Defending our rights in 2009

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Venator wrote:

I didn't realize this was going to be a dissertation on the compare and contrast of gun laws across the country. Legislators have staff that can research and present statistic as they are needed. The idea of the letter was to introduce in a broad and concise manner what we would like the legislators to work towards.

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

There are at least two pro-gun organizations in Michigan (MGO and MCRGO's being the major forces)that have more members, more money and more influence than a cyberspace forum such as MOC.

I feel we are deviating from our primary goals. Once we have achieved those we can expand into other pro-gun battles.

I don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing these other goals but perhaps a letter with an MOC letterhead may not be appropriate at this time. I'm interested in hearing what others members think.

That's not what I was suggesting to make it. All I was saying is that we should have at least some general idea of the statistics backing our simple reasoning statements.

The beauty of this effort, and I think what will stand out to legislators, is that people with little money joining together through an online forum can achieve critical mass to get something done. That's what, to me, is so beautiful about this. And remember, whether you carry your gun openly or concealed, you still have to jump through these same awful regulatory hoops that this project is trying to get eliminated.

I'm going to attach a 3rd revision with other states laws included in the form I suggested, but realize that I have not done research to prove the statements, they just "seem" like they'd be right, based on common sense. This letter contains the action requests in the form in which I think they would work best, but of course, the wording could be changed if necessary.

 

[Michigander]

imported post

Venator wrote:

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

I guess I agree. I think that MOC needs to grow up before it branches out.

I was talking to THway the other night, and we both feel that we need to get more organized, so we can become more effective as a group. In essense, I feel we are plateauing, and we need to get more agressive about spreading the word. But telling congress how to legislate might be a bit pre mature.

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

Venator wrote:

I didn't realize this was going to be a dissertation on the compare and contrast of gun laws across the country. Legislators have staff that can research and present statistic as they are needed. The idea of the letter was to introduce in a broad and concise manner what we would like the legislators to work towards.

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

There are at least two pro-gun organizations in Michigan (MGO and MCRGO's being the major forces)that have more members, more money and more influence than a cyberspace forum such as MOC.

I feel we are deviating from our primary goals. Once we have achieved those we can expand into other pro-gun battles.

I don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing these other goals but perhaps a letter with an MOC letterhead may not be appropriate at this time. I'm interested in hearing what others members think.

I started realizing the same thing, and pm'd EdifyGuy with a short note along the same lines. It might not hurt to make our presence and wishes known with a letter along the lines of what was originally proposed, though, and I agree that they can handle the research. The scope of the project is quickly becoming apparent.

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Venator wrote:

I didn't realize this was going to be a dissertation on the compare and contrast of gun laws across the country. Legislators have staff that can research and present statistic as they are needed. The idea of the letter was to introduce in a broad and concise manner what we would like the legislators to work towards.

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

There are at least two pro-gun organizations in Michigan (MGO and MCRGO's being the major forces)that have more members, more money and more influence than a cyberspace forum such as MOC.

I feel we are deviating from our primary goals. Once we have achieved those we can expand into other pro-gun battles.

I don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing these other goals but perhaps a letter with an MOC letterhead may not be appropriate at this time. I'm interested in hearing what others members think.

I started realizing the same thing, and pm'd EdifyGuy with a short note along the same lines. It might not hurt to make our presence and wishes known with a letter along the lines of what was originally proposed, though, and I agree that they can handle the research. The scope of the project is quickly becoming apparent.

From the letter:
The objectives of Michigan open carry include:

• Educating the public and members of the law enforcement community on the lawfulness of openly carrying a handgun in public, and to help people become accustomed to the practice.[font="Verdana, sans-serif"] [/font]
• Promoting the exercise of the natural right of self defense using the most efficient and common tool, the handgun.
• Demonstrating to the public at large that gun owners are one of the most lawful segments of society, and that the public has nothing to fear from the lawful carry of firearms.[font="Verdana, sans-serif"] [/font]
• Protecting the constitutionally-guaranteed individual right of self-defense.

To me, if these are the stated purposes of MOC, points 2 and 4 would be addressed directly with this rally as planned, and points 1 and 3 would be aided indirectly. I still think that this rally would be absolutely fine as we have discussed.

