PFZ repeal or Registration Repeal

Yance · Sep 26, 2012

I guess making a decision would have to be based on what effects you more.

Everyone has to have a purchase permit/ RI 60 and register their pistols under the current law, not everyone has to deal with PFZs however. On one hand you have a bill (SB-59) which would effect ONLY those with CPLs, roughly 339,016 (from the MSP website) people. Whereas PP and registration repeal (HB 5225) would effect any law abiding person in Michigan that wishes to purchase a pistol which could be nearly 7 million people.

In that regard not everyone buys a firearm every day or every month even whereas some people are effected by PFZs everyday either by choice or because of their jobs, in having to pick between the two theres going to be a bit of a bias depending on how the situation effects you.

Looking at a comparison of the number of people either of these could possibly effect it would seem as though getting rid of PP and registration would be the more beneficial because that would effect EVERY law abiding person who buys a firearm whereas PFZ repeal only effects a handful and only some of the time, but it would allow those with CPLs to carry in areas where having a firearm might be the most necessary.

Just something for you all to think about when considering the question in the OP.

Super Trucker · Sep 26, 2012

Yance said:
I guess making a decision would have to be based on what effects you more.

Everyone has to have a purchase permit/ RI 60 and register their pistols under the current law, not everyone has to deal with PFZs however. On one hand you have a bill (SB-59) which would effect ONLY those with CPLs, roughly 339,016 (from the MSP website) people. Whereas PP and registration repeal (HB 5225) would effect any law abiding person in Michigan that wishes to purchase a pistol which could be nearly 7 million people.

In that regard not everyone buys a firearm every day or every month even whereas some people are effected by PFZs everyday either by choice or because of their jobs, in having to pick between the two theres going to be a bit of a bias depending on how the situation effects you.

Looking at a comparison of the number of people either of these could possibly effect it would seem as though getting rid of PP and registration would be the more beneficial because that would effect EVERY law abiding person who buys a firearm whereas PFZ repeal only effects a handful and only some of the time, but it would allow those with CPLs to carry in areas where having a firearm might be the most necessary.

Just something for you all to think about when considering the question in the OP.

How many non CPL people buy their only gun every year?
Would it be safe to say 1/3 of CPL holders have kids, how many go to the movies or sport events?

stainless1911 · Sep 26, 2012

DrTodd said:
PFZ repeal only if it is "complete"...ie no further training needed;no waiting until a renewal; applies to all CPL holders; etc. Otherwise registration repeal. I think both could successfully be challenged as unconstitutional and if anyone is actually charged with either, I would suggest that they fight the charges all the way to SCOTUS if needed.

Should Go to everyone, not just CPL holders.

ken243 · Sep 26, 2012

Yance said:
... On one hand you have a bill (SB-59) which would effect ONLY those with CPLs, roughly 339,016 (from the MSP website) people. Whereas PP and registration repeal (HB 5225) would effect any law abiding person in Michigan that wishes to purchase a pistol which could be nearly 7 million people.
...

Just a FYI, 494,199 CPL's have been issued 2001-June 2011. The 2011-2012 report has not been posted yet. If memory serves me it is suppose to be published by Oct.1.

And, get rid of PFZ's. I agree with background checks.

Big Gay Al · Sep 26, 2012

Super Trucker said:
How many non CPL people buy their only gun every year?
Would it be safe to say 1/3 of CPL holders have kids, how many go to the movies or sport events?

I have 2 sons, (Don't ask how, the answer might make your head explode.

), we go to movies and such. And I would love to be able to carry in a theater without putting everyone in a tizzy.

stainless1911 · Sep 26, 2012

ken243 said:
. I agree with background checks.

Why?

ken243 · Sep 26, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Why?

Just think that measures should be in place so that felons could not purchase a gun in such a manner. Obviously they get them anyway. But this would be one less outlet. Of course the current background check is broken as it is. But that is another issue. Reporting mental illness should be reported to the ATF but so many times it is not.

stainless1911 · Sep 27, 2012

I might catch some flack for this, but. As noted, theses laws don't work, they won't stop people from getting, or from doing anything they shouldn't with, a gun. I do not believe that people should be prohibited from having them, especially for life, people change. The Constitution says that this right shall not be infringed, and the Michigan constitution is clear that "every person has the right" etc... If a person cannot be trusted on the street with a gun, then why are they on the street? If they do commit a crime, whether with a gun or without, the law is not lacking in either authority nor power to deal with the problem. I think that this, just like all other gun laws, are just feel good measures that seldom pan out in the real world. Mental incompetency I can understand, so long as it's a small portion of individuals, and the criteria is very rigid, and never politically motivated. I wouldn't want someone who is truly incompetent owning a firearm, however, our .gov has shown that it cannot be trusted with making such decisions and distinctions fairly.

TheQ · Sep 27, 2012

Not to derail my own thread, but I'll be bold: I think felons should be able to buy and possess guns. The ones that are still dangerous still belong in prison. There are a lot of non-violent felons, particularly in Michigan (where a crime that is a felony here may be a misdemeanor in another jurisdiction).

stainless1911 · Sep 27, 2012

TheQ said:
Not to derail my own thread, but I'll be bold: I think felons should be able to buy and possess guns. The ones that are still dangerous still belong in prison. There are a lot of non-violent felons, particularly in Michigan (where a crime that is a felony here may be a misdemeanor in another jurisdiction).

