Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Transportation Email to .gov

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Transportation Email to .gov

    Trying to get them to do at least something productive with the last half of the term.

    I know that the economy has required the full attention of the legislature, but let's not forget that we have the rare opportunity of having a majority in every part of the state government, and I think we should make the best of it while we can. Gun owners have voted in this majority, and would like to see some real progress in the restoration of our gun rights in the state.

    I would like to see the following two laws repealed. This action would remove the requirement of a CPL to posses and transport a pistol in a motor vehicle. Many, if not most states do not require a CPL to carry in the personal private vehicles, they are private property, just the same as a persons home, and should be treated as such. The restrictions on those who lack a CPL due to age, residency, political beliefs, or sometimes minor and unrelated infractions make it impossible in some cases, and in others, impractical and legally perilous to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms. While in the vehicle, these laws make it a felonious offense to exercise that right to bear arms.

    The two laws that need to be repealed in order to correct these discrepancies within the law are. MCL 750.231a, and MCL 750.227.

    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 01-29-2012 at 02:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Thanks for you attention to this stainless, it effects a lot of people, myself included. It's probably an issue that's out of the minds of most cpl holders because they don't have to worry about it. Me personally I feel very vulnerable when I get in my car, not because I'm unarmed but because my gun is in my trunk and if I ever needed it I would never be able to reach it in time. This law needs to be repealed as well as 750.234d (h) regarding establishments licensed under the Michigan liquor controll act. It's ridiculous someone needs a cpl to carry in a grocery store, restaurant, or to fill up their gas. Thanks again, hopefully we can see progress on all this some time this year. Keep us up to date.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  3. #3
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Yance View Post
    Thanks for you attention to this stainless, it effects a lot of people, myself included. It's probably an issue that's out of the minds of most cpl holders because they don't have to worry about it. Me personally I feel very vulnerable when I get in my car, not because I'm unarmed but because my gun is in my trunk and if I ever needed it I would never be able to reach it in time. This law needs to be repealed as well as 750.234d (h) regarding establishments licensed under the Michigan liquor controll act. It's ridiculous someone needs a cpl to carry in a grocery store, restaurant, or to fill up their gas. Thanks again, hopefully we can see progress on all this some time this year. Keep us up to date.
    ^ What the gentleman from Battle Creek above me has said.
    "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

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I hope they do something with this. There is something out there to eliminate the lawful purposes, but that is an exercise in futility. Any court appointed attorney should be able to argue that much. The problem is, you still need a CPL under that law. There is no reason that everyone shouldn't be able to bear arms in their (private property) vehicle.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    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.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Way a head of you Q

    Stainless, I noticed that bill over on MGO, I also voiced my opinion of it I pretty much think its a waste of time, it didnt do anything to help possession while in a vehicle, you still need a CPL to carry it, or have it in the passenger compartment. All it does it make it less wordy, which was a waste of tax payers dollars. IMHO.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wayne County, MI.
    Posts
    271
    If you have room for a few extra words that fit into the e-mail ask them get rid of the notify law also.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Yep, that notification law has got - to - go.

  9. #9
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    I do think if we allow car carry we would need to make changes to 750.234d and 750.237a (carry on school property). Could probably just add an exemption to section 5.
    "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

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    That would be a nice option, one I agree with BTW, but I think we will have better luck by extending your right to self defense in your home, to your car as well first, then go after the PFZs.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 01-31-2012 at 12:00 AM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The legislature doesnt seem to be at all interested in getting rid of PFZs, so we should work on some of the other infringements instead.

  12. #12
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    That would be a nice option, one I agree with BTW, but I think we will have better luck by extending your right to self defense in your home, to your car as well first, then go after the PFZs.
    I think if we do car carry we'd have a good chance of changing those with the car carry. So many people would violate 750.234d or not carry in the car because of it. I think adding it to the car carry law would be a great chance to change those. Concealed PFZ would need to be changed/removed separately
    "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

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I agree. Trouble is, we have a legislature that won't touch PFZs. If someone violates 234d, its a $100 misdemeanor. Chance of jail is remote. It would keep you from getting a CPL for 3 years, but with car carry, the need for a CPL is dramatically reduced.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Couldnt you swing the Castle Doctrine to fit with car carry, i.e. the potential need to defend yourself while in your vehicle?
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I doubt it.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I have gotten some response from Rep. Oppsomer.

    Him : Mr. X

    Thank you. To be clear, you are talking about loaded weapons within the car, not stowed unloaded in the trunk, correct?


    Me :Correct.

    IMO There is no reason that people shouldn't have the same ability to access their lawfully owned firearms in their private property vehicle, that they have already in their private property home.

    Him : I believe Castle Doctrine would bear you out. I have introduced this legislation, but it has stalled:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b01lxc55jv5nohfqt3hwad55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-5064&query=on

    Me : Im not sure castle doctrine itself would argue well against 231a and 227, considering that those make it impossible to access the firearm for a defensive, or any other purpose.

