A glimpse into what MI could be in the future...with your help.

[TheQ]

Good question, does MGO do anything as far as lobbying and trying to get laws changed?

Sometimes Mike Theide would show up at hearings and turn in a yellow "support" card.

 

[detroit_fan]

Sometimes Mike Theide would show up at hearings and turn in a yellow "support" card.

so what exactly do they do, just run a forum?

just out of curiosity, do you see MOC ever expanding to include a focus on all types of carry, as opposed to an emphasis on OC?

 

[scot623]

so what exactly do they do, just run a forum?

just out of curiosity, do you see MOC ever expanding to include a focus on all types of carry, as opposed to an emphasis on OC?

Even if we did, it would not mitigate the issue of Michigan not having a unified front in Lansing. So from that perspective, what's the point of expanding(or diluting, depending who you ask), our focus?

 

[detroit_fan]

Even if we did, it would not mitigate the issue of Michigan not having a unified front in Lansing. So from that perspective, what's the point of expanding(or diluting, depending who you ask), our focus?

I wasn't referring to the short term, I just meant in the long run would MOC ever start to branch out into supporting all forms of carry equally.

No matter how much awareness OC gets, there is always going to be a much smaller percentage of people who do it compared to CC. I think we can all agree that MOC is probably the most aggressive in terms of lobbying and trying to get things passed in MI, it seems the only thing holding them back is lower membership and funds. I wonder how many more members would come aboard if MOC was called Michigan Carry, or something similar? I know I have talked to people who support OC, but don't like to do it, and they think MOC is just for people who OC. They get that impression because of the name, so they never consider joining. If the name was MI Carry, they probably would have more interest in the group and possibly joining, knowing all forms of carry are accepted and supported. It seems by using a name that is friendly to all forms of carry, interest from your average CC'er and gun owner may be peaked somewhat, resulting in higher membership numbers and dues.

Obviously i'm not trying to tell you how to run your org, more just thinking out-loud (feel free to tell me to shut the hell up) about how to possibly take things to the next level in MI. You pointed out many potential problems with merging with a larger org like MGO, but really all MGO has over MOC is more members and dues, so if there is a way to attract more people to MOC, then that gives them the members and dues they were lacking, but still allows you to stay in control of the org and make sure it is not swallowed up and OC is represented equally.

l

 

[scot623]

^ everything you're saying makes sense so there is no reason for anyone to tell you to shut up. Would it be possible for MOC to expand its reach/focus. Sure.

 

[OC4me]

I wonder how many more members would come aboard if MOC was called Michigan Carry, or something similar? \

+1 "Michigan Carry" sound quite good frankly. As long as the mission statement is explicit and clear about supporting 'all' methods of carry of 'all' arms (pistols, long-arms, knives, martial arts stuff, etc.) then I think such a wide-umbrella would succeed. I think people are turned off by groups that focus too narrowly as it may devolve into elitism. To make matters more diversity friendly, there should be an official director specializing in sidearm carry, another in long-arm carry, another in knife carry, etc. so that the membership-at-large sees that the organization truly has some focus on their needs. An effective organization has to be set up from the get go to appeal to all demographics.

 

[scot623]

+1 "Michigan Carry" sound quite good frankly. As long as the mission statement is explicit and clear about supporting 'all' methods of carry of 'all' arms (pistols, long-arms, knives, martial arts stuff, etc.) then I think such a wide-umbrella would succeed. I think people are turned off by groups that focus too narrowly as it may devolve into elitism. To make matters more diversity friendly, there should be an official director specializing in sidearm carry, another in long-arm carry, another in knife carry, etc. so that the membership-at-large sees that the organization truly has some focus on their needs. An effective organization has to be set up from the get go to appeal to all demographics.

I think it would be difficult to say the least for a firearms rights group who advocates long gun carry to get much respect/ traction in Lansing or with fence sitters. Just my opinion.

