A MESSAGE) AND IN THE MORNING BEFORE 9A.M. .

Thanks

Mark Meadows (D) Phone: 571-373-1786

Ellen Lipton (D) Phone: 517-373-0478

Lisa Brown (D)Phone: 517-373-1799

Pam Byrnes (D)Phone: (517) 373-0828

Bob Constan (D)Phone: 517-373-0857

Marc Corriveau (D)Phone: 517-373-3816

Andrew Kandrevas (D)Phone: 517-373-0845

Justin Amash (R)Phone: 517-373-0840

Joseph Haveman (R)Phone: 517-373-0830

Rick Jones (R)Phone: (517)373-0853

Eileen Kowall (R)Phone: 517-373-2616

Tory Rocca (R)Phone: (517) 373-7768

Bettie Scott (D)Phone: 517-373-1776

Rebekah Warren (D)Phone: 517-373-2577

Tonya Schuitmaker (R)Phone: (517) 373-0839

goarep · Nov 29, 2010

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/11/proposed_law_could_allow_sagin.html

PT111 · Nov 29, 2010

goarep said:
Hello Bronson! I put my personal number on here for people to call if they had any questions. It's ok if you anyone wants to respond by the site but I only mention this as I do not frequently check this site as I would like but thankfully I did get your correspondence.

Bronson, it is right in the lower third of PA 372 as a preface. However the opening sentence of SB 212 goes on to say:

"by amending section 14 (MCL 28.434), as amended by 2000 PA 381.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 14. (1) Subject EXCEPT 1 AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (4) AND
SUBJECT to section 5g, all pistols, weapons, or devices carried or
possessed contrary to this act are declared forfeited to the state,

I WILL TRY TO EMPHASIZE HERE:

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! !

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! !

Yes Bronson, this is a very serious bill and it has the support of those who are pushing it like L. Brooks Patterson who is rapidly bolstering the anti-gun phenomenon.

So yes, THEY ALL BECOME F O R F E I T A B L E ! (ALL)

I wish we had more people concerned about showing up tomorrow, that would be a big help!

Will someone please explain to me what it going on here. As far as I can tell the above bolded section that has people upset is already law and unless you can get it repealed whether or not either the house or senate versions pass it is already law. These two bills have no effect on that part of anything. Only the bolded portion in the documents from either the house or senate versions are new. The rest is existing law.

all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! ! are already subject to confiscation under existing law. The onlything being changed is the addition of Section 14a. The authority to confiscate, if I read this correctly, has been around since at least 2000 and probably since 1927 when the original law was passed.

Bronson · Nov 29, 2010

PT111 said:
all pistols, weapons, or devices carried ! ! ! are already subject to confiscation under existing law. The onlything being changed is the addition of Section 14a. The authority to confiscate, if I read this correctly, has been around since at least 2000 and probably since 1927 when the original law was passed.

That is how I read it also. Both of these bills extend the ability to profit from confiscation to local PDs. A concern for me in the House Bill is the lack of a requirement for local PDs to attempt to reuinite the firearm with it's rightful owner.

Bronson

Bronson · Nov 29, 2010

I've long said the best way to get somebody to do something is to make it profitable for them. Once local PDs can make a profit from confiscated firearms the temptation to find any justification to confiscate becomes too great.

Bronson

goarep · Nov 29, 2010

Pt111

You are correct in stating our secondary goal after stopping this bill will be repeal of that section stating all pistols, weapons, or devices carried" ! That language was forwarded from the bill in "bold" letters making it appear as new language. Apparently it was forwarded from the 2000 bill itself that was passed.

That being said, the bill still expands confiscation to include many other agencies. With the advent of those agencies there will be incentive to confiscate firearms to enrich these respective departments, creating a "confiscation competition" or even a "layoff prevention mechanism".

It also grants the agencies immunity for any mishandling or mistakes made (say you share an apartment and they take your guns instead of your room mates or your guns are taken and returned but were damaged in the taking.

Of course these crimes can be anything,either a misdemeanor or felony and there have been several instances where no criminal charges were ever filed yet the firearms were never returned. Not everyone has an attorney at their service to fight to have their firearms returned.

Additionally the Chief of Police who testified for this bill stated this bill was suggested to him by the ATF and is being initiated around the country. It gives the same affect as an unfunded mandate with an incentive of local dollars for an action performed on their behalf.

