SB 59 pulled?

DanM said:

I'll reiterate:

I don't see it as a gray area, but I will say this if some think it is:

While I don't like gray areas, I'll take your gray area that does not explicitly ban OC over your black and white that does explicitly ban OC.

At least with the gray area, *I* get to assess whether the risk is low or high and choose whether or not I OC.

By all means, if you assess the risk as high then don't OC in a PFZ. But shouldn't someone who assesses the risk as low or none be free to do so, rather than there be an outright black-and-white ban on OC in PFZ? Which is worse?

Click to expand...

That is a great way of looking at it, provided you can even afford to make that choice. Ensuring my safety should be an assessment of risk.

If SB59 fails to pass, Michigan residents have these options in PFZ's-

#1-carry concealed anyways, which is committing a crime, and deal with the associated expenses and consequences of that choice(most of us wish to follow the law)

#2-OC in the PFZ, but risk arrest and the associated expenses for defending that choice in court(more money than most can afford)

#3-disarm completely because you don't want to risk the first 2 options.(this is what 99% of MI CPL holders do)

Now, considering those are my current options, I have no choice but to go with #3 due to lack of funds to make #2 a viable option. If SB59 passes we lose option #2(something that really isn't an option to most of us due to the amount of money necessary), but gain a new option of paying a much smaller price to have a black and white law that allows CC in those places.

Is it a privilege, yes. Does it suck that I would have to pay for a class, yes. But the $100 that the class costs is MUCH more affordable to most people than fighting an OC in a PFZ court case, and much cheaper than getting caught CC in a PFZ without the exemption.

SpringerXDacp said:

In my previous comment, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the Bill. Really all I was saying is that:

Thread Created: Discussion SB59-Take (1):

Person "A": I support SB59 and hope it passes, because...
Person "B": I don't support SB59 and hope it dies, because...

Person "A": You're an idiot...
Person "B": No, you're an idiot...

Thread Locked

Thread Created: Discussion SB59-Take (2):

Insert Discussion SB59-Take (1)
.
.
.
Thread Locked
.
.
.

Each and everyone of us here, and elsewhere, may have reasons for agreeing or disagreeing on certain issues. i.e. Person "A" opinion(s) carries no more weight than Person "B" opinion(s).

I will admit, I do not support SB 59. However, it's not for reasons many may think. My reason(s) for not supporting the Bill are mine and mine alone. But just for reference, I don't have a serious problem if I needed, or was required, to CC in a PFZ. Do I think, in my opinion, the requirement to CC is beyond retarded? Yes I do.

Click to expand...

Debate belongs in the official debate thread...not this one.

yes... but who will moderate the moderators?

detroit_fan said:

Is it a privilege, yes. Does it suck that I would have to pay for a class, yes. But the $100 that the class costs is MUCH more affordable to most people than fighting an OC in a PFZ court case, and much cheaper than getting caught CC in a PFZ without the exemption.

Click to expand...

And if SB59 passes, as written, then you are at risk of being prosecuted for printing or exposure if a prosecutor thinks, despite your protests that it was accidental, he can convince a jury in his area you violated the no display or OC in PFZ part. How many prosecutions for OC in a PFZ in Michigan have there been? One or two, if any? How many prosecutions against CC'ers printing or accidentally exposing in states with OC bans? Several to many.

OC'ing in a PFZ here in Michigan is much less risky, legally, than CC'ing in no-exposure/display or no-OC zones has proven to be.

SpringerXDacp said:

Each and everyone of us here, and elsewhere, may have reasons for agreeing or disagreeing on certain issues. i.e. Person "A" opinion(s) carries no more weight than Person "B" opinion(s).

Click to expand...

I don't buy into "it's all just opinion". Some of it is, but there are objective facts as well as objective principles that have been presented as well.

An objective principle voiced has been, to paraphrase, "open carry advocates should not support open carry bans". That's not an opinion, that's a principle which is sound.

