• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

A statement from the leadership of Michigan Open Carry on the Passage of SB 59

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bikenut

Guest
A rant not directed at any individual or group of individuals.

Let me see.....

Some folks are all for exercising the right to bear arms....

Some folks complain they have to jump through hoops to get the government's permission to have a concealed carry permit to make it easier to open carry. They complain loudly about "infringements" and talk about how great it would be to have "Constitutional carry".

But then...

Some folks get all excited that there will now be an extra, higher and more special, level of permission from the government that will allow people who meet new, more expensive, more stringent, criteria to qualify for that special permission....

because this new permission allows a new privilege?

It would appear to me the lawmakers are lounging in overstuffed leather covered chairs sipping brandy while smoking cigars and laughing about all those stupid gun owners who are now chasing this new carrot of having permission.. and being allowed... to be members of a new "special" class of people with a new level of "permission". And lining up to pay good money for it too!!!!

And it seems to me that any new laws that add to current law concerning carry permits only strengthens and entrenches the power of the government to infringe upon the right to bear arms by requiring folks have the government's carry permit permission slip. Making Constitutional carry even more difficult to attain.

And it seems very odd that anyone who believes in the right to bear arms would actually be in favor of increasing the government's power to regulate the bearing of arms just because there is a new "privilege" to be had.

Rant over.............
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
It's not defiance. I owe you no explanations; I don't answer to a man who has openly walked away from and denounced any affiliation with Michigan Open Carry, Inc. -- what hubris! I answer to the people who voted to support this bill -- they are all mentioned in the OP.

BTW, see your PM :)

Updated to reflect what I was trying to get across.
 

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
Yea, I am against this bill as voted on, but I am behind Phil and the rest of the Board and leadership team in their decision. They discussed, they made a decision, and we can't all agree on every single decision, we still need to stand together and stop the infighting or we all fail. Attacking each other and firearm organizations will help nothing. A decision needed to be made, we all won't agree on it, thats for sure, but I sure see hostility towards those who share our beliefs, even if they differed on my feelings for this bill, we don't need to talk to each other and accuse each other and start fights over it. We will NEVER agree 100% on everything, EVER, we all together have to understand that and continue to work together.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
This bill was discussed with the Governor who adamantly opposed it and said he would not sign it because he doesn't want guns in GFZs. When someone pointed out that people can already carry in Gun Free Zones now with a CPL and was shown the MSP update, he then went "Oh" then if you add the no OC part to the bill I will sign it.

So now the Gov is aware of the "loop-hole" and two things could happen, one would be worse, and the other is passing this bill which will make Michigan one of the only states that allow CPL holders to carry almost anywhere. This bill will affect, for the better, more that 340,000 CPL holders (and growing) in the state.

Once this bill passes and the anti-gun people realize that nothing bad is happening by allowing guns in schools, bars, sports arenas, theaters, etc... then the Michigan gun rights organizations can work to remove the unconstitutional OC ban AND get all the GFZs eliminated for any law abiding gun owner regardless of whether they have a CPL or not.

We didn't get into this mess in one step and we won't get our rights back in one step. Remember Constitutional Carry is the next big gun right fight and 4 states have it.

I will say that the decision was a difficult and well discussed one. We tried to look at every angle and considered the possibilities of that decision. We knew full well MOC would get hit hard on the philosophical rights argument. We understand how some of our members feel and just hope that they will support us in our decision. In the end all things are political.

So to recap MOC felt that supporting this bill was in the best interest of ALL people, both our members and non-members that carry firearms for personal protection. But as stated the fight isn't over we must stand together and be ever vigilant in the onerous battle for our gun rights.

Brian Jeffs, MOC Director of Research
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Q, thank you for the PM and contact info. I do believe that Brian's post mostly addressed my concerns however. I would assume that you are working today, so I'll leave you alone. We can speak about it on sunday at the 5th anniversary lunch, as I'm sure there will be much to discuss by all who show up.

This bill was discussed with the Governor who adamantly opposed it and said he would not sign it because he doesn't want guns in GFZs. When someone pointed out that people can already carry in Gun Free Zones now with a CPL and was shown the MSP update, he then went "Oh" then if you add the no OC part to the bill I will sign it.

One question. Who is someone? Not that I believe that to make or break the bill, but I am not sure how I'd feel if we came all this way, and did all this work to let the NRA piss on our rights that we have nothing less than enforced against abusive government agents while the NRA essentially stood back and laughed at us.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Q, thank you for the PM and contact info. I do believe that Brian's post mostly addressed my concerns however. I would assume that you are working today, so I'll leave you alone. We can speak about it on sunday at the 5th anniversary lunch, as I'm sure there will be much to discuss by all who show up.



