scot623
Regular Member
750.234d makes open carry illegal in multiple places. It only becomes legal if you get the states "permission slip"(CPL). Just sayin'.
-
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.
-
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.
UnOfficial SB 59 Debate Thread
- Thread starter jeremiahJohnson
- Start date
- Status
750.234d makes open carry illegal in multiple places. It only becomes legal if you get the states "permission slip"(CPL). Just sayin'.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Where in 750.234d does it specifically mention "openly carry" like SB59 does?
After all... for a very long time folks stood on the premise that open carry was legal because there are not any laws that make open carry illegal. However... SB59 has language in it that specifically makes "openly carry" illegal. While SB59 only applies to "openly carry" in PFZ's I believe having a law that specifically mentions open carry sets the precedent of specifically making the act of open carry itself illegal... a precedent that can be used in the future to expand where "openly carry" can be made illegal.
Folks could say I am parsing words but the truth is I am concerned that specific words have specific meanings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
No, 750.234d does not mention either open or concealed carry (exception in section 2 does mention having a license to carry concealed). It only says that you cannot possess a firearm in specific places unless you have a CPL or fit into one of the other exceptions in section 2.
Last edited:
scot623
Regular Member
Dude, parsing words? You're being purposely obtuse. If you can't posses a firearm, you know damn well you can't open carry it. Don't become Mike Stilly, you are waaaay smarter than that.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Example were asked for where written permission was given and examples were presented. Next question.
I can also give example were I was asked to leave for OC. Next question.
The fact remains that on private property you ALWAYS needed permission to carry OC or CC.
I can also give example were I was asked to leave for OC. Next question.
The fact remains that on private property you ALWAYS needed permission to carry OC or CC.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Yes, I am in favor; I was disappointed by the amount of disinformation and disingenuous replies, and felt it was time to put it down.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Obviously, you have not read the proposed legislation you so vehemently oppose. How did you arrive at your opinion without reading it? Do you base your opinions on 'sound bites' on internet forums?
Your arguments ring hollow in light of this fact; thanks for coming out as a troll, instead of providing a thoughtful analysis of the law as written.
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Actually, I just forgot to 'un-stickie' the threads. The 'nails on a chalkboard' part is priceless, though...:lol:
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
Why read it, when you can just bash it outright?
One man's meat is another man's poison - one person's music is another person's noise. :uhoh:
Gort
Regular Member
In a previous posting of Yours You admonish those that use the word LOOPHOLE
Very confusing you are.
Your statement from the Original Sb59 posting:
I'll say it again and I'll say it 200 more times. Our right to open carry in pistol fee zones is not a loophole or gray area. Even the anti-gun MSP agrees that it's legal. The mindset that led to this thinking comes from anti-gunners. If there is no existing law banning or criminalizing open carry then it's not a criminal act. Just because the law makers didn't take something into account when drafting laws doesn't mean it's a loophole. It's a loophole or gray area to me because they have an agenda. The fact is the more complicated and "Compromise for the greater good" we are the more messes we get ourselves in to. Criminalizing open carry is a terrible idea and greater good or not I don't support criminalizing any form of our natural rights to carry a firearm. Any firearm!
B
Bikenut
Guest
I am not being purposefully obtuse SIR! I am expressing my concern about the actual words of "openly carry" in SB59 possibly being used as a precedent for future restrictions on openly carrying because there would be a precedent of the specific words "openly carry" making the simple act of openly carrying illegal in a law. Words have meaning and up until now the words "openly carry", and the meaning those words represent, were not specifically contained in any law.
If other people do not share this concern I can respect that.. however... that does not diminish my concern nor does the opinion of others in reference to my concern (or rude responses) make my concern invalid.
However, if there is already an MCL with the specific wording of "openly carry" or "open carry" (which I haven't found) then my concern of the wording of SB59 setting a precedent would not be valid.
After all .. if the words "openly carry" defining a crime are not in law at this time wouldn't the wording contained in SB59 set the precedent of making "openly carrying" a crime?