    I have read, and support the bill that you linked. However, I feel that at this time, it may be the wrong approach. If this did not include mention of property, and lawsuits, I think it might do better. It seems that the legislature is unwilling to touch gun free zones, and private property rights. Simply repealing 750.231a and 750.227 might be an easier way to restore a persons right to transport without a CPL.

    There is a bill that would repeal the "lawful purposes written into 750.231a, however that would be rather redundant. The way 231a is now written, the phrase "lawful purpose includes" is already written into the statute. Any court appointed attorney could argue that point. The law as written, and under the new bill, would still require the person to have a valid CPL in order to be in possession of a lawfully owned firearm for self defense. That bill is called HB 5282, and is readable here : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...2-HIB-5282.htm

    Again, I think that the most acceptable approach, would be to repeal 750.231a, and 750.227.

    I look forward to hearing from you again.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 01-31-2012 at 08:40 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I have gotten some response from Rep. Oppsomer.

    Him : Mr. X

    Thank you. To be clear, you are talking about loaded weapons within the car, not stowed unloaded in the trunk, correct?


    Me :Correct.

    IMO There is no reason that people shouldn't have the same ability to access their lawfully owned firearms in their private property vehicle, that they have already in their private property home.

    Him : I believe Castle Doctrine would bear you out. I have introduced this legislation, but it has stalled:
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(b01lxc55jv5nohfqt3hwad55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-HB-5064&query=on

    Me : Im not sure castle doctrine itself would argue well against 231a and 227, considering that those make it impossible to access the firearm for a defensive, or any other purpose.

    I have read, and support the bill that you linked. However, I feel that at this time, it may be the wrong approach. If this did not include mention of property, and lawsuits, I think it might do better. It seems that the legislature is unwilling to touch gun free zones, and private property rights. Simply repealing 750.231a and 750.227 might be an easier way to restore a persons right to transport without a CPL.

    There is a bill that would repeal the "lawful purposes written into 750.231a, however that would be rather redundant. The way 231a is now written, the phrase "lawful purpose includes" is already written into the statute. Any court appointed attorney could argue that point. The law as written, and under the new bill, would still require the person to have a valid CPL in order to be in possession of a lawfully owned firearm for self defense. That bill is called HB 5282, and is readable here : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...2-HIB-5282.htm

    Again, I think that the most acceptable approach, would be to repeal 750.231a, and 750.227.

    I look forward to hearing from you again.
    Stainless I think you're doing great work with this but I seriously thinking you should be mentioning how 750.234d would prevent someone from having the loaded gun in their vehicle while on a trip to Meijer. Whether it be to exempt people who have the gun in the car or eliminate it all together I think that it would be necessary to do something about it to allow people to have the gun in the car.
    "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

  18. #18
    Regular Member TheQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan
    Posts
    3,448
    Quote Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
    Stainless I think you're doing great work with this but I seriously thinking you should be mentioning how 750.234d would prevent someone from having the loaded gun in their vehicle while on a trip to Meijer. Whether it be to exempt people who have the gun in the car or eliminate it all together I think that it would be necessary to do something about it to allow people to have the gun in the car.
    MOC has plans to tackle .234d -- soon
    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.

  19. #19
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by TheQ View Post
    MOC has plans to tackle .234d -- soon
    May I ask what the plans are?
    "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

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Excellent news. I am one of the strongest opponents to PFZs you will ever meet. That said, I left them out of this request intentionally, because the legislature doesn't seem to want to go near it.

    My rep, Eileen Kowall ran second amendment banners large on her re election campaign, but she seems to support gun free zones, and would "feel more comfortable" if everyone who carried a gun had some form of training. I think you can see what Im getting at here.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    When an effort is launched apart from this transportation thing, to eliminate PFZs, and especially that silly little liquor license catch-all, you can bet that I will be on board with that effort.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Update

    Him : Thank you for the feedback, we are familiar with HB 5282 and helped to write it. It was necessary in that under the rule of lenity whatever is not expressly illegal is legal, so as to define lawful purposes with specific instances means that some activities that were otherwise not considered illegal would somehow be considered not a legal purpose. So for example, if you stopped at a gas station on the way to the range, the gas station stop might be considered illegal because it is not expressly listed (we know of a person who the police got on this point). We understand 5282 would not address your desire for loaded pistols without a CPL, but wanted to explain why HB 5282 was needed. We have talked to other reps about your concept, which we donít dismiss, but most of them have just suggested the person get a CPL. We see your point but just wanted to convey to you our experience as we have shopped around various proposals we have tried to get support for. Ultimately we are trying to find things that are the best benefit for gun owners that we can still get passed out of both chambers and sent to the Governor.


    Me :
    I am also aware of people who have gotten screwed under the old transportation law. Not everyone can get, or wants to get a CPL. Not all of those people have ever done anything wrong to bar them from getting a CPL. The right to both keep and to bear arms belongs to all mentally stable non violent people, not just a few. A CPL turns a right into a privelidge, it is ine of the worst infringements to the so called right to keep and bear arms that there ever was. A person should not have to ask for, qualify to use, and then pay to exercise a right that the government did not give them in the first place. How would my suggestion of eliminating these two unconstitutional laws not prevent the case you cited from happening to some other innocent person? Gun control is about control, not about guns. These laws do nothing to hinder criminals, I dare say, that most criminals are unaware of them, and wouldn't care about them, nor understand what they read if they knew how to find them. Please try to convince the other representatives to err on the side of freedom by sharing these ideas with them, that way at least we will know whose side they are on come election time.


