• 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.

Don't be afraid to show your true colors about protecting OC

Your level of OC protection?


  • Total voters
    33

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
"I have never and will never support additional restrictions on OC."

Ditto.

ETA: Well crap, just noticed this is in the MI sub-forum. If this MI-centric, please delete my post and vote. Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Gort

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
108
Location
Newport, Michigan, USA
DrTodd said "I will bow out of posting publicly on OCDO for a while and do what I can with like minded individuals to attempt to stem the assault on OC. However, those people can't be found here."
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...True-and-Always-Will-Be&p=1864612#post1864612

Let's see. And I challenge everyone to post below how you voted.

I voted No to sb59 from the begining. I will never trust the government in anything they do, even if they offer me a a sweet gift.
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,191
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
I would consider supporting some additional restrictions on OC to obtain other gun rights. I can not imagine the additional restrictions or other gun rights might be but I can't say I would never.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
I would consider supporting some additional restrictions on OC to obtain other gun rights. I can not imagine the additional restrictions or other gun rights might be but I can't say I would never.

Appreciate your candor. Although you couldn't be described as an "OC advocate" then, you're some kind of "gun rights" person. If the trade-off involved minimal OC restriction in exchange for some huge general gun rights advancement, I would call such a person a "gun rights advocate". If the trade-off involved an exchange of OC rights for a minimal advancement in just the person's particular area of firearm carry or ownership, I would call such a person a "Fudd".

I don't have a problem with "gun rights advocates" as long as they don't try to portray themselves as also an OC advocate, if they really would consider trading some of it away.

I do have a problem with Fudds or people/organizations calling themselves OC advocates or having "open carry" in their name when they would support trading some OC away.

If you support trading some OC away, you might be some other type of gun rights advocate, but you're not an OC advocate or organization. If "open carry" is in the org's name, the name should be changed to whatever it is that the organization really is defending. For example, Michigan Gun Owners wouldn't run into trouble doing a little compromising of OC, CC, hunting, sport shooting, or whatever for some big gain generally in gun rights, because their name doesn't reflect a particular thing they are trying to advance, except "gun owners".
 
Last edited:

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,191
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
Like I said I can't imagine such a compromise, and maybe I am not an OC advocate, I do OC, I am against SB59. I just won't say never.

Appreciate your candor. Although you couldn't be described as an "OC advocate" then, you're some kind of "gun rights" person. If the trade-off involved minimal OC restriction in exchange for some huge general gun rights advancement, I would call such a person a "gun rights advocate". If the trade-off involved an exchange of OC rights for a minimal advancement in just the person's particular area of firearm carry or ownership, I would call such a person a "Fudd".

I don't have a problem with "gun rights advocates" as long as they don't try to portray themselves as also an OC advocate, if they really would consider trading some of it away.

I do have a problem with Fudds or people/organizations calling themselves OC advocates when they would support trading some OC away.

If you support trading some OC away, you might be some other type of gun rights advocate, but you're not an OC advocate or organization.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
Appreciate your candor. Although you couldn't be described as an "OC advocate" then, you're some kind of "gun rights" person. If the trade-off involved minimal OC restriction in exchange for some huge general gun rights advancement, I would call such a person a "gun rights advocate". If the trade-off involved an exchange of OC rights for a minimal advancement in just the person's particular area of firearm carry or ownership, I would call such a person a "Fudd".

I don't have a problem with "gun rights advocates" as long as they don't try to portray themselves as also an OC advocate, if they really would consider trading some of it away.

I do have a problem with Fudds or people/organizations calling themselves OC advocates or having "open carry" in their name when they would support trading some OC away.

If you support trading some OC away, you might be some other type of gun rights advocate, but you're not an OC advocate or organization. If "open carry" is in the org's name, the name should be changed to whatever it is that the organization really is defending. For example, Michigan Gun Owners wouldn't run into trouble doing a little compromising of OC, CC, hunting, sport shooting, or whatever for some big gain generally in gun rights, because their name doesn't reflect a particular thing they are trying to advance, except "gun owners".

So by your logic, does this make you, as anti CC, just an OC Advocate and not a Gun Rights Advocate? Personally I would prefer to be a Gun Rights Advocate working to advance all forms of carry, not just be narrowed down to one. For myself I OC and CC as the situation dictates as well as my method of carry, i.e. OWB, IWB, Shoulder Rig, etc.
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,191
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
So by your logic, does this make you, as anti CC, just an OC Advocate and not a Gun Rights Advocate? Personally I would prefer to be a Gun Rights Advocate working to advance all forms of carry, not just be narrowed down to one. For myself I OC and CC as the situation dictates as well as my method of carry, i.e. OWB, IWB, Shoulder Rig, etc.

shoulder rigs are nice, though I get looks if I open carry with mine,
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
shoulder rigs are nice, though I get looks if I open carry with mine,

I have a nice horizontal rig I use for CC only as the muzzle points behind me and may frighten the sheep. Just ordered a nice vertical carry that would be more appropriate for open carry.
 

Shadow Bear

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,018
Location
Grand Rapids
My stance on the support of OC cannot be questioned.