One question. Who is someone? Not that I believe that to make or break the bill, but I am not sure how I'd feel if we came all this way, and did all this work to let the NRA piss on our rights that we have nothing less than enforced against abusive government agents while the NRA essentially stood back and laughed at us.

I am at work, but I'd be willing to entertain a call.

The someone wasn't an NRA rep. The NRA had no hand in this bill.

I won't disclose who said it, but I will say it wasn't anyone with the NRA, but rather someone in the legislative branch.
 
Last edited:

Hevymetal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
261
Location
Clinton Twp
This bill was discussed with the Governor who adamantly opposed it and said he would not sign it because he doesn't want guns in GFZs. When someone pointed out that people can already carry in Gun Free Zones now with a CPL and was shown the MSP update, he then went "Oh" then if you add the no OC part to the bill I will sign it.

So now the Gov is aware of the "loop-hole" and two things could happen, one would be worse, and the other is passing this bill which will make Michigan one of the only states that allow CPL holders to carry almost anywhere. This bill will affect, for the better, more that 340,000 CPL holders (and growing) in the state.

Once this bill passes and the anti-gun people realize that nothing bad is happening by allowing guns in schools, bars, sports arenas, theaters, etc... then the Michigan gun rights organizations can work to remove the unconstitutional OC ban AND get all the GFZs eliminated for any law abiding gun owner regardless of whether they have a CPL or not.

We didn't get into this mess in one step and we won't get our rights back in one step. Remember Constitutional Carry is the next big gun right fight and 4 states have it.

I will say that the decision was a difficult and well discussed one. We tried to look at every angle and considered the possibilities of that decision. We knew full well MOC would get hit hard on the philosophical rights argument. We understand how some of our members feel and just hope that they will support us in our decision. In the end all things are political.

So to recap MOC felt that supporting this bill was in the best interest of ALL people, both our members and non-members that carry firearms for personal protection. But as stated the fight isn't over we must stand together and be ever vigilant in the onerous battle for our gun rights.

Brian Jeffs, MOC Director of Research

Thank You for explaining this in more detail. :)

As a CPL holder who mostly OCs, I for what it's worth, understand the position MOC is caught in. Having the option to CC in a GFZ with the additional training is better then them closing the "Loophole" and offering nothing in return. The ideal solution of eliminating GFZs all together is never gonna happen.

If given the choice between being forced to CC or not carry at all in these locations I'll take the CC carry as opposed to being weaponless thank you very much.

You know a compromise has been reached when both parties walk away feeling as though they have lost. Although adding Detroit casinos to the allowed carry areas would have been a nice touch.

Thanks for all the hard work guys.

Hevy
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
The NRA has been mentioned much in this thread. However the NRA only backs one bill per session in any one state. Their only bill is the one regarding registration. They have had nothing to do with SB59.

As Brian mentioned we had a lengthy discussion about this bill and the issues related to the OC carve out. The thing about politics that is hard for us regular folks to wrap our heads around sometimes is the need to sometimes take 3 steps forward and one back to eventually get what we want.

If some of you can remember the shall issue law when it first was implemented, it was much more restrictive then it even is today. The first law said you got a 2 year permit the first time for 105 and then the next time and subsequent times a 5 year permit. That got changed to what we have today through a number of amendments. My point is this bill is not the end of the road just one more step in the journey toward the end goal we all want of Constitutional Carry. Remember how long it took for shall issue to roll out mostly nationwide. Well ConCarry is IMOP along the lines of the year 1990 in shall issue. Once it rolls out to a few more states I suspect we will see the speed pick up just as we did with shall issue in this country.

So in summary with any bill in order to get it passed we will have to make some concessions and compromise with the opposition that is the nature of the political process. However just because we get a bill passed does not mean we (IE MI Gun Orgs) are done. We will continue to chip away at infringements and work to remove the things we don't like that were compromises.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Once this bill passes and the anti-gun people realize that nothing bad is happening by allowing guns in schools, bars, sports arenas, theaters, etc... then the Michigan gun rights organizations can work to remove the unconstitutional OC ban AND get all the GFZs eliminated for any law abiding gun owner regardless of whether they have a CPL or not.

We didn't get into this mess in one step and we won't get our rights back in one step. Remember Constitutional Carry is the next big gun right fight and 4 states have it.

Brian Jeffs, MOC Director of Research

Mr. Jeffs, "director of research" ... this incremental step wise approach works with the judicary but not with legislative efforts.

I would suggest you do research into other states and how their courts have understood their laws and came to conclusions regarding their laws and the enforcement of the laws. You would discover that the SB bill proposed contains provisions that put your state's gun owners into a heap of legal liability issues. Creating different classes of CC carriers is not the way to go IMO...from my research of my state's and others laws and examination of the basic, minimal elements of crimes dealing with carry laws that the states need to prove in court and the elements needed to affect arrests that require a defendant to assert and prove defenses. One should write laws that would not require a gun owner the need to present affirmative defenses.

