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

[detroit_fan]

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.

Well, hopefully 10 years from now we won't be saying the same thing.

 

[Bronson]

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

It's not just an OC vs. CC thing either. Go look at the thread on MGO about moving the CPL licensing process to the SoS...what a debacle that was. Then you have the folks who refuse to, or even actively work against, legislation that they don't think is "perfect." They refuse to accept that some compromises are going to have to be made in order to get legislation passed but as long as it moves us foward, even incrementally, it can still be good.

Bronson

 

[scot623]

"It's not just an OC vs. CC thing either. Go look at the thread on MGO about moving the CPL licensing process to the SoS...what a debacle that was. Then you have the folks who refuse to, or even actively work against, legislation that they don't think is "perfect." They refuse to accept that some compromises are going to have to be made in order to get legislation passed but as long as it moves us foward, even incrementally, it can still be good.

Bronson"


10 millions residence of Michigan. If 1/5 of them own a firearm thats 2 million people. It's a shame a few hundred loud voices on an internet forum are ruining it for all of them.

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

Michigan Firearm Rights Groups Standing Together...MFRGST(or whatever its called). It's membership could be totality of all the sub groups combined(though some belong to all 3, can't count them 3 times!). Lets say it existed. How is it ran? One idea would be for each group to appoint a representative, MOC, MGO, MCRGO equal footing. Would MGO agree to be equal to MOC? Or would membership size determine how many seats at the table a group gets? The largest group could easily drown out the small in that case. How do we determine who else gets a seat at the table? Must be Michigan based. Should the groups be-non profit(CLSD is out), Should there be a minimum membership number, say 100, minimum years in existence, I'd say 2?

Next question, how would the group form as one behind issues, for example like HB5225? By Vote, 2-1? What happens if their are 4 seats(or any even number) at the table? Every time a vote is 2-2 MFGST stands neutral? Lame, and goes against the reason it is formed. Would each group MOC, MCRGO, MGO then go back to lobbying each bill individually, rendering MFRGST useless? Seems it would have to be in the bylaws any participating organization would have to agree on no lobbying on its own. Would their members agree to that?

This wouldn't work, why join any of the groups if only the opinion of the main group matters? I see the groups more like states in this model, I'll explain below.

So voting to support or lobby against a bill is straight forward(kinda). How is it decided what legislation to try and introduce? MOC members want more open carry freedom through 750.234d repeal, would MGO, MCRGO agree to go along? This is where the squabbles start and members of the participating organizations may revoke their representative effectively destroying MFRGST.

All tough questions. Almost seems impossible.

edited to add...I do like the idea.

First it needs a different name, "Michigan Firearm Rights Groups Standing Together" is just way to long, and clunky, and kind of Corney sounding, plus the abbreviation is nearly as impossible to remember as the name.

I kind of Like: "Michigan Citizens Defense League" MCDL, or "Michigan Gun Owners association" MGOA, or "United Gun Owners" UGO, or "Michigan Shooters Alliance" MSA, or something similar.

As far as organization in your example, I would take the US Constitution as a cue, and use a 2 chamber governing body, and an elected executive. Each group gets equal representation in one chamber, and representation based on membership in the other chamber, and both chambers must agree, this will prevent the larger groups from dictating to the smaller ones, and prevent the smaller ones from being disproportionally represented against the larger ones. Members of each group vote for the executive, and each group is given a certain number of votes based on membership, winner take all. The executive must approve all actions of the governing body unless it passed by a 2 thirds majority, the executive also acts as a tie breaker if required.

That should balance the interests of all groups, and prevent any one group from taking over, it would also prevent an MCRGO style clusterfuck. For a couple centuries at least..... Until it gets ignored.

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

It's not just an OC vs. CC thing either. Go look at the thread on MGO about moving the CPL licensing process to the SoS...what a debacle that was. Then you have the folks who refuse to, or even actively work against, legislation that they don't think is "perfect." They refuse to accept that some compromises are going to have to be made in order to get legislation passed but as long as it moves us foward, even incrementally, it can still be good.

Bronson

That's my issue with GOA.

 

[TheQ]

Michigan Carry Coalition

 

[scot623]

First it needs a different name, "Michigan Firearm Rights Groups Standing Together" is just way to long, and clunky, and kind of Corney sounding, plus the abbreviation is nearly as impossible to remember as the name.

I kind of Like: "Michigan Citizens Defense League" MCDL, or "Michigan Gun Owners association" MGOA, or "United Gun Owners" UGO, or "Michigan Shooters Alliance" MSA, or something similar.

As far as organization in your example, I would take the US Constitution as a cue, and use a 2 chamber governing body, and an elected executive. Each group gets equal representation in one chamber, and representation based on membership in the other chamber, and both chambers must agree, this will prevent the larger groups from dictating to the smaller ones, and prevent the smaller ones from being disproportionally represented against the larger ones. Members of each group vote for the executive, and each group is given a certain number of votes based on membership, winner take all. The executive must approve all actions of the governing body unless it passed by a 2 thirds majority, the executive also acts as a tie breaker if required.