I didn't mean to unduly complicate the letter with my particularness for verbage. I think that the letter as I just reposted it would be perfectly fine as-is. I would just feel a bit more comfortable if I looked at some of the numbers first, just for scholarliness' sake. There's no way that the statements as worded could be wrong, since I deliberately used the term "generally." That way the argument is pointed, but broad enough to be right almost no matter what.

I changed the wording a tad, and I believe we could use it just like it is. Here's another draft.

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Like I said to some other people, I'm sorry for making this seem complicated. We're not trying to write any papers proving anything at this point; we're just presenting a list of grievances and some simple justifications for them.

After this initial contact, we will need to get our legislative ambassadors to introduce legislation which would accomplish our goals, and prepare another letter that does provide more in-depth reasoning and information. However, that can be prepared at a good deal more leisure, and I could probably do it singlehandedly (I used to write things like that a lot—for fun :? ......anyway.........) I doubt that would be necessary, however, as at least Venator has shown a willingness to help with such things, and surely he's not the only other person out there that can put words into sentences.

This piece, unlike the so-called "position paper" being discussed right now, would not be a specifically MOC letter, but rather a template to be used for personal letters. The finished product would be submitted to the forum for review and comment first, and then we would ask individual members to make any additions they saw fit, print it out, and send it personally to their legislators and/or any other legislators that they felt were important. A few core members, to include myself, would get together and divide up a list of all of the legislators to be certain that every legislator and the governor got it at least once.

After the legislation is introduced and the letters are sent, it will then be time to make our way back to Lansing to wave more specific signs, such as "Support H.B. xxxx—Open Carry in cars should be legal!" (These longer signs could be broken into 2 signs and have partners side-by-side.)

Don't lose heart now, everybody; "we have only begun to fight!" But rest assured, we can succeed, and I'm going to do everything in my power to assure that we shall succeed!

 

[springerdave]

imported post

Read the download , good stuff . Should the list of things to change at the bottom have bullets as well? Just wondering.springerdave.

 

[Hcidem]

imported post

I have a few suggestions for the letter. I would add some mention of the regularly scheduled "Saturday Shoot-Out" show in the methods section. I would also add the word "new" before "registration of handgun" to let them know that this didn't go by unnoticed. Its a small word, but its inclusion makes a point.

Otherwise, its a good letter, EdifyGuy.

Edit: Sorry for the late suggestions. By the way, its looking like more folks have had an opportunity to read the letter and think about it a bit. The additional comments this thread has received is just the type of involvement this issue needs to move forward. Thanks for sounding-out on this idea, folks.

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

I'll see about implementing the changes that have been suggested to the letter; I think that they would be improvements. I might have to do that tonight, though. If anyone else wants to take a shot at it, have at it! Thanks for all the positive suggestions.

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Hcidem wrote:

I have a few suggestions for the letter. I would add some mention of the regularly scheduled "Saturday Shoot-Out" show in the methods section. I would also add the word "new" before "registration of handgun" to let them know that this didn't go by unnoticed. Its a small word, but its inclusion makes a point.

Otherwise, its a good letter, EdifyGuy.

Edit: Sorry for the late suggestions. By the way, its looking like more folks have had an opportunity to read the letter and think about it a bit. The additional comments this thread has received is just the type of involvement this issue needs to move forward. Thanks for sounding-out on this idea, folks.

I don't know enough about the "Saturday Shoot-Out" to write about it. Would someone please post a proposed bullet-point to describe it? I've implemented the other changes, and I like the results.

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

OMG OMG OMG

EdifyGuy, you should be ASHAMED of yourself! ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS place the responsibility SQUARELY on the shoulders of the operator! At the risk of severe beratement, I have to call this what it is : a Bradyism! Holy crap, please change the wording! For shame, for shame...

Repeal of the law prohibiting the transportation of any loaded handgun in a vehicle on a public highway without a CPL. 23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by lawfully-owned handguns during traffic stops to states which disallow such carry.


Ok, rant off. Looks great, though.

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

Maybe, "harmed by the use of"??

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Haha, good catch, how's this?

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by persons using lawfully-owned handguns during traffic stops to states which disallow such carry.


You're right, and I'm a stickler for things like that, too, which is why I say gun-owners' rights, not gun rights. Guns have no rights, but we do!

