American Legion in Bath, MI Bans Firearms

TheQ · Feb 20, 2011

This chapter of the great patriotic Veterans' association has taken upon itself to ban Firearms in their building. Venator, a member, is NOT happy at all.

http://www.bathlegion412.org/
info@bathlegion412.org

dougwg · Feb 20, 2011

It's private property, besides we have bigger issues we need to concentrate on at the moment.

You do remember the whole CADL thing don't you?

TheQ · Feb 20, 2011

dougwg said:
It's private property, besides we have bigger issues we need to concentrate on at the moment.

You do remember the whole CADL thing don't you?

Yep. You seem to think I was suggesting we do something about it?

You must not know how I feel about private property rights.

stainless1911 · Feb 21, 2011

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, for such an organization to ban firearms in particular.

TheQ · Feb 21, 2011

There's another thread on this in General Discussion.

smellslikemichigan · Feb 21, 2011

dougwg said:
It's private property, besides we have bigger issues we need to concentrate on at the moment.

You do remember the whole CADL thing don't you?

isn't the library private property?:dude:

dougwg · Feb 21, 2011

smellslikemichigan said:
isn't the library private property?:dude:

No.

Venator · Feb 22, 2011

I would never have guessed as a 17 year SAL member of the Bath American Legion post 412 that I would be ashamed to be a member. Last month a friend OCed into their post as my guest. Within a week a no firearms sign was posted. Apparently the Post held a meeting where one of the board members (A retired Lansing LEO btw) proposed banning firearms. There was only one nay vote (At least that officer took his oath seriously) and the motion passed.

I could understand if this was a Moose lodge or the Masons, but a patriotic/veterans fraternal organization, the thought makes me sick to my stomach. Every one of these post officers took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, yet the first chance they get to stand up for it they blink and infringe upon it.

Their reason is not that the person carrying the gun is unsafe, but that someone may jump them and take their gun. Yes really, that was what their fear is. Retention holster anyone?

I can not support such a post and no person that understands what is as stake can. I will not be renewing my membership and will never step foot in that post until the policy changes.

PDinDetroit · Feb 22, 2011

Venator said:
I would never have guessed as a 17 year SAL member of the Bath American Legion post 412 that I would be ashamed to be a member. Last month a friend OCed into their post as my guest. Within a week a no firearms sign was posted. Apparently the Post held a meeting where one of the board members (A retired Lansing LEO btw) proposed banning firearms. There was only one nay vote (At least that officer took his oath seriously) and the motion passed.

I could understand if this was a Moose lodge or the Masons, but a patriotic/veterans fraternal organization, the thought makes me sick to my stomach. Every one of these post officers took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, yet the first chance they get to stand up for it they blink and infringe upon it.

Their reason is not that the person carrying the gun is unsafe, but that someone may jump them and take their gun. Yes really, that was what their fear is. Retention holster anyone?

I can not support such a post and no person that understands what is as stake can. I will not be renewing my membership and will never step foot in that post until the policy changes.

Sorry to hear that Ven. I would have thought they would have notified membership prior to a vote of this kind. It seems their vote is based upon FEAR, sure glad out Veterans overcame that in the past. Given your history there, you may consider writing the State/National Organization to see if some "clarification" can be found.

I went and did some reading about this group when it came up. While one of their four pillars discusses Upholding and Protection the US Constitution, nowhere in that PDF document does it specifically call out Firearm Rights or efforts in this area (not even sponsoring shooting events). I even did a search of the website and found nothing on this as well. It may be that they consider this area covered by other groups.

In any case, I wish you luck my friend in dealing with this situation.

Venator · Feb 22, 2011

PDinDetroit said:
Sorry to hear that Ven. I would have thought they would have notified membership prior to a vote of this kind. It seems their vote is based upon FEAR, sure glad out Veterans overcame that in the past. Given your history there, you may consider writing the State/National Organization to see if some "clarification" can be found.

I went and did some reading about this group when it came up. While one of their four pillars discusses Upholding and Protection the US Constitution, nowhere in that PDF document does it specifically call out Firearm Rights or efforts in this area (not even sponsoring shooting events). I even did a search of the website and found nothing on this as well. It may be that they consider this area covered by other groups.

In any case, I wish you luck my friend in dealing with this situation.

Here is their preamble, notice the first one:

The American Legion

Preamble to the Constitution

FOR GOD AND COUNTRY WE ASSOCIATE OURSELVES TOGETHER
FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America;
To maintain law and order;

To foster and perpetuate a one hundred percent Americanism;

To preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the Great Wars;

To inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state and nation;

To combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses;

To make right the master of might;

To promote peace and goodwill on earth;

To safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom and democracy;

To consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness.

stainless1911 · Feb 22, 2011

Venator said:
I can not support such a post and no person that understands what is as stake can. I will not be renewing my membership and will never step foot in that post until the policy changes.