It's not a change gun owners need and does nothing to reduce crime and ironically, it has been shown may actually increase crime. In summary, why should gun owners become "tax fodder" to supplement over bloated police budgets, many of whom are readily equipped with tanks, planes and machine guns?

1245A Defender · Nov 29, 2010

it is important!!

on the 18th of nov, 6 members of the "Washington Arms Collectors" club that put on gun shows here in Washington state were raided at 6am, all their guns were confiscated,
a dog was shot, money, and reading magazines were taken.
the warrant says it is because they had been making a profit selling guns, but were not FFLs.
Nobody has been arrested or charged with a crime.
so far there has been a news blackout with no reports of ATF activity.
i think we are experiencing your nightmare, this kind of legislation needs to be rolled back
anyway you can!

goarep · Nov 30, 2010

Thanks for the info

Why is it they always shoot someone's family pet? That is pathetic. I bet that probably no one arrested ever had a criminal record or at best a misdemeanor conviction.

Bronson · Nov 30, 2010

goarep said:
You are correct in stating our secondary goal after stopping this bill will be repeal of that section stating all pistols, weapons, or devices carried" !

While I agree with you on this issue you really need to finish the rest of the quoted sentence.

Sec. 14. (1) Subject EXCEPT 1 AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (4) AND
SUBJECT to section 5g, all pistols, weapons, or devices carried or possessed contrary to this act are declared forfeited to the state

So as it stands now it isn't any pistol, weapon, or device carried. It is any pistol, weapon, or device carried illegally.

Now this does not preclude the creation of bogus charges in order to confiscate (we've already heard recordings of an assistant police chief who admitted he was willing to make up charges to arrest lawful open carriers) but it doesn't do us any good to ignore or mis-read the current wording of the law.

Having had firearms stolen I can speak from experience that once your firearm enters into the system it is difficult to get it back.

Bronson

goarep · Nov 30, 2010

So as it stands now it isn't any pistol, weapon, or device carried. It is any pistol,

Bronson what I'm saying is in agreement with you. Essentially that if carried contrary to this act (with out a CCW permit) IT IS ILLEGAL. When this legislation was forwarded by the committee to those attending the committee the legislation already included was in bold letters as sent by the clerk.

So, yes, that section was in effect and that is what the assistant chief of police was referring to. Can you share who/where that assistant chief was because that would be something beneficial to have on the record today. Was anything done? Did anyone file a complaint about the assistant chief? Was he fired. Thanks Bronson.

PT111 · Nov 30, 2010

Bronson said:
While I agree with you on this issue you really need to finish the rest of the quoted sentence.

So as it stands now it isn't any pistol, weapon, or device carried. It is any pistol, weapon, or device carried illegally.

Now this does not preclude the creation of bogus charges in order to confiscate (we've already heard recordings of an assistant police chief who admitted he was willing to make up charges to arrest lawful open carriers) but it doesn't do us any good to ignore or mis-read the current wording of the law.

Having had firearms stolen I can speak from experience that once your firearm enters into the system it is difficult to get it back.

Bronson

That is the part that I am getting confused about. Why are so many ignoring the current law. The proposed law does not allow more agencies to confiscate weapons or change anything related to that. The creation of bogus charges and all of the other ideas brought forward are real and not out of the realm of possibility but one must remember that all of it is possible right now and probably being used. The only thing these bills do is allow the local police department to get the funds from the disposal of the weapon rather than the state. Everything else already exists. Is is possible or likely that a local LEO will be quicker to confiscate a weapon when he knows the profits will be used by his department? That is a good question but the new law grants him no more authority to confiscate it than he had before. None of that is changing. Right now our local Sheriff's department has several very nice SUV's for some of the deputies to use as patrol vehicles. The "Drug Dog" deputies ride around in late model Tahoes that were all confiscated during drug raids. The confiscation of "stuff" from "criminals" isn't new or isolated to one state or group but is pretty much universal.

I really think everyone getting all riled up about these bills need to read the present laws and work from there. Even if these don't pass you still have problems that need to be addressed and the sourcesof the problems aren't these bills.

Bailenforcer · Nov 30, 2010

They shoot the pet because it invokes terror. Many times now little dogs who were running away were shot dead. Also many of the pet shootings the animals is shot 5 times or 8 times which is excessive. It is for only one reason to terrorize. It is much easier to gain control over grieving people than ones who are indignant over an illegal intrusion.

goarep said:
Why is it they always shoot someone's family pet? That is pathetic. I bet that probably no one arrested ever had a criminal record or at best a misdemeanor conviction.

Glock9mmOldStyle · Nov 30, 2010

Bailenforcer said:
They shoot the pet because it invokes terror. Many times now little dogs who were running away were shot dead. Also many of the pet shootings the animals is shot 5 times or 8 times which is excessive. It is for only one reason to terrorize. It is much easier to gain control over grieving people than ones who are indignant over an illegal intrusion.

I recently had a LEO tell me he'd shoot my dog. I just cautioned him against that action as the dog was completely ignoring him. I didn't get upset, which completely frustrated him. He was trying to anger me, so he could use my upset as an excuse to break the law. I am too smart for that crap. All this on my own property and I was breaking no laws( I was open carrying and this was the reason for their interest in me). You are correct BailEnforcer. This is just another NAZI tactic used by LEO's in an attempt to keep a "little person" in their place. I hate to imagine what would of happened if the officer tried to shoot my dog but I can say that no body in the area would have left happy myself included.

On Topic - I hope we can muster enough resistance to this bill to see it defeated. If it should pass we should organize protests at the capital to get it repealed.

Bailenforcer · Nov 30, 2010

Look at my signature, I have no respect for mans laws anymore. If my home, property, animals, family are endangered I will do as I am instructed to and I will defend them and I don't give a damn who the assailant is. My family lived through Nazi Germany, I know the tactics all too well. Far better I be dead than a coward.

Glock9mmOldStyle said:
I recently had a LEO tell me he'd shoot my dog. I just cautioned him against that action as the dog was completely ignoring him. I didn't get upset, which completely frustrated him. He was trying to anger me, so he could use my upset as an excuse to break the law. I am too smart for that crap. All this on my own property and I was breaking no laws( I was open carrying and this was the reason for their interest in me). You are correct BailEnforcer. This is just another NAZI tactic used by LEO's in an attempt to keep a "little person" in their place. I hate to imagine what would of happened if the officer tried to shoot my dog but I can say that no body in the area would have left happy myself included.

On Topic - I hope we can muster enough resistance to this bill to see it defeated. If it should pass we should organize protests at the capital to get it repealed.

Haman J.T. · Nov 30, 2010

Bailenforcer said:
I disagree!

This bill allows the police to further victimize the victims of a gun theft by only requiring the police to post a notice of intent to sell. Note it never says CONTACT or FIND the victim/owner so the police can post it on a web site or worse yet on their bulletin board in the lobby and then the victims will never know the firearm was found. This is in contrast to before where they would find you and have the local police knock on your door or call you to let you know said firearm was located. This new law is pure bullsh*t, and a deliberate attempt to not only take firearms from owners but to also cash in as well. There is no notification guidelines. Web site is NOT enough, 99% of people will not check each week for the next ten years to see if said gun was found. Then the weasels want immunity for mishandling my stolen firearm. Like I said this is deliberate bullsh*t. So basically you are incorrect it does allow every gun seized or found. A lost gun is not illegal and yet this allows a lost firearm to be sold as well. This needs to be killed fast as it is a gun confiscation bill in sheeps clothing.

(a) Determine through the law enforcement information network
20 whether the firearm has been reported lost or stolen. If the
21 firearm has been reported lost or stolen and the name and address
22 of the owner can be determined, the director of the department of
23 state police shall provide 30 days' written notice of his or her
24 intent to dispose of the firearm under this section to the owner,
25 and allow the owner to claim the firearm within that 30-day period
26 if he or she is authorized to possess the firearm.
27 (b) Provide 30 days' notice to the public on the department of
3
S00110'09 (S-3) TVD
state police website of his or her 1 intent to dispose of the firearm
2 under this section. The notice shall include a description of the
3 firearm and shall state the firearm's serial number, if the serial
4 number can be determined. The department of state police shall
5 allow the owner of the firearm to claim the firearm within that 30-
6 day period if he or she is authorized to possess the firearm. The
7 30-day period required under this subdivision is in addition to the
8 30-day period required under subdivision (a).
9 (4) The department of state police is immune from civil
10 liability for disposing of a firearm in compliance with this
11 section.

I can see this from experience.3 guns stolen from my home in 92',gave serial #s on all 3 for sheriffs report,haven't heard from them since!Another bad gun law!

