Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The ACLU On Lawful Possession of Tasers in Michigan

  1. #1
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448

    The ACLU On Lawful Possession of Tasers in Michigan


    Please. Post the exchange on other forums and reference it on your facebooks! Let's make it viral....


    When I read the ACLU of Michigan had a problem with the bill that would allow lawful citizens in MI to possess Tasers, I wrote on behalf of Michigan Open Carry to inquire about their position. Here's my letter:

    http://www.freep.com/article/2011120...text|FRONTPAGE

    Some strongly oppose the legalization. "We feel a great number of questions need to be answered," said Mark Fancher, staff attorney for the Michigan Civil Liberties Union. "We are concerned about these devices, period."

    To Whom it May Concern:

    I am curious about the concerns your organization has "about these devices". Why would an organization that concerns itself with the civil liberties of Michiganders oppose a bill that would allow these same Michiganders to carry a tool for their self-defense? Surely the right to defend one-self from an attacker is a civil liberty?

    Personally, I support all civil liberties, you name it, I'll support it if it's in the name of individual liberty. I'm only curious why the Michigan ACLU won't support THIS civil liberty.

    Our organization and I look forward to your response and learning more about your concerns.

    --
    Phillip Hofmeister
    President
    Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
    PHofmeister@miopencarry.org
    Here's the response I received:

    From Brenda Bove bbove@aclumich.org
    to "PHofmeister@miopencarry.org" <PHofmeister@miopencarry.org>
    date Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:47 PM
    subject Reply from the ACLU of Michigan
    Important mainly because of the words in the message.

    hide details 3:47 PM (5 hours ago)




    Mr. Hofmeister,



    Your inquiry regarding the ACLU of Michigan and tasers was forwarded to me for reply. We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias in order to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world that purpose is somewhat anachronistic. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation, such as licensing and registration. We also do not oppose other types of government regulation and licensing such as the licensing of cars. Even many opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles, or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms. The question then is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. In the case of tasers, many credible analysts have important questions about the effect of tasers on the human body, and we believe that in order for the legislature to protect the rights and safety of the citizens they represent and to make an informed decision about regulation and licensing, many of these questions about tasers must first be answered.





    Mark P. Fancher
    Staff Attorney /Racial Justice Project
    American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan
    2966 Woodward Ave., Detroit, MI 48201
    (313) 578-6822 (office) (313) 578-6811 (fax)
    Response to the ACLU's Response.

    Mr. Fancher,

    It is understood that each state chapter of the ACLU is free to form their own opinions on issues apart from the national organization. If this is true, why would the Michigan Chapter only look at their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution when the Michigan Constitution of 1963 (in Article I, Sec. 6) clearly makes bearing arms an individual right? Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. In Michigan Open Carry, we believe the Michigan Constitution guarantees the possession of arms as an individual right to help enable self-defense. We hope you can agree with our plain letter interpretation of the Michigan Constitution.

    It is also understood that the purpose of the ACLU is to protect Liberties (as it defines them). Assuming this is true, which liberty are you protecting by coming out against individual possession of tasers? We'd be able to understand a civil rights group staying neutral on this issue long before we could understand them coming out against it.

    Your previous response is appreciated, but seems inconsistent with your organization's mission and the Michigan Constitution.

    --
    Phillip Hofmeister
    President
    Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
    PHofmeister@miopencarry.org

    Now, I would encourage all of you to write Brenda and call their attorney, but I don't want to encourage you to waste the resources of the ACLU.

    Please. Post the exchange on other forums and reference it on your facebooks! Let's make it viral....
    Last edited by TheQ; 12-03-2011 at 05:23 PM.
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Generaldet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    President, CLSD, Inc., Oxford, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,073
    Wow, pathetic.......

  3. #3
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    884
    freedom of religion individual right
    freedom of speech individual right
    freedom of the press individual right
    freedom of assembly individual right
    freedom of petition individual right
    freedom from the government using private homes to quarter soldiers during peacetime/personal privacy individual right
    freedom from searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or "probable cause"/personal privacy individual right
    freedom from trial for a major crime unless indicted by a grand jury individual right
    freedom from double jeopardy individual right
    freedom from punishment without due process of law individual right
    freedom from being compelled to testify against oneself individual right
    freedom from the government taking private property for public use without just compensation individual right
    right to a speedy public trial individual right
    right to a trial by jury in criminal cases in the state or district individual right
    right to counsel individual right
    right to have witnesses attend and testify individual right
    right of accused to know the charges against him individual right
    right to rial trial by jury in civil cases individual right
    right to reasonable bail and fines individual right
    freedom from cruel and unusual punishment individual right

    BUT

    right to keep and bear arms collective right?

    I don't know how some people can look themselves in the mirror with any honesty. And if the above isn't enough, the Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained by the people.

    [Cartman] Liberals piss me off. [/Cartman]

  4. #4
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Are these people stupid? Do they not have any comprehending of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment and/or the english language itself. I think Penn and Teller say it best here when breaking down the 2nd amendment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
    Besides when you look at the Michigan constitution as well as many other state's constitution it is defiantly clear that it is the right of the people.

    Preamble.
    CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 (EXCERPT)
    We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.
    ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
    6 Bearing of arms.
    Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  5. #5
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Are these people stupid? Do they not have any comprehending of the purpose behind the 2nd amendment and/or the english language itself. I think Penn and Teller say it best here when breaking down the 2nd amendment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
    Besides when you look at the Michigan constitution as well as many other state's constitution it is defiantly clear that it is the right of the people.
    I was watching an old Fear Factor rerum on tv recently, it was a celebrity edidtion and Penn & Teller were contestants. Ironically they were playing for the ACLU.

  6. #6
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    I was watching an old Fear Factor rerum on tv recently, it was a celebrity edidtion and Penn & Teller were contestants. Ironically they were playing for the ACLU.
    It amazes me how ACLU is for people's rights and all that stuff but against guns.
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  7. #7
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Original Post modified to include MOC's latest response.

    Mr. Fancher,

    It is understood that each state chapter of the ACLU is free to form their own opinions on issues apart from the national organization. If this is true, why would the Michigan Chapter only look at their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution when the Michigan Constitution of 1963 (in Article I, Sec. 6) clearly makes bearing arms an individual right? Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. In Michigan Open Carry, we believe the Michigan Constitution guarantees the possession of arms as an individual right to help enable self-defense. We hope you can agree with our plain letter interpretation of the Michigan Constitution.

    It is also understood that the purpose of the ACLU is to protect Liberties (as it defines them). Assuming this is true, which liberty are you protecting by coming out against individual possession of tasers? We'd be able to understand a civil rights group staying neutral on this issue long before we could understand them coming out against it.

    Your previous response is appreciated, but seems inconsistent with your organization's mission and the Michigan Constitution.

    --
    Phillip Hofmeister
    President
    Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
    PHofmeister@miopencarry.org
    Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

    I am not a lawyer (merely an omnipotent member of a continuum). The contents of this post are not a substitute for sound legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

    Comments and views stated in my post are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of Michigan Open Carry, Inc. unless stated otherwise in the post.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  10. #10
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    I would like to know what tool the ACLU does think we should use to defend ourselves from a personal attack.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The telephone.


  12. #12
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    No, I'm being serious. I'm talking about immediate defense, telephone not working/no one available. What, according to the ACLU, should one do for immediate defense. Or is tucking your head between your legs and kissing your ass goodbye their official stance on the subject.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I kinda think that is there official stance. It looks like this. lol >


Posting Permissions

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