Official SB59 Debate thread

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut Of course MOC's decision would be discussed on OCDO.. and other gun rights forums too... but by posting an announcement of it's decision on OCDO MOC put itself in a position of having invited questions and opinions concerning that decision be directed at MOC... from anyone, members and non members of MOC, who are members OCDO's forum.

How so? I see people give a press release all the time and then not take questions or comments on it. Obviously MOC can't stop comments, but I think they are certainly within their rights to decline to answer any more questions, especially since this isn't their forum.

Having said that, MOC DID answer questions, and has stated numerous times why it make the decision it did. What question do you think MOC still needs to answer? It seems some who are against 59 just want to ask the same questions over and over, not sure what the point of that is? Do people expect MOC to change their stance? Do people think if they say something enough times it will become true?

The second paragraph of my post that you didn't quote:

If an organization, any organization!, wishes to maintain it's credibility and be respected as a worthy organization then it would behoove it, and it's leadership, to rise above using ridicule and insults as responses.... especially when responding to those who are rude.

Was the entire point of my post.

I didn't ask a question in that post... and I don't have any more questions for MOC. Other people might though. As for how MOC responds to the questions other people ask? Please refer to the second paragraph of my post I quoted above.

 

[Venator]

I agree that some MOC board members could have handled their posts in a more professional manner. Based on conversations with some MOC board members I take away that they realize that and have learned to better express themselves in the future. I hope that is true and they will conduct themselves in a more professional manner in the future.

But we are all human and sometimes we take things personally when we need to step back and realize it's not a personal attack but legitimate questions and concerns about a MOC decision.

I will also say that once a person has posted a comment, concern or objection, there is little value in continuing to repeat the same argument. MOC has made their decision and has explained their position. There is nothing gained in containing to base that decision.

One has a decision to make, to support the bill, oppose the bill or remain neutral. If they would like to influence the direction of MOC they can participate in a leadership position and /or run for board positions. MOC has made some great advances for gun rights in Michigan, I suspect they will continue to do so. You can either help or hinder that effort as we move forward.

 

[detroit_fan]

The second paragraph of my post that you didn't quote:



Was the entire point of my post.

I didn't ask a question in that post... and I don't have any more questions for MOC. Other people might though. As for how MOC responds to the questions other people ask? Please refer to the second paragraph of my post I quoted above.

So MOC is suppose to be nice and cordial with people who have openly attacked them and their leadership? I respect that opinion, but I also do not fault them at all for not playing nice with people who attack them. The thing is, people keep asking the same questions over and over, and just becasue they are not getting the answers they want they keep asking them. MOC is not a large organization, and the people who are in leadership positions spend a lot of their time supporting MOC, so when someone attacks the organization I have to believe that hurts on a personal level with those people, and some of the comments have really bordered personal attacks, I don't think there is necessarily a "right & wrong" way to respond to those type of attacks, each of us may handle it differently.

If someone asks "why did MOC support this" that's great, but when someone says "MOC sucks, you are trying to destroy OC, your leadership has ruined MOC, MOC was once good and is now garbage" I don't see how that deserves a legitimate response.

Do I wish MOC would handle the responses a little better, yes, but I also see why some acted like they did and do not fault them for that. JMO

 

[jeremiahJohnson]

pro's & con's

Cons; It Bans Open Carry (Really Big Con), It Creates precedence that Govt. can regulate Open Carry, If Pistol is exposed it leaves an Argument for Brandishing, It Bans Open Carry (Repeat), It Makes CPL harder/more expensive to get, and It makes more gun Regulation.

Pro's; Instructors make more money, Govt. makes more money, Ammo Company's make more Money, Instructors have to register (Ironic), and Streamlines CPL's.

I know what your gonna say, pull the repeated Con from the list & there will be just as many cons as pros and that makes it a 50/50 compromise, which reflects the Poll. I say that the mere fact it is Anti Open Carry is the reason all gun groups should kill this Bill. It goes against everything that is 2nd Amendment. I mean if there were no CPL's handed out anywhere, how would we carry? It's a no Brain-er. Last, the fact we are torn 50/50 is another reason to kill the Bill.

Protect Open Carry at all Cost. When OC is gone only privileged people will be able to CC.

 

[detroit_fan]

Cons; It Bans Open Carry (Really Big Con), It Creates precedence that Govt. can regulate Open Carry, If Pistol is exposed it leaves an Argument for Brandishing, It Bans Open Carry (Repeat), It Makes CPL harder/more expensive to get, and It makes more gun Regulation.

Pro's; Instructors make more money, Govt. makes more money, Ammo Company's make more Money, Instructors have to register (Ironic), and Streamlines CPL's.