Haman J.T. · Nov 30, 2010

Bronson said:
The three major differences between the HB and SB that I can see are:

The House bill has no provision for the local PD to keep the confiscated/found firearms for their own use, while the Senate bill does provide this option.

The House bill has no requirement for local PDs to try to find the owner of a gun before they sell it. The Senate bill mirrors the existing requirements that the MSP currently follow for contacting the owner.

The House bill allows the local PD to sell to any person, via auction, who can legally own a firearm. The Senate bill only allows sale to dealers holding an FFL.

I can definitely see the potential for abuse with these two bills.

Bronson

Abuse can be expected!

Haman J.T. · Nov 30, 2010

goarep said:
BRONSON & BAILENFORCER, YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT ON! Thanks for taking a moment to articulately look into the disaster this bill is. It is unbelievable for me that any gun owner would even consider any type of confiscation a viable option.

Even if a crime was committed, why wouldn't a friend or relative be allowed to have the firearm or have a family member or gun shop sell the firearm with the proceeds going for the individuals attorney fee's? Of course they will ALL BE CRIMES WHEN THE GUNS ARE CONFISCATED, like the famous moment where the cop thrusts his chest into you, beats the hog snot our of you and then CHARGES YOU WITH ASSAULT?

I will never understand how myopic and convoluted some can be in not understanding this legislation and how it impacts the other previous legislation. This simple language would totally nullify OPEN CARRY . . . .

PLEASE READ:

to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local
agencies; to prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply
for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol

Did you get that? "Prohibit certain conduct against individuals who apply for or receive a license to carry a concealed pistol". So for those inclined to somehow believe this is so harmless they won't do anything other than ridicule this post, who were totally unaware of the movement of this bill, where does that leave OPEN CARRY.

By default it means that any MISCONDUCT against individuals who DON'T HAVE A CCW (read OPEN CARRY) IS IN FACT NOT PROHIBITED! Thus, it leave you with no leg to stand on! I posted my number for anyone to call me if they had concerns and that was extended to Venator as well.

I ask, after losing so many gun rights and being under continual scrutiny with anything that ocurrs with firearms, can we take any issue or legislation related to guns so nonchalantly as some posters might suggest? Finally had there been people who were concerned enough to show, what was revealed is this is a pilot project from the ATF initiated by some local police chiefs and apparently they felt Michigan gun owners were too occupied to be concerned.

That's when Gun Owners of America got involved and discovered this project was taking place in a handful of selected states, initiated from the federal level and delivered to the local level. Your gun rights in general are and always will be dependent on YOUR participation, make no mistake!

Our goal as gun owners is to repeal gun laws,not allow more to be added!

NHCGRPR45 · Nov 30, 2010

goarep said:
Bronson what I'm saying is in agreement with you. Essentially that if carried contrary to this act (with out a CCW permit) IT IS ILLEGAL. When this legislation was forwarded by the committee to those attending the committee the legislation already included was in bold letters as sent by the clerk.

So, yes, that section was in effect and that is what the assistant chief of police was referring to. Can you share who/where that assistant chief was because that would be something beneficial to have on the record today. Was anything done? Did anyone file a complaint about the assistant chief? Was he fired. Thanks Bronson.

look up "marrysville stop" on youtube. its an interesting little conversation.

goarep · Nov 30, 2010

Bailenforcer/Hananeggs

Bailenforcer, I have a huge amount of respect for you. The disaster that history can sometimes be has given you a priceless education to form your opinions. The world is better off for individuals zealous over their rights as you are.

Ham, you are so correct! it will be a very short time before the public comes screaming but guess what? It is now too late! These gun rights (anti) activists are now beneath the heal of the juggernaut. It's a downhill slope from here. Hate to say it but true.

They feel since they had such big wins last election everybody can go to hell. They are here to serve the authorities, not the peasant. In two years all will be forgotten and the duefus voter will once again select people who always favor the demise of our rights.

NHCGRPR45 · Nov 30, 2010

Bailenforcer said:
Look at my signature, I have no respect for mans laws anymore. If my home, property, animals, family are endangered I will do as I am instructed to and I will defend them and I don't give a damn who the assailant is. My family lived through Nazi Germany, I know the tactics all too well. Far better I be dead than a coward.

no respect for mans laws.:uhoh: yikes.

thank goodness you follow them or i might be in trouble........

Re: URGENT! Please remind your friends, post at gun clubs and shops. Thank You!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

New member

New member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member