Pretty strong words for a newbie. Stick around for a while before you embarrass yourself with words like that.

73 posts in 2 1/2 years does not make a hardcore activist- there are a lot of veterans of the movement that paved the way for you, young 'un.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
So by your logic, does this make you, as anti CC, just an OC Advocate and not a Gun Rights Advocate?

I'm not anti-CC, let me clarify if my prior posts seemed to suggest that.

I'm an "all the above" gun rights advocate. I will not support any additional restrictions on firearms nor their manufacture, sale, ownership, carry, etc. I will not support legislation that prohibits or criminalizes some of these things in order to achieve advancement in others. I support gun advocacy actions which are small, tightly focused, incremental, and free of compromise. That kind of action, like a needle versus a broad object, gets through easier and with no need for the "lubrication" of compromise to get a broad object through.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
I'm not anti-CC, let me clarify if my prior posts seemed to suggest that.

I'm an "all the above" gun rights advocate. I will not support any additional restrictions on firearms nor their manufacture, sale, ownership, carry, etc. I will not support legislation that prohibits or criminalizes some of these things in order to achieve advancement in others. I support gun advocacy actions which are small, tightly focused, incremental, and free of compromise. That kind of action, like a needle versus a broad object, gets through easier and with no need for the "lubrication" of compromise to get a broad object through.

Well that does clarify things some, however, I don't see where you will ever get a "zero" compromise gun bill through legislation. Just my observations.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
First off, I think you telling Raggs he isn't an OC advocate was pretty condescending. Those are your definitions, I would certainly consider someone like Raggs who posts on OC forums, OC's, and works to promote OC an "OC advocate". But my opinion is worth no more than yours, so there is no point in debating that I suppose.

But I do have a question for you, just for future reference. Let's play the hypothetical game- a bill has passed both houses, the governor is willing to sign in only if DanM says it's ok. The bill does the following-

allows constitutional carry(offers optional FREE permit for reciprocity), adds BIG fines for preemption violations, removes all restriction on OC & CC in cars & in public. it eliminates registration(and demands destruction of records), allows private sales of all weapons, legalizes SBS, SBR's........but, the one catch is that no OC carry will be allowed in sports stadiums.

do you tell the governor to sign that bill or veto it?
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Well that does clarify things some, however, I don't see where you will ever get a "zero" compromise gun bill through legislation.

As I've indicated, tightly focused and incremental initiatives to remove 2A infringements do succeed without gun-rights compromise. A relatively recent example would be pistol "safety inspection" elimination and registration process reform. These are the beginning steps in what we'll eventually look back on as the successful incremental strategy that removed registration altogether, without compromising anyone's gun rights.
 

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
First off, I think you telling Raggs he isn't an OC advocate was pretty condescending. Those are your definitions, I would certainly consider someone like Raggs who posts on OC forums, OC's, and works to promote OC an "OC advocate". But my opinion is worth no more than yours, so there is no point in debating that I suppose.

But I do have a question for you, just for future reference. Let's play the hypothetical game- a bill has passed both houses, the governor is willing to sign in only if DanM says it's ok. The bill does the following-

allows constitutional carry(offers optional FREE permit for reciprocity), adds BIG fines for preemption violations, removes all restriction on OC & CC in cars & in public. it eliminates registration(and demands destruction of records), allows private sales of all weapons, legalizes SBS, SBR's........but, the one catch is that no OC carry will be allowed in sports stadiums.

do you tell the governor to sign that bill or veto it?

Firstly, my intention was not to tell DanM (his post was quoted not Raggs) anything, I was using the logic he put forth. After his response, it clarified things and made more sense to me. To me it is a non issue, and no harm meant or received.

As to your proposed hypothetical bill, I am glad we are talking hypothetical because it is too much of a stretch for the reality of MI at the moment, however, I would likely consider that gaining a great deal with sacrificing one minor thing. Moot point for me though as I don't go to sports stadiums as it is :p

As I've indicated, tightly focused and incremental initiatives to remove 2A infringements do succeed without gun-rights compromise. A relatively recent example would be pistol "safety inspection" elimination and registration process reform. These are the beginning steps in what we'll eventually look back on as the successful incremental strategy that removed registration altogether, without compromising anyone's gun rights.

I will grant those as valid points, but also rare points. This is the first real change to come along for carry laws since Shall Issue 10 years ago. And if you are referring to HB5225 with respect to registration it is RUMORED that there indeed was a compromise, background checks for private sales. This has not been officially announced yet so I am waiting to see what comes of it.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
I will grant those as valid points, but also rare points. This is the first real change to come along for carry laws since Shall Issue 10 years ago. And if you are referring to HB5225 with respect to registration it is RUMORED that there indeed was a compromise, background checks for private sales. This has not been officially announced yet so I am waiting to see what comes of it.

I wasn't referring to HB5225, with respect to incremental registration reform. Was referring to what has already been put into law in the last couple of years. I agree with your point that compromise happens in a lot of gun legislation. I only make the case that compromise should not be supported, and instead what gun owners should support, if compromise on "big" bills are unavoidable, are small, incremental, tightly-focused bills or riders to other bills that don't involved compromise.
 
Top