SB 59 pulled?

[Raggs]

While open carrying I have never accidentally concealed my pistol, however I have accidentally flashed my pistol when concealed carrying, How would I prove it was an accident? IDK

 

[TheQ]

While open carrying I have never accidentally concealed my pistol, however I have accidentally flashed my pistol when concealed carrying, How would I prove it was an accident? IDK

It'd be up to the prosecution to prove it was intentional.

In the case of a C/I, that proof would have to be by a preponderance of the evidence. In the case of a crime, "beyond all reasonable doubt."

Tyler reports the reason he OC'd his 870 Shotgun into CADL is because it was a windy day and he wanted to make sure his jacket wouldn't flop over his gun while he walked (no CPL). If we take him at his word, we have to believe accidentally concealment is a concern for some people!

 

[bb]

And if SB59 passes, as written, then you are at risk of being prosecuted for printing or exposure if a prosecutor thinks, despite your protests that it was accidental, he can convince a jury in his area you violated the no display or OC in PFZ part. How many prosecutions for OC in a PFZ in Michigan have there been? One or two, if any? How many prosecutions against CC'ers printing or accidentally exposing in states with OC bans? Several to many.

OC'ing in a PFZ here in Michigan is much less risky, legally, than CC'ing in no-exposure/display or no-OC zones has proven to be.

Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed

 

[TheQ]

Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed

It isn't and won't be. The argument is tenuous at best and fear mongering in order to support an anti SB 59 position at worse.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

Just out of curiosity, did anyone email Frank Foster (Other than me)? And if you did, did you receive a reply?

i did. no reply.

 

[lapeer20m]

As far as changing the bill later to remove the pfz language, I'm sure many people thought that the nfa of 1934, or the gca of 1968 would be temporary or could later be altered.

Almost 80 years later the unconstitutional legislation is still around.

While we may be able to alter the current legislation at some point in the future, it is not a given. I would venture to say that most lawmakers would not vote in support of allowing openly carried firearms at schools.

 

[HKcarrier]

No need for an apology... an explanation is good enough for me.




And thanks... I'll show that comment about my having wisdom to my wife... she will undoubtedly laugh about it for at least a week!

Sorry about all the posts folks....

Edited to add: Told my wife about the "wisdom" thing and she said she will be laughing for a lot longer than a week.

Never question your wife's judgement. She chose to marry YOU.



I think your reasons are well thought out and your concerns about the professionalism are legitimate. However, people are human, and they are susceptible to making mistakes and having weaknesses... one of those weaknesses may be that they love to argue on the internet.

I don't think it completely takes (or really much at all) away from their credibility.

I don't think this move takes away from MOC's credibility either. I think it lends MORE credibility to them as a GUN RIGHTS organization in general. It shows that, as I said, they're willing to take a small hit for the greater good.

I can understand people's arguments that they are not on board with this bill. Lapeer20m had a great post opposing it as well. Nothing wrong with that. I just feel like people are getting ridiculous about it. (probably on BOTH sides) Maybe it's just my interpretation and I"m wrong. Who knows...

Like I said, better that we're all on the same side than on different sides.

 

[Bronson]

I don't think it completely takes (or really much at all) away from their credibility.

I would disagree. MOC has made their decision and I can respect their reasons and their decision...and I'm not even sure I disagree with them. Where they lose me, and many people, is the manner in which some of the leadership conducts themselves. And arguing isn't the problem it's the name calling, sniping, and general immaturity displayed on this forum and elsewhere.

Bronson

 

[Big Gay Al]

As far as changing the bill later to remove the pfz language, I'm sure many people thought that the nfa of 1934, or the gca of 1968 would be temporary or could later be altered.

Almost 80 years later the unconstitutional legislation is still around.

While we may be able to alter the current legislation at some point in the future, it is not a given. I would venture to say that most lawmakers would not vote in support of allowing openly carried firearms at schools.

I seriously doubt anyone thought either of those 2 laws were temporary. The only gun control law I ever saw that was temporary was the national AWB. And that's only because the language of the law made it so.

There are no guarantees that SB59 is a temporary measure. But, if we want to see it as such, that means we have to keep working toward making it so. Like most things that are worth while, it takes time and effort.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

he is responding to us on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/frankdfoster/posts/10151256216543236?comment_id=24356254&notif_t=like

 

[scot623]

he is responding to us on facebook
https://www.facebook.com/frankdfoster/posts/10151256216543236?comment_id=24356254&notif_t=like

Thanks for the link.

 

[DanM]

Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed

The equivalence of printing to "display" and the judgement that a printing gun is not a concealed gun is up to a prosecutor and a jury. It is entirely plausible that there exists prosecutors and juries who would see things that way.

 

[TheQ]

The equivalence of printing to "display" and the judgement that a printing gun is not a concealed gun is up to a prosecutor and a jury. It is entirely plausible that there exists prosecutors and juries who would see things that way.

Bench trial, then you can appeal the finding of fact...

 

[DanM]

Where is a law against printing, Say you have a t shirt on and u can see the outline of your gun through your shirt it is still concealed

It isn't and won't be. The argument is tenuous at best and fear mongering in order to support an anti SB 59 position at worse.

"Every month we are contacted by other law-abiding people who have been confronted, detained, and threatened with arrest because they were lawfully carrying a firearm in Florida and it “printed” through clothing or became unconcealed."
http://floridacarry.org/flcinews/54...prosecution-for-innocent-exposure-of-handguns
--Page indicates last updated as of July 15th 2012.

SB59's language is no better than what Florida's law used to be. Florida Carry isn't being tenuous or fear-mongering, and they're a pretty credible organization judging by their accomplishments:
http://www.floridacarry.org/accomplishments

Florida's law is now actually much better than SB59:

It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

I would argue the bolded is the key difference, and is superior, in Florida's law as compared to Michigan's SB59. The proposed bill just says "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY" when it could be A LOT BETTER and say "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY AND IN AN ANGRY OR THREATENING MANNER". The strengthening of protection for CC'ers unintentionally displaying in Florida is a good model that SB59's language should have incorporated, but doesn't.

 

[DanM]

The equivalence of printing to "display" and the judgement that a printing gun is not a concealed gun is up to a prosecutor and a jury. It is entirely plausible that there exists prosecutors and juries who would see things that way.

Bench trial, then you can appeal the finding of fact...

A situation which we now have to contemplate may be plausibly possible with SB59, whereas today we don't. I'll reiterate a point above that this hazard in SB59's language shoudn't have been too hard to see and it could have been strengthened to protect CC'ers, such as using Florida's law as an example (see my prior post).

 

[TheQ]

A situation which we now have to contemplate may be plausibly possible with SB59, whereas today we don't.

Oh, but it is plausible today. Lets go back and look at People v Watkins. I wonder how much $$$ Mr. Watkins spent on Dulan....

BTW, Watkins was a bench trial. He ultimately got off because the finding of facts were overturned on appeal, not the findings of law.

 

[DanM]

Oh, but it is plausible today. Lets go back and look at People v Watkins. I wonder how much $$$ Mr. Watkins spent on Dulan....

BTW, Watkins was a bench trial. He ultimately got off because the finding of facts were overturned on appeal, not the findings of law.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there currently are different risks of prosecution in exercising firearm carry in Michigan. Risk of prosecution, especially with exercising OC, is something we cover with newbies in "open carry in Michigan 101" all the time.

I'll take our current situation, which doesn't have explicit "display" or OC bans in PFZs, over tomorrow's situation WITH explicit "display" and OC bans in PFZs.

 

[griffin]

one of those weaknesses may be that they love to argue on the internet.

Do not!

 

[griffin]

The proposed bill just says "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY" when it could be A LOT BETTER and say "SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY AND IN AN ANGRY OR THREATENING MANNER". The strengthening of protection for CC'ers unintentionally displaying in Florida is a good model that SB59's language should have incorporated, but doesn't.

I agree with FL's language that you have posted here. Have you contacted the House to see if this language can be incorporated into SB59 before the vote? Since the basic structure of the bill isn't changed, and it just makes the law clearer, the Senate probably wouldn't object on the bill's return to them.

 

[DanM]

I agree with FL's language that you have posted here. Have you contacted the House to see if this language can be incorporated into SB59 before the vote? Since the basic structure of the bill isn't changed, and it just makes the law clearer, the Senate probably wouldn't object on the bill's return to them.

I have called my politicians with regard to this bill having such stronger language. I don't know what the outcome of that will be.

I think it would be probably much more effective if the gun-rights advocates already engaged and working with the politicians on SB59 were to bring this up.