Good man sir. Im sure I don't have to suggest that you point out to them why you are using your backbone, by reminding them of their oaths.

mastiff69 · Feb 22, 2011

You know what i will do it ...

Venator
I contacted the legion headquarters for the legion & they said that it is up to the individual posts & that they do not have any reg's that define ya or na to firearms on the post property. And that it is up to each post to make those rules.
He said that he would go to the next meeting & request that they notify the membership of the change on the door., and schedule a meeting of the membership to decuss that change......

He said don't quit, become part of the soluition. he said become an officer or vote pro-gun officers in..
Ps he is located in Indiana and carries himself.

DrTodd · Feb 22, 2011

Venator said:
I would never have guessed as a 17 year SAL member of the Bath American Legion post 412 that I would be ashamed to be a member. Last month a friend OCed into their post as my guest. Within a week a no firearms sign was posted. Apparently the Post held a meeting where one of the board members (A retired Lansing LEO btw) proposed banning firearms. There was only one nay vote (At least that officer took his oath seriously) and the motion passed.

I could understand if this was a Moose lodge or the Masons, but a patriotic/veterans fraternal organization, the thought makes me sick to my stomach. Every one of these post officers took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, yet the first chance they get to stand up for it they blink and infringe upon it.

Their reason is not that the person carrying the gun is unsafe, but that someone may jump them and take their gun. Yes really, that was what their fear is. Retention holster anyone?

I can not support such a post and no person that understands what is as stake can. I will not be renewing my membership and will never step foot in that post until the policy changes.

First, I acknowledge that they have the right to prohibit firearms. Not that I would think it acceptable, but if their concern is that someone may take the person's firearm, then why do they make it a blanket firearm prohibition? Another question, is the former LEO also to adhere to the rule OR is he an 'exception'? I think we know the answers to these questions...

Venator · Feb 22, 2011

DrTodd said:
First, I acknowledge that they have the right to prohibit firearms. Not that I would think it acceptable, but if their concern is that someone may take the person's firearm, then why do they make it a blanket firearm prohibition? Another question, is the former LEO also to adhere to the rule OR is he an 'exception'? I think we know the answers to these questions...

They have the right to ban saying the pledge of allegiance, they can ban wearing red. white and blue shirts, they can submit you to a search and seizure of you and your property when you come in the door, they can ban and do most anything.

That's not the issue, the issue is should they do these things based on the beliefs of the organization.

Hypocrites.

DrTodd · Feb 22, 2011

Venator said:
They have the right to ban saying the pledge of allegiance, they can ban wearing red. white and blue shirts, they can submit you to a search and seizure of you and your property when you come in the door, they can ban and do most anything.

That's not the issue, the issue is should they do these things based on the beliefs of the organization.

Hypocrites.

Of course it's not the issue...I'm just really interested if the former LEO excused himself from the rule... you know, one of the 'only ones' allowed to carry...

TheQ · Feb 22, 2011

DrTodd said:
Of course notI'm just really interested if the former LEO excused himself from the rule... you know, one of the 'only ones' allowed to carry...

The same thought occurred to me earlier. We must maintain the Status Quo for the privileged class...

Bronson · Feb 22, 2011

QUOTE=DrTodd;1473426]Of course it's not the issue...I'm just really interested if the former LEO excused himself from the rule... you know, one of the 'only ones' allowed to carry...[/QUOTE]

But he has super-advanced-tactical-swat-ranger-s.e.a.l.-delta-force-death-dealing training.

Go get 'em V.

Bronson

Venator · Feb 22, 2011

DrTodd said:
Of course it's not the issue...I'm just really interested if the former LEO excused himself from the rule... you know, one of the 'only ones' allowed to carry...

I know. I don't know if he carries while in the Legion, he does drink a bit so I hope not. Since I'm unlikely to see him again I can't ask him.

DrTodd · Feb 22, 2011

Is the decision set in stone or is it one that may be revisited in the future?

Venator · Feb 22, 2011

DrTodd said:
Is the decision set in stone or is it one that may be revisited in the future?

The board voted on it and they told me it couldn't be changed unless the person that made the motion wanted it to be....Yes they said that. Seems to me that any board member can make a motion to repeal it and they can vote again.

I would think that it will be in effect until a new board is voted in and a motion is made to rescind it. I can only hope. That is why any pressure that people put on them could influence that decision.

I have not heard anything from National and don't expect I will. Most likely National will leave it up to each post.

It's just really sad and pitiful

American Legion in Bath, MI Bans Firearms

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Banned

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Michigan Moderator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter