• 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.

SB 59 pulled?

Big Gay Al

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
1,954
Location
Mason, Michigan, USA
[h=5]SB 59 UPDATE AND ACTION ALERT: Committee Chair Frank Foster has pulled SB 59 from the agenda of tomorrow's House Natural Resources Committee meeting. With just over a week left in the legislative session, this has the serious potential to kill the bill. Please e-mail Rep. Foster at FrankFoster@house.mi.gov and politely ask him to consider and pass SB 59 tomorrow.[/h]
Just out of curiosity, did anyone email Frank Foster (Other than me)? And if you did, did you receive a reply?
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
Just out of curiosity, did anyone email Frank Foster (Other than me)? And if you did, did you receive a reply?
I did and I received no reply. I also emailed my rep who apparently has a CPL. She didn't seem to be in favor of the bill by what she said but didn't really say either way.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I called and left a voicemail, no callback. This is the latest update from MCRGO-

SB 59 UPDATE: Senate Bill 59 will be scheduled for testimony and a vote in next week's House Natural Resources Committee. We expect it to be voted on by the full House later next week. The House will be in session all next week.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
I called and left a voicemail, no callback. This is the latest update from MCRGO-

SB 59 UPDATE: Senate Bill 59 will be scheduled for testimony and a vote in next week's House Natural Resources Committee. We expect it to be voted on by the full House later next week. The House will be in session all next week.
I don't see this bill becoming law. Why the heck else would they move it back another week?
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I don't see this bill becoming law. Why the heck else would they move it back another week?
they moved it back a week so that snyder could pocket veto it, like he will HB5225. i have no proof to back up that claim, but that is my personal belief.

personally i think there is a 99% chance this bill is dead. I know that will make some happy, but now that the OC in a PFZ exemption has been exposed to the masses I can see them closing it, and us losing all forms of carry in those PFZ's.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
they moved it back a week so that snyder could pocket veto it, like he will HB5225. i have no proof to back up that claim, but that is my personal belief.

personally i think there is a 99% chance this bill is dead. I know that will make some happy, but now that the OC in a PFZ exemption has been exposed to the masses I can see them closing it, and us losing all forms of carry in those PFZ's.
Yeah it's too bad we can't get gun owners on the same page to support bills like this. So many think unless the bill allows for constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere it's garbage and we shouldn't allow it to pass. Oh to live in a fantasy world......
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,190
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
they moved it back a week so that snyder could pocket veto it, like he will HB5225. i have no proof to back up that claim, but that is my personal belief.

personally i think there is a 99% chance this bill is dead. I know that will make some happy, but now that the OC in a PFZ exemption has been exposed to the masses I can see them closing it, and us losing all forms of carry in those PFZ's.
Nah, remember that was just a gray area
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
personally i think there is a 99% chance this bill is dead. I know that will make some happy, but now that the OC in a PFZ exemption has been exposed to the masses I can see them closing it, and us losing all forms of carry in those PFZ's.
I welcome a straight-up fight with anti-gunners over OC in PFZs, versus the detestable act of compromising it away. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
It WAS/IS a gray area, if they change the wording and the law, then it will more likely be black and white.
I don't see it as a gray area, but I will say this if some think it is:

While I don't like gray areas, I'll take your gray area that does not explicitly ban OC over your black and white that does explicitly ban OC.

At least with the gray area, *I* get to assess whether the risk is low or high and choose whether or not I OC.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I welcome a straight-up fight with anti-gunners over OC in PFZs, versus the detestable act of compromising it away. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.
Some of us can't afford that fight, so will you provide our legal expenses if we are arrested for OC'ing in a PFZ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,494
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
I don't see it as a gray area, but I will say this if some think it is:

While I don't like gray areas, I'll take your gray area that does not explicitly ban OC over your black and white that does explicitly ban OC.