I know what your gonna say, pull the repeated Con from the list & there will be just as many cons as pros and that makes it a 50/50 compromise, which reflects the Poll. I say that the mere fact it is Anti Open Carry is the reason all gun groups should kill this Bill. It goes against everything that is 2nd Amendment. I mean if there were no CPL's handed out anywhere, how would we carry? It's a no Brain-er. Last, the fact we are torn 50/50 is another reason to kill the Bill.

Protect Open Carry at all Cost. When OC is gone only privileged people will be able to CC.

It does not ban OC anywhere in PFZ's. OC is already regulated, if not why do you have to have a CPL to OC in a vehicle, a place with liquor license ect...?

It also does not make CPL's more expensive, the cost is the same, the only additional costs would be for the "enhanced" CPL. It also does not make them harder to get, it actually makes them easier to get, for these reasons-


Elimination of the gun boards. We have all complained about them for a long time, I would be happy to see them go away. They can also no longer force you to appear just to get a CPL, they would have to include what statue they believe would prohibit you from obtaining your CPL in order to make you appear.

Elimination of long waits to get CPL. Currently some counties take several months to issue, under 59 they would only have 45 days from the time you apply to issue or deny you, so no matter where you live you WILL be given an answer in 45 days or less

A requirement that any denial of CPL or denial of PFZ endorsement include an explanation with the statue that they are denying under, and the ability to take them to court and win all fee's costs from them if you win.

A section in 59 says counties CAN NOT force you to fill out any forms or give any information other than the MSP approved CPL application. This would eliminate some of the counties that require "extra" paperwork.

They also could not force you to "prove" you have met the training requirement for renewal, they woudl be prohibited from requiring anything more than a signed statement. This would help in some counties that have tried to make you do re-training for renewal.

Fingerprint access would be better. The bill says this about fingerprints-

Reasonable access to fingerprinting services during normal business hours as is necessary to comply with the requirements of this act The failure of a county sheriff to maintain fingerprinting capability in compliance with this act or to provide reasonable access to fingerprinting services during normal business hours to applicants for a concealed pistol license on the day of application does not affect the 45-day period from the date of application in which the licensing authority is required to issue or deny a license.

 

[Bikenut]

So MOC is suppose to be nice and cordial with people who have openly attacked them and their leadership?

To answer your question.. if MOC wishes to be viewed as a mature, respected, and credible organization............. then... yes.

I respect that opinion, but I also do not fault them at all for not playing nice with people who attack them.

When folks are not being nice is when the professionalism is needed the most.

The thing is, people keep asking the same questions over and over, and just becasue they are not getting the answers they want they keep asking them. MOC is not a large organization, and the people who are in leadership positions spend a lot of their time supporting MOC, so when someone attacks the organization I have to believe that hurts on a personal level with those people, and some of the comments have really bordered personal attacks, I don't think there is necessarily a "right & wrong" way to respond to those type of attacks, each of us may handle it differently.

Each of us can certainly handle personal attacks any way we want but when how those attacks are handled reflects upon the very organization folks have invested their sweat and tears into... it makes no sense to allow personal feelings to cause actions that detract from the image of that organization.

If someone asks "why did MOC support this" that's great, but when someone says "MOC sucks, you are trying to destroy OC, your leadership has ruined MOC, MOC was once good and is now garbage" I don't see how that deserves a legitimate response.

The underlined portion of your post is the kind of response that needs (I didn't say deserved but NEEDS) to be responded to in a mature and reasonable manner simply because to respond to insults with insults only lowers MOC to the same level as the rude person.

Do I wish MOC would handle the responses a little better, yes, but I also see why some acted like they did and do not fault them for that. JMO

My point is, and has been, and apparently heard judging from Venator's post above, that any organization that wants to maintain it's credibility and be looked upon with respect then it must behave in a professional manner... especially when being rudely attacked whether those attacks are warranted or not.

Just as it is with individuals... the measure of an organization isn't how it conducts it's ordinary business but how it conducts itself under adverse conditions.

 

[Shadow Bear]

This thread has run its course. I had hoped for more productive debate, but, alas, it has deteriorated into a discussion of who's feelings were hurt, and why. Continuous repetition of the same arguments does not make them any more correct then when stated the first time.

Bottom line; an organization made a tough decision, knowing it would take some heat. Unfortunately, some folks can't get over the intellectual aspect of the debate, and it turned into a lot of whining, complaining and finger pointing.

All of us should be proud of what we've become; the enemy within. I have no doubt the forces that oppose basic human rights (e.g. the Brady Bunch) are laughing their asses off at us.

Well done, all- mission accomplished.