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    Stainless I personally appreciate your efforts in this, I think seeing how in the last exchange you were told the other reps suggested a person "just get a CPL" unfortunately that is not the case for everyone. I think I will be writing Rep. Opsommer myself to let him know others are aware of this and to give him an idea of what someone with no CPL has to go through, as well as the fears they may have when they contemplate not being able to reach their firearm in time.

    Thanks again.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    You're welcome, and please, if any of you want to help out, by all means, write your reps. I have noticed that MR Oppsomer is one of the only ones in Lansing that at least tries to correspond with me on such things.

    I spoke rather sharply on my latest reply, but I feel that it was still professional enough, and necessary.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek, MI
    Posts
    578
    This is the email I had just sent...some might find it long, I find it helped get my point accross.

    Mr. Representative,

    I am writing you today because myself and fellow gun owners were made aware of an on going conversation with yourself and a fellow gun owner regarding the need to repeal MCL 750.227 and MCL 750.231a to allow a person without a Michigan CPL to carry or have access to a loaded pistol in the passenger compartment of their private vehicle.

    At first I was following a long with the exchanged emails as they were presented to me, with hopes of change coming to give back those freedoms that have been taken away and allow others that God given right to protect ourselves, even in our vehicles. It was not my intention at all to contact you regarding this matter until something rattled my nerve in one of the emails sent by you to the other individual. In the email it was discussed that you have spoken with other representatives and the collective response to repealing both of the MCL's listed above was that they "suggested the person get a CPL." I have a couple problems with the mindset of "just get a CPL" In michigan there is a rather large list of misdemeanors that prevent a person from getting a CPL for between 3 or 8 years. The list can be seen here on the Michigan State Police Website: http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123...0926--,00.html I am one of the potentially thousands of citizens within the state of Michigan who cannot "just get a CPL" due to a minor infraction because of some slight slip of mind. I am one of the many that still worry about how they will protect themselves if they are ever attacked or find themselves in a situation where their life or the life of a loved one is in danger and they need to protect it. By viewing the statistics released by the Michigan State Police regarding various crimes here: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7...9467--,00.html you can see that even though there are thousands of people in Michigan who would like to be able to protect themselves and cant due to having some form of disqualifying misdemeanors, crime in Michigan is not stopping.

    Thankfully according to Michigans laws I can still possess, transport, and carry a pistol, provided I carry it openly, so I am not completely unarmed, however due to MCL 750.227 and .231a I am severely hindered in my ability to protect myself, even though I may still have a pistol. Since I cannot "just get a CPL" due to my mistake I am required BY LAW to unload my firearm at the trunk of my vehicle and place it in a container designed for transportation of a firearm (MCL 750.231a) then drive to the desired location and take my firearm out of my trunk, load it, and holster it. This may sound simple and like a solution to my problem however the problem isnt having to frequently unarm and rearm myself, it comes while I am seated in my vehicle.

    I heard of an incident a few months ago, one I'm sure is just part of a number of similiar incidents, where a young man and his lady were out in the evening and upon stopping at a location an unidentified man approached the vehicle and attempted to rob the young couple at which time the attacker opened fire with a pistol seriously wounding the young man in the driver seat before fleeing the scene. The last I heard of the incident the young man was in critical condition at a local hospital. This happened in the Lansing area. The only thing that runs through my mind when I hear of incidents such as this is 'what if it was me' and I say this because had it been me and my lady that night, though my firearm was just feet away in my trunk, I would have no access to it and would be unable to access it at the time the attack took place. Even though I had a firearm in my trunk I am still completely defenseless for myself and my loved one. Attacks like this, while not too often, do happen and will continue to happen, the only thing we have to do is ask ourselves and our representatives how long are we willing to allow the citizens of Michigan to be unnecessary victims?

    By repealing MCL 750.227 and .231a you allow citizens like myself who cannot "just get a CPL" a means to protect ourselves while in our vehicle. A vehicle which is our private property and if yourself and others do not agree then I must ask, why then do law enforcement need a search warrant to access our vehicles and its locked compartments? By repealing the afore mentioned laws you give the ability to protect oneself back to the citizen, by allowing a person to carry a firearm on their person in their vehicle or to have it easily accessible in their vehicle they can protect themselves from vicious attacks such as the one I mentioned.

    Again I ask for your support in repealing MCL 750.227 and 231a so that the citizens of Michigan who cannot "just get a CPL" regain the ability to defend themselves while in their vehicle if they ever have to. The 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms to the people, just as Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constition, its time the peoples rights were restored.
    The worst weapon is the human mind, its created and done things far worse than a gun can, has, or ever will. Its the human mind that tells the gun what to do and animates the inanimate object.

    With all these gun control laws in place I have yet to find a single one that has saved someones life, but I can find hundreds of stories where a gun has.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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