SB 59 passes the Senate with cost to Open Carriers :(

[Big Gay Al]

I know that posts can be edited or deleted, I would not be shocked if someone at MOC would and has deleted post that go against their decided course.

I've found that sometimes, if you click on the wrong link all the posts seem to disappear on FB. I'm not sure why, and I don't even know how to get them back, although I've seen some of them come back on occasion. Frankly, I preferred the older version of FB. This constant "upgrading" that places like Facebook, and Myspace do, just discourage me from even going there.

 

[Raggs]

As with many things Personal Attacks will not be tolerated and since people seem to have a problem debating the issue without attacking the person or persons that made the decision..... such posts have been removed.

Thats fine, but I think some think that disagreeing with them is a personal attack.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Run to make it entertaining at least.

I could do that. At least that way, no one could accuse TheQ of winning by default.

 

[Big Gay Al]

Thats fine, but I think some think that disagreeing with them is a personal attack.

Sometimes it's not the fact that they disagreed, it's the way they did it, and the words that were used. I tend to disagree with people here, but I usually try to not be insulting when I do it. Unless of course I get provoked. Even then, I tend to use great restraint.

If I had actually bitten my tongue, every time I held back, I'd not only not have a tongue, but I'd be owing one to someone else.

 

[Venator]

[h=5]SB 59 UPDATE AND ACTION ALERT: Committee Chair Frank Foster has pulled SB 59 from the agenda of tomorrow's House Natural Resources Committee meeting. With just over a week left in the legislative session, this has the serious potential to kill the bill. Please e-mail Rep. Foster at FrankFoster@house.mi.gov and politely ask him to consider and pass SB 59 tomorrow.[/h]

 

[Big Gay Al]

Its hard to believe that a once Michigan Open Carry MOC gun rights group whose focus is on open carry would would actually support a bill in which it would in essance ban open carry in PFZ's in order for concealed carry holders to be granted the right. It's a pretty terrible position in my opinion and it will hurt MOC quite a bit. I wonder how many gun rights folks will avoid MOC because of their terrible decision to support this sham of a bill.

If the bill passes I can be we'll also see PFZ restrictions on places that are allowed to do so. Such as signs going up with NO GUNS ALLOWED. The precious PFZ bill will only bolster more anti-guners to post more restrictions to their venues. Not failing to mention that OC'rs will be denied the right automatically under the force of the law in those same areas. Taking a way a right to carry by allowing another form of carry is in no way a win win and this bill specifically will single out open carriers as being something people dont want. It's a terrible bill and personally I'd be happy that it's left alone if this is the alternative!

Except, under the current law, OC in the PFZs is not a right. It is a privilege, and a tenuous one at that. Carry under a CPL, whether it's OC or CC, if required to carry, is not a right. Until we get rid of the necessity to have state approved papers, it's all a sham any way.

We can't carry concealed without a CPL, and we can't OC in certain places, including our own vehicles, unless we have a CPL. That is not a right in my book, that is a state approved privilege. Unfortunately, with the current people in state government, it's probably the best we can do right now.

Until the bozos in Lansing take off their blinders and see that the Pistol Free Zones are actually Criminal Empowerment Zones, AND that OC is no more dangerous than CC, our so called right to carry a pistol, or any firearm will always be a privilege, and not a right.

Yes, I know, we have "shall issue." Big whoop. You still HAVE to have training, you still have to have a background check, and you have to pay $105.00 once every 5 years!! Frankly, I'd rather have Indiana's model, even though you need a license to carry at all down there. At least they have the option of a life time license, no required training, and unless/until SB59 goes through, fewer PFZs than we have. Oh, and their license is simply a license to carry. "Concealed" is not on it at all.

Still, not a right, a licensed privilege. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever see full Constitutional carry in my life time. Hopefully, before my sons die, they might see it.

 

[Outdoorsman]

Although I am not a MOC member (I only post on this website), I believe that to restrict "rights" in order to "improve" others is nothing more than robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am a CPL holder and I like the idea of being able to conceal just about anywhere, but I don't like having the places taken away where I can OC. So... that being said I do not support this legislation as it stands.

 

[scot623]

Everyone is free to lobby against the bill. Please do so if you feel that strongly about it.

 

[detroit_fan]

can we please stop the personal attacks and keep the discussion on the bill itself so we don't have nay more mods shutting down threads.

we get it mike, you don't like the bill, you've made it perfectly clear, no need to keep bashing moc or others, it is serving no purpose. you are certainly free to do whatever you want to oppose the bill but please stop with the bashing so we can keep the thread open for discussion.

 

[detroit_fan]

I'm also free to critisize MOC. It's not a personal attack. MOC isnt not a person. Its an non profit organization. Especially when they as DrTodd put it perfectly that nobody from MOC will respond to:

If MOC were started as an association advocating for concealed-carry, I would accept the organization advocating for this. I can also see advocating for a bill that helps CC but remains neutral in its treatment of OC. However, MOC was founded to advocate for Open Carry... which this bill restricts. So how does this further what MOC states as their founding goal?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesnt improve our situation. It shuffles the law to criminalize OC in a PFZ just to allow CC in PFZs in which mark my words we will see no carry signs in PFZs. Good luck CC'ing then. MOC has gone to hell in a hand basket and with this latest shnanagens in relation to the anti-open carry bill I'd be hard pressed to believe many people out there will support them.