I understand the goal of the bill, being a stepping stone to nirvana, I think it would actually be a stepping stone to Hades.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
Mr. Jeffs, "director of research" ... this incremental step wise approach works with the judicary but not with legislative efforts.

I would suggest you do research into other states and how their courts have understood their laws and came to conclusions regarding their laws and the enforcement of the laws. You would discover that the SB bill proposed contains provisions that put your state's gun owners into a heap of legal liability issues. Creating different classes of CC carriers is not the way to go IMO...from my research of my state's and others laws and examination of the basic, minimal elements of crimes dealing with carry laws that the states need to prove in court and the elements needed to affect arrests that require a defendant to assert and prove defenses. One should write laws that would not require a gun owner the need to present affirmative defenses.

I understand the goal of the bill, being a stepping stone to nirvana, I think it would actually be a stepping stone to Hades.

As I said in another thread you seem to think the police have no way of knowing if the checked box stating you are exempt is legit. When in fact LEIN shows the exemption and the reason for it. Such as Reserve officer, Judge, PI or if this bill makes it through the house and is signed by the Governor then advanced Training or something similar will be added as a reason. Since we already have to show ID and CPL if stopped while CCing in MI I fail to see the terrible ramifications you keep pontificating about. Once the officer runs your CPL number they will know you can CC in the the PFZ and why. At that point you would be free to go.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
If some of you can remember the shall issue law when it first was implemented, it was much more restrictive then it even is today. The first law said you got a 2 year permit the first time for 105 and then the next time and subsequent times a 5 year permit. That got changed to what we have today through a number of amendments. My point is this bill is not the end of the road just one more step in the journey toward the end goal we all want of Constitutional Carry. Remember how long it took for shall issue to roll out mostly nationwide. Well ConCarry is IMOP along the lines of the year 1990 in shall issue. Once it rolls out to a few more states I suspect we will see the speed pick up just as we did with shall issue in this country.

I may be mistaken, but for a CPL holder in Michigan, I do believe that preemption is more sweeping than in any other state, including in all of the con carry states.

Whether the NRA had any part to do with this or not (and I will take your word for it without hesitation that they were not) the NRA does like to jump on board after progress of whatever variety had been made. Heller case they acted like they were all over when in fact they weren't, showing up at the second amendment march after flatly refusing to help organize it, things like that.... I have a sincere fear that this model could become prolific under the guise of "freedom". The NRA is very good at promoting that, one only needs to look at the scope of state level shall issue laws nation wide to see that the NRA has lobbied to be deeply intertwined in the wording of state laws to be the go to option for licensing, which of course they also lobby to keep mandatory.

I was more alone last time in being against this when it didn't screw over more existing rights. This time around a whole lot more people don't like it. In reading it this time, the government would be taking more control over CPL classes (maybe a good thing, but it's not exactly like a one day class could be all that effective no matter who teaches it), the sheriffs department taking over CPL issuance is at best neutral, but in all likelihood worse, because at least with the boards there is a chance that you might have a non government agent there on the board. If the SOS would take over issuance I would bet that things would have sped up considerably, incompetent and slow as they are, the SOS is better than Sheriff's Departments tend to be. Then there is the issue of out of state people completely losing the right to carry in CEZ's.

In essence, we are talking about giving away many privileges in exchange for one even harder to get privilege for a narrower margin of people eligible, under the hopes that it will expand freedom later. I am not going to say I have total confidence you guys are wrong, but it is at best very difficult to swallow.

I am having private conversations with a great many people from this forum and elsewhere, and trying to figure out what I wish to do. At such a time as I feel like I have my thoughts in order on this subject, I may very well call you, Phil.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
Joint Statement from MCRGO and MOC
The Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) and Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (MOC) support Senate Bill 59 S-5.

Michigan is the only state of the nation which still uses county gun boards inefficient administrative relics from early in the last century that cause a lot of grief for both Michigan gun owners and county governments. Senate Bill 59 would vest their authority in the county sheriff, streamlining the process of approving concealed pistol licenses and bringing Michigan in-line with other shall-issue states.

In addition, the bill creates a new enhanced concealed pistol license with additional training requirements that will allow anyone with a CPL the opportunity to carry in most pistol free zones.

On behalf of Michigan's 340,000+ concealed pistol license holders, Michigan Open Carry, Inc. and the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners request that the Michigan House of Representatives adopt this legislation before adjourning for the year.


Sincerely,

/s/
Phillip Hofmeister, President, MOC
Brady Schickinger, Legislative Director, MCRGO
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
This bill does not touch MCL 750.234d In any way. I hope this helps answer your question.

