• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The ACLU On Lawful Possession of Tasers in Michigan

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, 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/201112...-stun-guns?odyssey=tab|topnews|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:

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
871
Location
Okemos, MI
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]
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
"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.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
"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.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
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.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
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
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
The telephone.

Carry.jpg
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
791
Location
Elizabethton, TN
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.
 
Top