Fair enough, but you've already made your point, why do you feel the need to start another thread(that was closed for being a duplicate) and why do you think MOC owes you any explanation? Unless you are a paying member I don't see how they owe you any explanation. They made their decision and have stated their reason for their decision(about 1000 times already). You've made it clear that you don't agree with it, and you don't agree with them, posting the same thing over and over is pointless. So do what you want to kill the bill, I'm just asking we keep the discussion in this thread civil so it can remain open for people who wish to discuss the bill.

 

[scot623]

I'm also free to critisize MOC. It's not a personal attack. MOC isnt not a person. Its an non profit organization. Especially when they as DrTodd put it perfectly that nobody from MOC will respond to:

If MOC were started as an association advocating for concealed-carry, I would accept the organization advocating for this. I can also see advocating for a bill that helps CC but remains neutral in its treatment of OC. However, MOC was founded to advocate for Open Carry... which this bill restricts. So how does this further what MOC states as their founding goal?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesnt improve our situation. It shuffles the law to criminalize OC in a PFZ just to allow CC in PFZs in which mark my words we will see no carry signs in PFZs. Good luck CC'ing then. MOC has gone to hell in a hand basket and with this latest shnanagens in relation to the anti-open carry bill I'd be hard pressed to believe many people out there will support them.

It's been asked and answered. But if you've chosen not to read the threads containing the answers...I'll spell it out just for you. There are what, 5000 open carriers in the state? An unscientific guess which very well could be on the high side. Screw it, lets say 10,000. Do you think our legislature is going to approve legislation that one tenth of a percent of the population cares about? Not to mention the vocal soccer moms who adamantly oppose our ideas. Now if the gun community at large also supports those same ideas we have a much larger group to lobby our legislature and drown out the antis. If MOC lobbies against this bill, those 340,000+ CPL holders would never support us. It's been a long road to shake the "wild west gun nut" image. Showing we care about the majority helps change some opinions about us. Politics is about compromise, we aren't happy about the OC provision in the bill, but we didnt put it there and we can't cant get it removed.

 

[griffin]

Anyone who says they're a non-profit to defend our open carry gun rights supports an anti open carry bill should have their non-profit revoked.

And the legal basis for this would be...?

 

[griffin]

So how does this further what MOC states as their founding goal?

SB59 benefits all gun owners, those who CC and OC alike.

we will see no carry signs in PFZs. Good luck CC'ing then.

That won't stop anyone from CCing because a) signs do not have the force of law in Michigan, b) if you are CCing, no one will know, anyway, so they won't ask you to leave, c) some places will not be allowed to put up those signs by law.

Chicken Little, much?

 

[TheQ]

Fair enough, but you've already made your point, why do you feel the need to start another thread

Because he's a troll. He's made that much clear.

Hey Mike, what's UFO's plan for the bill? Short of UFO's plan, what's your personal plan of action on this bill?

I'd think you'd be on your way right now to Lansing to try and stop it!

 

[mirussell]

Because overzealous moderators continue to close posts I'll just add it to here. I guess this is what they wanted??

2 questions out there I'm wondering how the open carry folks feel about this.

Do you support MOC's decision to support SB59 banning open carry in PFZs? Would you continue to support MOC after it supports an ANTI Open Carry Bill?



My response is after MOC went very down hill the last couple years I've dropped all support of the group and this decision justifies my feelings in the subject. We need people who support our right to open carry and not get along to get along mantality which we've seen ENOUGH of in this country. Anyone who says they're a non-profit to defend our open carry gun rights supports an anti open carry bill should have their non-profit revoked. MOC is now a terrible organization and this is proof of it! This is my opinion and nobody elses.

Thanks for helping me make up my mind it's your stance of my way or the highway that pushed me !! If a bill that comes up to ban open carry i'll make sure i write to my member of the house or congress to support it. If you caan't support anything that helps me with my carry I'll be dammed if i'm going to help you.

 

[TheQ]

Thanks for helping me make up my mind it's your stance of my way or the highway that pushed me !! If a bill that comes up to ban open carry i'll make sure i write to my member of the house or congress to support it. If you caan't support anything that helps me with my carry I'll be dammed if i'm going to help you.

Just remember: The Chairman of UFO sent you

 

[backenj]

I'm done with this thread. I see no more value in it. Live long and prosper.

or not

 

[Big Gay Al]

Ok, without saying "who" I will only say that I've received 4 complaints about the same message within half an hour. However, before anything is done, I'm going to contact the admin to see what he thinks, and then go from there.

Also, without saying "who," I will point out there is at least one violation of rule 12., bashing a gun rights organization. This one was not complained about, I'm merely pointing it out. Again, I'll wait for a judgement from the admin before I do anything about it. Mind you, I can't speak for the other mods, who may decide to jump in and do their own thing.

This is just what I'm doing.

 

[TheQ]

Ok, without saying "who" I will only say that I've received 4 complaints about the same message within half an hour. However, before anything is done, I'm going to contact the admin to see what he thinks, and then go from there.

Also, without saying "who," I will point out there is at least one violation of rule 12., bashing a gun rights organization. This one was not complained about, I'm merely pointing it out. Again, I'll wait for a judgement from the admin before I do anything about it. Mind you, I can't speak for the other mods, who may decide to jump in and do their own thing.

This is just what I'm doing.

I say: shut it down, the thread's a train wreck.

 

[Big Gay Al]

I say: shut it down, the thread's a train wreck.

I tried that once, it didn't work so well.