Correct. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(en...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234d

However,the real concern is 28.425o http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(cq...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425o

If instead of being only prohibited as a CPL holder from CCing in those places, we now can only CC there with special state level additional licensing. That would stop people with out of state licenses from having the right to carry there at all, unless I'm missing something. So it would seem that as I said, we would be giving away the privileges of a larger margin of people for a harder to obtain privilege for a narrower margin of people.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
There is arguably no penalty assigned in the law for intentional OC.

Huh? Below the bill's sub-section 10 ("shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol") is sub-section 11:

An individual who violates this section is responsible for a state civil infraction or guilty of a crime as follows . . .

1st offense: state civil infraction, 2nd: misdemeanor, 3rd: felony.

TheQ said:
That being said, any crime has to be proven (including mens rea/intention) beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's never stopped a zealous prosecutor from rolling the dice against a gun owner, especially if he or she believes the population from which the jury will be pulled can be convinced to have a loose definition of "intentional", "display", or "openly". Even if a gun owner wins against that, the cost would bankrupt most people.

I am troubled with the subjective language and lack of CLEAR definition of what is considered "intentional", "display", and "openly" in this bill.

I fear a case of getting what we're asking for, if this bill is passed as written. Go ahead and CC in a PFZ, but in some areas the prosecutor and population consider printing to be "display" or being able to see a millimeter of the bottom of your concealed OWB holster to be "not concealed" and thus somewhat "display" or somewhat "openly", for example.

Don't think such dice-rolling prosecution happens agains CC'ers who print or fractionally expose? Some cases in Florida come immediately to mind.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
"Concealed means concealed". Sighs. I can't believe I just said that.


It is clear that the proof would have to be the standard of evidence that the person "intended". Minor Printing or accidental exposure clearly is exempted.
 
Last edited:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Friends of Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

There is exciting news out of Lansing regarding SB-59. It has passed the Senate and now moves to the House of Representatives for discussion. The bill has new language included which eliminates the "open carry in a PFZ with a CPL" loophole. This new language was included in a compromise. Michigan's 340,000+ CPL holders will now have the option to obtain an 8 additional hours of handgun training and then be able to conceal carry anywhere in the state except courts, casinos, and Federal buildings. When this bill is passed in the Michigan House of Representatives and signed by the Governor, Michigan CPL holders with the additional training exemption will enjoy more freedom to carry concealed than in any other state. In addition to these changes, CPL licensing will now move to the county Sheriff streamlining the process. Michigan Open Carry Inc. is happy to support this bill for the greater good of all firearm owners in Michigan. It is our hope this bill will quickly pass and be signed into law.

/s/
Phillip Hofmeister, President
Adam Yancer, Vice-President
Randy Davis, Secretary
Ryan Ransom, Treasurer
Rob Harris, Media Director
Jason S, IT Team
Brian Jeffs, Research Director
Sandi Beahan, Assistant SW Regional Coordinator
Ryan Adams, Assistant SW Regional Coordinator

This is absurd, as is most of Michigan's firearm law. This states that people will be able to carry "concealed" more places than those in any other state; but in order to do so you must receive permission from the state, and go through burdernsome, mandatory training. I would venture to guess based on what I have come to learn from Michigan that you probably have to submit finger prints as well in order to obtain a CPL. This is not a RIGHT folks. The legislature of Michigan has granted you a privelage -- a privelage that can be taken away at any time by the same legislature. Sure you will be able to carry concealed in plenty of places, but it wouldn't feel like freedom if you have to go through all of that trouble in order to do so. I would also hate to think that this privelage could be stripped from all Michigan residents at the stroke of a pen!

Here in Kentucky we can carry everywhere except Court of Justice courthouses (just the COJ; we can still carry in ALL other courthouses and government buildings) and K-12 schools without obtaining the government's permission and without spending our time and money on unnecessary training requirements.

When I strap my pistol on my side here at home I truly feel like a free individual! Not only can we carry our firearms without government approval, but we can carry ANY other deadly weapon in the same fashion. I do not have to disarm when I enter my vehicle because we can carry in our vehicles as well without a license (this wouldn't matter because I have my CDWL, but it was nice when I didn't have it).

All of us should be working to gain more firearm freedoms, not working to abolish them. When you take away something that can be done without the government's permission and replace it with something that the government must grant you permission in order for you to do then we are going backwards -- not forwards!
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
what is the deal with out-of-staters dropping by to tell us how bad our laws are? out of curiosity, how much time have davidmcbeth & KYGlockster put towards getting legislation passed in MI? it is easy to sit back and say "this law sucks", but it's a lot harder to work to get the law changed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top