Thank you Q! Thats pretty much what Im talking about. As soon as they say that (X) cannot have a gun, then they start making as many people fall into category (X) as possible.

G22 · Sep 27, 2012

Leaning towards pfz removal.

I don't think there's a chance in hell for the registration bill to pass.

Let's get what we can from this cluster$@&# of a pro2a legislature.

stainless1911 · Sep 27, 2012

Posted in the right thread

Why not? I think it might pass because the police are tired of tracking law abiding citizens, and it costs the state millions to maintain it.

Best way to approach this, is to talk up the money.

hehehe

HKcarrier · Sep 27, 2012

Big Gay Al said:
I have 2 sons, (Don't ask how, the answer might make your head explode. ), we go to movies and such. And I would love to be able to carry in a theater without putting everyone in a tizzy.

Hehe... this post gave me a chuckle.

TheQ said:
Not to derail my own thread, but I'll be bold: I think felons should be able to buy and possess guns. The ones that are still dangerous still belong in prison. There are a lot of non-violent felons, particularly in Michigan (where a crime that is a felony here may be a misdemeanor in another jurisdiction).

I may or may not agree with this, but the fact of the matter is, I think 95% of people are going to disagree, and you can't overcome that.

Yooper · Sep 27, 2012

stainless1911 said:
Why not? I think it might pass because the police are tired of tracking law abiding citizens, and it costs the state millions to maintain it.

Best way to approach this, is to talk up the money.

hehehe

I agree, Snyder seems to be all about cutting waste. What better waste to get rid of than the registration system. It costs the state money to buy/produce the forms, costs more money to maintain databases, and now because a registration being mailed in could get lost in the mail, they could waste money trying to prosecute a person who's registration got lost in the mail.

In addition, I've had relatives who would like to bring their handguns up here to target shoot when they visit, but can't because they don't have a CPL from their home state (don't wan't/need one). That's lost tax revenue from them purchasing ammo up here. While the total revenue from situations like that (which may include hunters who live out of state that want to bring handguns) may not be much, it is an income to the state, and not a loss like trying to run the registration.

Most PFZ's are avoidable, and one can still OC in most of them with a CPL if they choose.

Yooper · Sep 27, 2012

TheQ said:
Not to derail my own thread, but I'll be bold: I think felons should be able to buy and possess guns. The ones that are still dangerous still belong in prison. There are a lot of non-violent felons, particularly in Michigan (where a crime that is a felony here may be a misdemeanor in another jurisdiction).

I agree, if a person is not trusted enough to own a gun, they shouldn't be trusted enough to be out of prison.

Big Gay Al · Sep 27, 2012

HKcarrier said:
Hehe... this post gave me a chuckle.

That was partly my intention.

HKcarrier said:
I may or may not agree with this, but the fact of the matter is, I think 95% of people are going to disagree, and you can't overcome that.

Not me, I think once a person has done their time, including parole time, they should have all their rights restored.

Bronson · Sep 27, 2012

Registration.

Bronson

OC4me · Sep 27, 2012

Ok, here is my .02. We can have our cake and eat it too. We are the gun lobby for pete's sake, we should have things our way, or we should be telling our representatives to hit the highway!

Repealing pistol registration and preserving the 'exemption' to the Federal GFSZ scarecrow can quite simply be accomplished as follows:

Statute XXX (whatever the Registration law happens to be) is hereby repealed. Furthermore, the Michigan legislature hereby declares that all Michigan residents who are lawfully eligible to possess a firearm are hereby declared 'licensed' to do so.

Done. That is it. How hard can it really be to draft a bill that satisfies both sides?

Everybody can stop arguing now. Simply re-write the above draft bill into proper legalese and then, with a united voice, demand that our legislators pass it.

/end of rant

TheQ · Sep 27, 2012

OC4me said:
Ok, here is my .02. We can have our cake and eat it too. We are the gun lobby for pete's sake, we should have things our way, or we should be telling our representatives to hit the highway!

Repealing pistol registration and preserving the 'exemption' to the Federal GFSZ scarecrow can quite simply be accomplished as follows:

Statute XXX (whatever the Registration law happens to be) is hereby repealed. Furthermore, the Michigan legislature hereby declares that all Michigan residents who are lawfully eligible to possess a firearm are hereby declared 'licensed' to do so.

Done. That is it. How hard can it really be to draft a bill that satisfies both sides?

Everybody can stop arguing now. Simply re-write the above draft bill into proper legalese and then, with a united voice, demand that our legislators pass it.

/end of rant

The federal law says there has to be a background check in order for the permit/license to meet the qualifications for the exemption.

OC4me · Sep 27, 2012

TheQ said:
The federal law says there has to be a background check in order for the permit/license to meet the qualifications for the exemption.

Ok fine, the bill can then state that so long as the individual has ever had a NICs check pursuant to the legal purchase of 'any' firearm, then that individual is from that moment forward considered to be 'licensed'.

Not perfect but its much better than having our camp remain divided.

"Impossible is often untried!"

PFZ repeal or Registration Repeal

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member