An objective fact voiced has been that bans on exposure or OC in other states have resulted in CC'ers being prosecuted for printing or brief exposure. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

DanM said:

And if SB59 passes, as written, then you are at risk of being prosecuted for printing or exposure if a prosecutor thinks, despite your protests that it was accidental, he can convince a jury in his area you violated the no display or OC in PFZ part. How many prosecutions for OC in a PFZ in Michigan have there been? One or two, if any? How many prosecutions against CC'ers printing or accidentally exposing in states with OC bans? Several to many.

OC'ing in a PFZ here in Michigan is much less risky, legally, than CC'ing in no-exposure/display or no-OC zones has proven to be.

Click to expand...

I have a lot more control over whether or not my weapon shows than I do what a prosecutor may try to do to me if i oc in a pfz. i see nothing in this bill that makes printing illegal. other states do not apply here, because those states completely ban oc, we do not. also, some of those states specifically ban printing, we do not

again, it is easy to roll the dice on a pfz charge if you have the money like you do, it's not even an option for someone like me. obviously we do not agree on this, so maybe it's best to just say we agree to disagree.

Venator said:

It WAS/IS a gray area, if they change the wording and the law, then it will more likely be black and white.

Click to expand...

I don't honestly understand how it could be any more black and white. Words like "possess" "carry" and "concealed" are pretty easy to understand. From there we have AG opinions and things.

Judges trying to legislate from the bench cannot change the meaning of the english language.

Michigander said:

I don't honestly understand how it could be any more black and white. Words like "possess" "carry" and "concealed" are pretty easy to understand. From there we have AG opinions and things.

Judges trying to legislate from the bench cannot change the meaning of the english language.

Click to expand...

True, but the imbeciles will try and that can cost someone a bit of cash to fight.

I sent Frank Foster an email and also did not receive a reply.

Michigander said:

I don't honestly understand how it could be any more black and white. Words like "possess" "carry" and "concealed" are pretty easy to understand. From there we have AG opinions and things.

Judges trying to legislate from the bench cannot change the meaning of the english language.

Click to expand...

I would like to take up this point in agreement, and expound on it.

It seems that some are confusing libtard, anti-gun judges' and other officials' pronouncements of "absurdity" or other emotional disagreement about Michigan gun laws as indicative of an objective "gray area" in the law.

To be sure, some of these officials have power to mess up your life, but they do not have the power to muddy the plain language and interplay of the law.

There is no gray area with OC in PFZ's in Michigan. There are libtard, anti-gun officials, some of whom have had their libtard, anti-gun pronouncements smacked down by higher authority. Can you say "Judge Aquilina"? Can you say "Court of Appeals smacking down Judge Aquilina's anti-gun ruling"?

Do not confuse the ramblings of a libtard, anti-gun judge or any other official as evidence of a "gray area" in Michigan gun laws.

Yep. And further, I would also point out that we're talking about a 500 dollar fine and a civil infraction, as well as a 6 month CPL suspension.

This is not the sort of thing that requires mortgaging your house to fight. This is the sort of thing where those who can prepare a case by so much as looking at the MCL's and preparing their testimony can defend themselves in court just fine. I can think of at least a couple people from this forum who have defeated harsher charges with no lawyer.

Worst case scenario, you're out 500 bucks. Can't afford 500 bucks? Think you'd collapse in fear in front of a judge, or maybe think you're too inept at reading code to tell a judge how you didn't break any laws? I can sympathize, and would encourage you not to do it. But remember, if you OC at all, you're already walking on something of a fine line, so always think carefully if it's right for you, because legal trouble is always a very real possibility for us.

DanM said:

And if SB59 passes, as written, then you are at risk of being prosecuted for printing or exposure if a prosecutor thinks, despite your protests that it was accidental, he can convince a jury in his area you violated the no display or OC in PFZ part. How many prosecutions for OC in a PFZ in Michigan have there been? One or two, if any? How many prosecutions against CC'ers printing or accidentally exposing in states with OC bans? Several to many.

OC'ing in a PFZ here in Michigan is much less risky, legally, than CC'ing in no-exposure/display or no-OC zones has proven to be.

Click to expand...

Yep. You COULD be prosecuted for brandishing by open carrying also. Anything is possible.

You COULD be prosecuted for theft if you return a library book 1 week late also....

