• 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.

Am I An OC Advocate?

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Due to recent events, and some support for a flaming t.u.rd of a recently vetoed bill, the question of whether one is doing OC advocacy or not has been discussed.

When it comes to any bill in the future like SB 59 (and it may come up again), I think you're an OC advocate if you predicate your support on there being no OC criminalization and . . . hell, Mike Stollenwerk says it best about what should be advocated for in such a bill:

. . . I think this bill should be amended to eliminate the open carry prohibition, and grandfather-in all current CPL and non-Michigan CHP holders while applying the new training requirement to new Michigan CPL applicants only.

Do you agree with Mike's points on what should be advocated for, if this ever comes up again? I do. Again, take note that I'm talking about what should be advocated for, if you think of calling yourself an OC advocate.
 
Last edited:

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,844
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
Hey Dan... we tried such a bill.... it was called SB57/58.... it stalled. Then there was the first version of SB59 which had nothing related to OC in it... then the version the gov said he might sign which banned OC in PFZ's. Then the weasel got into the henhouse in CT and the gov showed the colors we always knew he had.

So the bill you and Mike wanted already was introduced and got no support from the house or senate leadership.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Hey Dan... we tried such a bill.... it was called SB57/58.... it stalled. Then there was the first version of SB59 which had nothing related to OC in it... then the version the gov said he might sign which banned OC in PFZ's. Then the weasel got into the henhouse in CT and the gov showed the colors we always knew he had.

So the bill you and Mike wanted already was introduced and got no support from the house or senate leadership.

So, then one way to overcome that is to go "incremental" and break down the basket of reforms into smaller bite-sized chunks of legislation.

Another is to tie legislation either explicitly (by "tie-bar") or implicitly (by negotiating that it is part of a "package") to other legislation the governor and other legislators want.

Another is the "rider" route where gun reforms are made as amendments to other legislation (to the extent possible in Michigan).

Or a combination of any of the above, along with any other possibilities for re-setting or re-packaging the reforms we want without criminalizing any gun owner's currently legal purchase, possession, or carry rights.

Then, at the end of the day, if none of that works without agreeing to go along with criminalizing some gun owners, you just gotta say, "Sorry, no thanks, we'll get rid of you via the ballot box rather than go along with you criminalizing us away!"
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,514
Location
Secret Bunker
No tie-bar. It was a gentle men's agreement: Senate would pass 5225 if House passed 59.

In Lansing Sir you will be hard pressed to find a gentleman anywhere in the legislature in my honest opinion. See Gov. Snyder for an example of what I speak of:mad:.
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
That's not what I was referring to. I thought I read--and maybe I misunderstood--that there was some other non-firearms legislation that Gov. Snyder was being pushed to sign, that was tied to SB59.
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,448
Location
Lansing, Michigan
That's not what I was referring to. I thought I read--and maybe I misunderstood--that there was some other non-firearms legislation that Gov. Snyder was being pushed to sign, that was tied to SB59.

Nope. Not true. No official tie-bars.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
Guess that definition by the OP leaves me out. I suppose I am just plain a Carry Advocate. I believe in both OC and CC as they both have their pros and cons. To me the fact that you do carry is more important than how you carry, either way you have your weapon for self defense.
 
Last edited:

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,251
Location
, ,
So, then one way to overcome that is to go "incremental" and break down the basket of reforms into smaller bite-sized chunks of legislation.

Another is to tie legislation either explicitly (by "tie-bar") or implicitly (by negotiating that it is part of a "package") to other legislation the governor and other legislators want.

Another is the "rider" route where gun reforms are made as amendments to other legislation (to the extent possible in Michigan).

Or a combination of any of the above, along with any other possibilities for re-setting or re-packaging the reforms we want without criminalizing any gun owner's currently legal purchase, possession, or carry rights.

Then, at the end of the day, if none of that works without agreeing to go along with criminalizing some gun owners, you just gotta say, "Sorry, no thanks, we'll get rid of you via the ballot box rather than go along with you criminalizing us away!"
Tie-Bar 2A&OC Rights expansion to bills that must be passed!
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,191
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
Sadly according to YOU I am not an OC advocate, which I can live with.

Due to recent events, and some support for a flaming t.u.rd of a recently vetoed bill, the question of whether one is doing OC advocacy or not has been discussed.

When it comes to any bill in the future like SB 59 (and it may come up again), I think you're an OC advocate if you predicate your support on there being no OC criminalization and . . . hell, Mike Stollenwerk says it best about what should be advocated for in such a bill:



Do you agree with Mike's points on what should be advocated for, if this ever comes up again? I do. Again, take note that I'm talking about what should be advocated for, if you think of calling yourself an OC advocate.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
Guess that definition by the OP leaves me out. I suppose I am just plain a Carry Advocate. I believe in both OC and CC as they both have their pros and cons. To me the fact that you do carry is more important than how you carry, either way you have your weapon for self defense.

Sadly according to YOU I am not an OC advocate, which I can live with.

You and me both. But just one person's opinion. Everyone has one.
 
Last edited:
Top