Last edited by a moderator:
mastiff69
Regular Member
Well I have been OCing since the winter of 2007, & have been to many many events all over & no one even mentioned that we had to get written permission to use there place of bussiness.
Now it seems that we had to get written permission, I could have swore that we delibertly advoided those locations so that non CPL holders could attend the events....
But as usual iguess i am wrong, as no one ever told me, or showed me any permission slips that we aquired from the owners !
It is very apparent to many of us that the tone is set in stone. The MOC org will, do as they please,
So did all members vote on it ?
Was Oc carriers in general asked their opinions, was it debated by the firearm carriers, or is this support politicaly motivated, ( and at what cost ?)
The State NEVER gives anything away, without taking 2 or more in return....
So what, are WE loosing this time !
Now it seems that we had to get written permission, I could have swore that we delibertly advoided those locations so that non CPL holders could attend the events....
But as usual iguess i am wrong, as no one ever told me, or showed me any permission slips that we aquired from the owners !
It is very apparent to many of us that the tone is set in stone. The MOC org will, do as they please,
So did all members vote on it ?
Was Oc carriers in general asked their opinions, was it debated by the firearm carriers, or is this support politicaly motivated, ( and at what cost ?)
The State NEVER gives anything away, without taking 2 or more in return....
So what, are WE loosing this time !
detroit_fan
Regular Member
Nope, the board voted on it, they were elected to make decisions on behalf of MOC.
non-MOC members were not asked, but i really don't know any orgs that take direction from non-members.
i would say yes. the general opinion is that by compromising and helping the CC'ers accomplish this goal of theirs that they will in turn help to support some OC legislation. a vote to oppose it may have lead to a sour relationship with the other MI 2A groups. (not saying it will play out this way, just passing along what has been said by MOC)
mastiff69
Regular Member
Detroit Fan, I thank you for chimming in,
These were question's that I already had the answers too, I asked these question's to get the masses (MOC) members to think about the way they are leaning & to decide for themselves if this is the way they wish to go.
I would think (IF i were a active member) that something as important as this,, that I would want a called vote, to let all the members vote on SB59, after all this is affecting all of us here !
This is not a normal vote by the board, about day to day affairs.
But hence i am no longer a voting member !
Just some food for thought,
Just asking the questions ?
As a Union Member, day to day affairs are handled by the Union,
unusual issues are brought up for vote by the Union to the members to vote on (yea or nea)
These were question's that I already had the answers too, I asked these question's to get the masses (MOC) members to think about the way they are leaning & to decide for themselves if this is the way they wish to go.
I would think (IF i were a active member) that something as important as this,, that I would want a called vote, to let all the members vote on SB59, after all this is affecting all of us here !
This is not a normal vote by the board, about day to day affairs.
But hence i am no longer a voting member !
Just some food for thought,
Just asking the questions ?
As a Union Member, day to day affairs are handled by the Union,
unusual issues are brought up for vote by the Union to the members to vote on (yea or nea)
scot623
Regular Member
The entire leadership team voted on this issue.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
sorry, misunderstood
Ezerharden
Regular Member
As I understand it, there wasn't time for a membership vote on this 11th hour change by the .gov. So the board did what it had to do, and in honesty what they were elected to do. Granted not an ideal solution but then again it wasn't an ideal situation and the good that will come from this in the long run will outweigh the negative at the moment.
autosurgeon
Regular Member
Mike since you think Brian would have made a different decision as President. Perhaps you don't realize the president does not make these decisions by themselves. In most cases we include the entire leadership team in the discussion and then we have them vote with the board whether to support or not. This was not one mans decision.
scot623
Regular Member
Of course you'd hear the biggest uproar ever..there are over 340,000 CPL holders!! How many people open carry? 5000? 10,000? Without the masses, the voice of the open carrier is to small to have sway, we need CCers and gun owners in general to stand with us if we want 234d repealed or car carry without a CPL. Are those not the two most important issues to OCers?
- Status