I'm not saying long gun carry should be banned...just saying promoting it might be political suicide.

 

[TheQ]

so what exactly do they do, just run a forum?

just out of curiosity, do you see MOC ever expanding to include a focus on all types of carry, as opposed to an emphasis on OC?

All I'll say is: the idea has been discussed under my tenure.

 

[TheQ]

+1 "Michigan Carry" sound quite good frankly. As long as the mission statement is explicit and clear about supporting 'all' methods of carry of 'all' arms (pistols, long-arms, knives, martial arts stuff, etc.) then I think such a wide-umbrella would succeed. I think people are turned off by groups that focus too narrowly as it may devolve into elitism. To make matters more diversity friendly, there should be an official director specializing in sidearm carry, another in long-arm carry, another in knife carry, etc. so that the membership-at-large sees that the organization truly has some focus on their needs. An effective organization has to be set up from the get go to appeal to all demographics.

Chuckles. Now a director for each carry style -- that is funny!

Where do you see all these volunteers coming from?

 

[detroit_fan]

All I'll say is: the idea has been discussed under my tenure.

Good to hear, I think that is a step in the right direction. Has the idea of altering the name to try and attract more members ever come up?

 

[scot623]

Good to hear, I think that is a step in the right direction. Has the idea of altering the name to try and attract more members ever come up?

Yes, the "idea' was bounced around and shelved. It wouldn't have been done to just "attract more members".

 

[FreeInAZ]

Maybe MSC?

Michigan Safe Carry?

If there is movement on gun rights it is almost always tied to "safety". A group that helps train people in safe carry, along with why people should carry, will do well. History supports this (VCDL, AzCDL and so on).

 

[G22]

I like where this is going.

That said, there would be many obstacles as others have mentioned.

What we know:

MGOUC (Michigan Gun Owners Un-Censored) or MGO as it's known now, was formed after the fallout from MCRGO. MGOUC started out not as an .org but just a forum where 99% of those who did most of the work at MCRGO could gather and try to reform into something.

A few years later MGOUC incorporated as a not-for-profit .org and removed the (UC). It's goals were education based and it's mission statement still states that. It was not intended to be a political, or endorsement of candidate, or legislation .org. It would simply post 2A related issues in a forum without offering an opinion either way. You decide.

MGO set up a Safe Storage program and offers it free of charge to any group who asks in the hopes of (obviously) educating the public on how to safely store firearms.

Now, others in MGO wanted to do a few different things. A group of more politically minded folks wanted to endorse candidates, legislation, and be a pro2A voice in Lansing. Thus, that group formed SAFR (Shooters Alliance for Firearms Rights) and SAFR-PAC. MGO and SAFR were "affiliated". Each .org operated with it's own BoD, and "tried" to work together for the most part. They had some really good people working with the legislature, but are now apparently defunct.

Another group from MGO wanted to do something for kids. M2A (Michigan 2A) was formed and created a program called Kid Safe (Eddie Eagle type class) and offered it free of charge to any school, scout group, etc... in order to help teach kids what to do if they came in contact with a firearm. This group also went under after a few years. I believe Mike Thiede has taken over the materials for that class but it hasn't been done in while.

Mike has also attended and testified for pro2A legislation in Lansing, on behalf of MGO, but that is not in the mission statement, and is done kinda in the background (shows in the .org minutes if he does).


My opinion:

Those former MCRGO members will most likely never have anything to do with that .org ever again, and rightfully so. However, that's not to say that if MCRGO was doing something positive for 2A rights, they would not support it in some way. The scars from that fallout have been long lasting and may never heal, even if a top down BoD reorganization happened over there. It would take a true visionary leader, someone who could re-build the trust that was lost, and it would take many years. Many have already walked away, never to return to any .org.

Over the years (10) MGO has lost it's fair share of original members due to disagreements and differences.


So, what would it take to unite these remaining fragmented groups?