You COULD already be prosecuted for OCing in a 28.425o zone (hey, look! Somebody already has!). That doesn't stop you from telling people it's legal...

Yep. And further, I would also point out that we have at least two or three very capable lawyers here in Michigan specializing in gun rights and who have won significant victories in those . . . oh, how should I put this? . . . SCARY GRAY AREAS OF THE LAW!

Dean Greenblatt, defeated all the CADL officials and Judge Aquilina in that SCARY GRAY AREA OF THE LAW regarding preemption.

Jim Makowski, defeated City of Birmingham in that SCARY GRAY AREA OF THE LAW regarding brandishing, disturbing the peace, and obstructing an officer (for refusing to ID).

The point is:

They've got SCARY GRAY AREAS OF THE LAW. We've got attorneys . . . and good ones!

Do not be afraid. Molon Labe. Reach down and grab some scrot.

DanM said:

I would like to take up this point in agreement, and expound on it.

It seems that some are confusing libtard, anti-gun judges' and other officials' pronouncements of "absurdity" or other emotional disagreement about Michigan gun laws as indicative of an objective "gray area" in the law.

To be sure, some of these officials have power to mess up your life, but they do not have the power to muddy the plain language and interplay of the law.

There is no gray area with OC in PFZ's in Michigan. There are libtard, anti-gun officials, some of whom have had their libtard, anti-gun pronouncements smacked down by higher authority. Can you say "Judge Aquilina"? Can you say "Court of Appeals smacking down Judge Aquilina's anti-gun ruling"?

Do not confuse the ramblings of a libtard, anti-gun judge or any other official as evidence of a "gray area" in Michigan gun laws.

Click to expand...

On the same note, a libtard could Mess up your life for printing. However, they can't change English. The proposed bill is pretty clear that it has to be "intentional". That being said, you insist on proclaiming that prosecution for printing will happen. *shrugs*

DanM said:

Yep. And further, I would also point out that we have at least two or three very capable lawyers here in Michigan specializing in gun rights and who have won significant victories in those . . . oh, how should I put this? . . . SCARY GRAY AREAS OF THE LAW!

Dean Greenblatt, defeated all the CADL officials and Judge Aquilina in that SCARY GRAY AREA OF THE LAW regarding preemption.

Jim Makowski, defeated City of Birmingham in that SCARY GRAY AREA OF THE LAW regarding brandishing, disturbing the peace, and obstructing an officer (for refusing to ID).

The point is:

They've got SCARY GRAY AREAS OF THE LAW. We've got attorneys . . . and good ones!

Do not be afraid. Molon Labe. Reach down and grab some scrot.

Click to expand...

Yup, and it messed up those peoples lives for several months and cost them lots of money.

Just like someone being prosecuted for "printing" when the law says the display has to be "intentional".

TheQ said:

That being said, you insist on proclaiming that prosecution for printing will happen. *shrugs*

Click to expand...

It HAS happened. *shrugs*

DanM said:

It HAS happened. *shrugs*

Click to expand...

So has prosecution for OC in a 28.425o zone. People v Watkins. I've cited mine, can you cite yours?

TheQ said:

On the same note, a libtard could Mess up your life for printing. However, they can't change English. The proposed bill is pretty clear that it has to be "intentional".

Click to expand...

And the proposed bill, as opposed to today's status quo, is that OC is explicitly BANNED in PFZ's.

I will take the status quo of OC being currently legal according to plain language of the law, although perceived by some OC'ers and libtard judges as "gray area", over an explicit ban on OC, every day and twice on Sunday.

TheQ said:

On the same note, a libtard could Mess up your life for printing. However, they can't change English. The proposed bill is pretty clear that it has to be "intentional". That being said, you insist on proclaiming that prosecution for printing will happen. *shrugs*

Click to expand...

All a prosecutor has to do is claim it was intentional, whether it was or not is irrelevant, it will be up to you to prove it was not, and since it is impossible to prove a negative you lose by default. Effectively your guilty until proven innocent, and you can't prove it.

The debate on SB-59 will continue...it is not dead. It will be passed out of the House this week.