Care to contribute a line about the Saturday ShootOut as a method of advancing the OC agenda?

EDIT: Attached revised file minus shootout line

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

If nobody wants to take a swipe at a bullet-point description of the ShootOut then could somebody just post a description of the event and I'll make the bullet point?

 

[Taurus850CIA]

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

If nobody wants to take a swipe at a bullet-point description of the ShootOut then could somebody just post a description of the event and I'll make the bullet point?

Revision of that line looks good. Here's a link to the "Shootout".
http://micpl.com/
I had to stop the Eric and Carson broadcast on the right, before I could start the last "Shootout" show on the left. Boy, talk about being in the wrong locations....:shock:
Anyway,
I've been trying to get off this site for the last hour or so, I'm tired and can't keep my mind straight. I guess I need to turn the computer off so I don't get my notifications! It's addicting... 'Night, all.

 

[JeffSayers]

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

...
23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by persons using lawfully-owned handguns during traffic stops to states which disallow such carry.
...

Hey group, sorry I've been out for a bit. Few points to add here, this one first lest I forget. Shouldn't the above be phrased to the effect of 'unconcealed carry in these states has not yielded any related increase in harm'. The original seems to imply that good folks are hurting cops because they are armed.

Also, I would agree with Venator about going too deep with this introduction letter. While I don't think it is a bad idea to have perhaps a little reasoning behind our requests, I think it would be more important to keep the letter simple, definitely NOT multiple pages. Remember, these guys are just coming back from "vacation" on an equivalent to a Monday morning.

Don't let the train get derailed though, because those details will be be important to have in follow-up communications with friendly legislators when we can present our reasoning more thoroughly.

Just my $0.02 and you might get a nickel refund on the right day!

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

Jeff, you're right, that would be a better way to say it. But do you feel that it is too long as-is, or are you simply saying not to make it any longer? There's really not a lot of words there; it just takes 2 pages because there's a lot of white space to make it easier to follow. Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally show no higher rate of harm to law enforcement officers during traffic stops when compared to states which disallow such carry.




Other than the crummy formatting from incompatible cut-and-paste operations, how's that? The original was a reference to good guys shooting cops, but saying that it happened at the same rate in both scenarios. It simply wasn't pointed out that the rate is practically zero in both cases. But I do like this wording better, since it doesn't imply that there is a rate at which good guys shoot cops, which might be assumed to be non-zero in the reader's mind.



See? This is why we have forums like this. This is getting to be a really good letter!

 

[EdifyGuy]

imported post

OK, here's another version still with the shootout included and all suggested revisions to this point included. I sorta ripped the shootout description from a description that was used on that website you provided and just spiffed it up a little. Hope it works and nobody minds......

Now I also need to get off here before I say something stupid 'cuz my eyes are blurry.......

 

[Venator]

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

Haha, good catch, how's this?

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by persons using lawfully-owned handguns during traffic stops to states which disallow such carry.


You're right, and I'm a stickler for things like that, too, which is why I say gun-owners' rights, not gun rights. Guns have no rights, but we do!

Care to contribute a line about the Saturday ShootOut as a method of advancing the OC agenda?

EDIT: Attached revised file minus shootout line

I think this sentence is misleading. It makes the reader think that LEO ARE harmed sometimes by people that lawfully carry firearms in cars.

I would change it to say something like.

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these statesdo not experience an increaseof law enforcement officers being harmed by persons using lawfully-owned handguns.


Correct the word shoot Out to two words and italics.

• Broadcasting a bi-weekly radio program called The Saturday Afternoon Shoot Out, discussing topics including gun-owners' rights, firearms-related laws, how to be a responsible gun owner, and the benefits of open carry vs concealed carry.

 

[jmlefler]

imported post

I would like to see a pre-emptive law prohibiting the identification of ammunition. It appears that many States are introducing the Ammunition Accountability Act (http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm); which most certainly would create hardships for those of us who carry, open or concealed.

Many States moved to prevent takings similar to what happened in Kelo as well as the prohibition on suing gun manufacturers.

"Passage of the Anti-Ammunition Accountablility Act (AAAA) - a law preventing the State of Michigan from imposing any identification of casings, projectiles or propellants used in any firearm"

The rest looks solid.

Carry on