A few dedicated people with the brass to carry it through to completion, armed with knowledge of the history and reasons behind the implosion's which occurred, making every effort not to repeat past mistakes. Compromises would have to be made. Not everyone would agree, or be happy. That is until meaningful, measurable, progress was being made. Once people see results, they will follow. Results are key.

 

[detroit_fan]

So what's the next step G22? mcrgo is basically non-existent these days, MGO does not have any interest in lobbying or politics, MOC wishes to just stick with OC and it's related issues, so how to we organize a group that is dedicated to advancing ALL firearms rights here in MI?

Do we need to start a new group? Do we somehow try to convince one of the groups i mentioned to expand what they do? We need something that will be as aggressive as MOC is at lobbying, has the membership numbers of MGO, and is welcoming to all forms of carry and all 2A related issues.

 

[TheQ]

So what's the next step G22? mcrgo is basically non-existent these days, MGO does not have any interest in lobbying or politics, MOC wishes to just stick with OC and it's related issues, so how to we organize a group that is dedicated to advancing ALL firearms rights here in MI?

Do we need to start a new group? Do we somehow try to convince one of the groups i mentioned to expand what they do? We need something that will be as aggressive as MOC is at lobbying, has the membership numbers of MGO, and is welcoming to all forms of carry and all 2A related issues.

SB 59 is not an OC related issue. We're interested in lobbying for any defensive carry issues (not so much hunting).

 

[detroit_fan]

SB 59 is not an OC related issue. We're interested in lobbying for any defensive carry issues (not so much hunting).

I thought one of MOC's main arguments for 59 was that it "legitimizes" the OC in a PFZ loophole? So in that regard it is an OC related issue, correct?

I just asked yesterday if you guys would consider expanding to represent all forms of carry equally and you said it had been discussed, but you didn't indicate that it was agreed upon.

 

[TheQ]

I thought one of MOC's main arguments for 59 was that it "legitimizes" the OC in a PFZ loophole? So in that regard it is an OC related issue, correct?

I just asked yesterday if you guys would consider expanding to represent all forms of carry equally and you said it had been discussed, but you didn't indicate that it was agreed upon.

It's...complicated. Yes, SB 59 does legitimize the OC loophole.


We aren't limiting ourselves to OC issues. We have a few items we'd like to work on next session, only one of them is a 100% OC issue.

This isn't the proper forum to discuss Michigan Open Carry legislative priorities. You know what forum I'll be on if you wish to discuss those...

 

[detroit_fan]

It's...complicated. Yes, SB 59 does legitimize the OC loophole.


We aren't limiting ourselves to OC issues. We have a few items we'd like to work on next session, only one of them is a 100% OC issue.

This isn't the proper forum to discuss Michigan Open Carry legislative priorities. You know what forum I'll be on if you wish to discuss those...

Sorry, I wasn't necessarily trying to discuss MOC's legislative priorities as a stand alone issue, but more as an issue of how it fits into the topic of this thread.

 

[G22]

So what's the next step G22? mcrgo is basically non-existent these days, MGO does not have any interest in lobbying or politics, MOC wishes to just stick with OC and it's related issues, so how to we organize a group that is dedicated to advancing ALL firearms rights here in MI?

Do we need to start a new group? Do we somehow try to convince one of the groups i mentioned to expand what they do? We need something that will be as aggressive as MOC is at lobbying, has the membership numbers of MGO, and is welcoming to all forms of carry and all 2A related issues.

I honestly don't know. Nobody has been able to figure that out in the last decade.
That's sad...10 years wasted without common goal representation.

 

[TheQ]

I honestly don't know. Nobody has been able to figure that out in the last decade.
That's sad...10 years wasted without common goal representation.

The problem is that common goals part. Anyone who has spent time on MGO knows there are many in the 2A community that will not only not work to advance OC, but hate it and will actively oppose advancement. Sad, really