That should balance the interests of all groups, and prevent any one group from taking over, it would also prevent an MCRGO style clusterfuck. For a couple centuries at least..... Until it gets ignored.

Lets remember the reason for this thread...a unified front. If in the collective organization votes to not support open carry friendly legistlation for example, MOC would then turn around, go against the new group and openly lobby for it. Kind of defeats the purpose of the new group, no?

 

[detroit_fan]

Michigan Carry Coalition

sounds good to me

 

[Small_Arms_Collector]

Lets remember the reason for this thread...a unified front. If in the collective organization votes to not support open carry friendly legistlation for example, MOC would then turn around, go against the new group and openly lobby for it. Kind of defeats the purpose of the new group, no?

The reason is to have one powerful, well funded group to lobby, not to get blind obedience, otherwise why bother having individual groups at all? It's just like how California goes out of it's way to try to force other states to ban guns, even though that has not happened at the Federal level. It would simply mean that in that case the main group would continue to push gun rights in general, while MOC (in your example) is still free to pursue it's own agenda, with it's own resources. However in the structure I mentioned it would be unlikely the main group could do that as it is so well balanced, and support of all forms of carry could be written in to it's charter.

 

[Michigander]

Lets remember the reason for this thread...a unified front. If in the collective organization votes to not support open carry friendly legistlation for example, MOC would then turn around, go against the new group and openly lobby for it. Kind of defeats the purpose of the new group, no?

My theory on this is that in order to make a united front happen in this way, unity must be established first, before all else means a thing.

A short and simple list of things everyone who is involved agrees on, and agrees to push forward, is all it takes. Don't like OC and or CC? Not your org, so stay out. It would need to be laid out more clearly, but there really doesn't need to be much more to it than that.

From there, all it would take is an email alert system which amounts to letting people know when their donations of time and money are needed. I would further think that a system where donated money was in some fashion tracked and recorded publicly, and unused portions returned to the people who donated, would go a long way towards eliminating potentials for nonsense. In particular if donated money could only be used for its stated purpose, or get returned to senders.

I don't believe there is a need for an elaborate and over thought structure to unite Michigan gun carriers. I'd think only a "lean and muscular" structure is needed.

 

[Skeeterkiller]

My theory on this is that in order to make a united front happen in this way, unity must be established first, before all else means a thing.

A short and simple list of things everyone who is involved agrees on, and agrees to push forward, is all it takes. Don't like OC and or CC? Not your org, so stay out. It would need to be laid out more clearly, but there really doesn't need to be much more to it than that.

From there, all it would take is an email alert system which amounts lets people know when their donations of time and money are needed. I would further think that a system where donated money was in some fashion tracked and recorded publicly, and unused portions returned to the people who donated, would go a long way towards eliminating potentials for nonsense. In particular if donated money could only be used for its stated purpose, or get returned to senders.

I don't believe there is a need for an elaborate and over thought structure to unite Michigan gun carriers. I'd think only a "lean and muscular" structure is needed.

That's what the United Firearms Owners is.
http://firearmowners.com/index.php/main-menu/preset-styles

 

[detroit_fan]

That's what the United Firearms Owners is.
http://firearmowners.com/index.php/main-menu/preset-styles

is UFO even still in existence? web page is basically useless

 

[scot623]

That's what the United Firearms Owners is.
http://firearmowners.com/index.php/main-menu/preset-styles

Worst first post ever.

 

[autosurgeon]

Worst first post ever.

Consider the source....:lol:

 

[Big Gay Al]

is UFO even still in existence? web page is basically useless

Does it consist of anyone other than Mike Stillwater? Everything else is marked with "TBD."

 

[FreeInAZ]

Does it consist of anyone other than Mike Stillwater? Everything else is marked with "TBD."

As rumor has it, you are correct. But rumor is just that, he may have a thousand orange robe wearing, clean head shaven devotee's that follow him around on a strictly planned bicycle route daily OCing for all we know...

 

[Ezerharden]

As rumor has it, you are correct. But rumor is just that, he may have a thousand orange robe wearing, clean head shaven devotee's that follow him around on a strictly planned bicycle route daily OCing for all we know...

Ah Grasshopper...

 

[OC4me]

Michigan Carry Coalition

Shortened to 'Michigan Carry' sounds even better.

 

[Michigander]

As rumor has it, you are correct. But rumor is just that, he may have a thousand orange robe wearing, clean head shaven devotee's that follow him around on a strictly planned bicycle route daily OCing for all we know...

That is one hell of a funny inside joke. :lol:

 

[FreeInAZ]

That is one hell of a funny inside joke. :lol:

[video=youtube_share;0YAcoDkj_dI]http://youtu.be/0YAcoDkj_dI[/video]