At least with the gray area, *I* get to assess whether the risk is low or high and choose whether or not I OC.
I agree.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Some of us can afford that fight, so will you provide our legal expenses if we are arrested for OC'ing in a PFZ?
I'll reiterate:

I don't see it as a gray area, but I will say this if some think it is:

While I don't like gray areas, I'll take your gray area that does not explicitly ban OC over your black and white that does explicitly ban OC.

At least with the gray area, *I* get to assess whether the risk is low or high and choose whether or not I OC.

By all means, if you assess the risk as high then don't OC in a PFZ. But shouldn't someone who assesses the risk as low or none be free to do so, rather than there be an outright black-and-white ban on OC in PFZ? Which is worse?
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,357
Location
Burton, Michigan
Yeah it's too bad we can't get gun owners on the same page to support bills like this. So many think unless the bill allows for constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere it's garbage and we shouldn't allow it to pass. Oh to live in a fantasy world......
I don't recall all the details but there was a major debate/argument here not long ago where advocates of OC were becoming divided over the quest of ConCarry versus the elimination of PFZ's (?). I was taken back quite a bit at the time that some folks could not see the removal of PFZ's as being the "Baby Steps" to ConCarry. It was, without a doubt, an all or nothing mentality that plagued this forum as it does to this day.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Yeah it's too bad we can't get gun owners on the same page to support bills like this. So many think unless the bill allows for constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere it's garbage and we shouldn't allow it to pass. Oh to live in a fantasy world......
The problem with SB59 is not that it doesn't go far enough forward with OC, it's that it goes BACKWARD with OC.
 

HKcarrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
831
Location
michigan
Yeah it's too bad we can't get gun owners on the same page to support bills like this. So many think unless the bill allows for constitutional carry anywhere and everywhere it's garbage and we shouldn't allow it to pass. Oh to live in a fantasy world......
That's because some people can't see past the end of their noses and it's all ME ME ME.... what's in it for ME?!?!? THey can't take a small hit that will most likely be temporary (5 years) on something they probably don't do anyways in order to ensure that more of us can SAFELY carry in these areas. They can't see the big picture...




I don't recall all the details but there was a major debate/argument here not long ago where advocates of OC were becoming divided over the quest of ConCarry versus the elimination of PFZ's (?). I was taken back quite a bit at the time that some folks could not see the removal of PFZ's as being the "Baby Steps" to ConCarry. It was, without a doubt, an all or nothing mentality that plagued this forum as it does to this day.
Yep... fantasy world indeed... "I get exactly what I want or I'm going to throw a tantrum and get nothing"... bunch of pissy pants cry babies.
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
I don't recall all the details but there was a major debate/argument here not long ago where advocates of OC were becoming divided over the quest of ConCarry versus the elimination of PFZ's (?). I was taken back quite a bit at the time that some folks could not see the removal of PFZ's as being the "Baby Steps" to ConCarry. It was, without a doubt, an all or nothing mentality that plagued this forum as it does to this day.
The problem with SB59 is not whether it takes baby steps or giant steps forward with OC, it's that it takes BACKWARD steps with OC.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,357
Location
Burton, Michigan
The problem with SB59 is not whether it takes baby steps or giant steps forward with OC, it's that it takes BACKWARD steps with OC.
In my previous comment, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with the Bill. Really all I was saying is that:

Thread Created: Discussion SB59-Take (1):

Person "A": I support SB59 and hope it passes, because...
Person "B": I don't support SB59 and hope it dies, because...

Person "A": You're an idiot...
Person "B": No, you're an idiot...

Thread Locked

Thread Created: Discussion SB59-Take (2):

Insert Discussion SB59-Take (1)
.
.
.
Thread Locked
.
.
.

Each and everyone of us here, and elsewhere, may have reasons for agreeing or disagreeing on certain issues. i.e. Person "A" opinion(s) carries no more weight than Person "B" opinion(s).

I will admit, I do not support SB 59. However, it's not for reasons many may think. My reason(s) for not supporting the Bill are mine and mine alone. But just for reference, I don't have a serious problem if I needed, or was required, to CC in a PFZ. Do I think, in my opinion, the requirement to CC is beyond retarded? Yes I do.
 
Top