• 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 Update

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
From MCRGO

SB 59 UPDATE: We've received information that at today's meeting between the House, Senate and Governor Snyder's office, the administration made new demands in exchange for the governor's signature on the bill.

Snyder now wants to give public and private properties that are currently “pistol free zones” (K-12 schools, day cares, churches, stadiums, movie theaters, bars, hospitals, college dorms/classrooms) the ability to post signs banning guns even for people carrying an enhanced CPL under the bill.

Philosophically, we don't have a problem with private property owners being able to control their own private property. We DO have a problem with publicly owned/operated "stadium authorities", schools, and universities regulating firearms. These concepts spit in the face of preemption and would create a patchwork of regulations across the state. It would turn SB 59 into a gun control bill resulting in a net reduction of rights for legal gun owners.

At this point, it appears Foster and Green will move forward with SB 59 without giving in to the governor's latest demands even if it risks a veto. Details are changing by the hour and will continue to change through the expected final day of legislative session on Thursday.
IMO this bill has little to no chance. The last thing I ever want to see in Michigan is giving places the option of posting an enforceable "no guns" sign. It is my belief that if given the option, you will see them everywhere! Don't believe me drive to Ohio.

http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Rick_Snyder_Gun_Control.htm I like how according to this Rick supports the right of citizens with permits to carry. What a joke!

Q: Would you uphold the 2nd Amendment and support the rights of gun owners as well as the hunting industry?
A: In one word: absolutely. I actually own three guns myself. I have a 12 gauge shotgun and two .22 rifles that I use for target shooting. I believe the 2nd amendment also protects the right of citizens to have a gun in their home to protect their family and property. I also support the rights of gun owners to responsibly carry their gun, as long as they have attained the legal permit. While I'm not an avid hunter, I support the industry and believe it plays an important role in our economy and quality of life. It also can have a valuable environmental conservation impact and I would work to streamline the processes so that hunters get better customer service from the state and local governments. We have a long tradition in our state of supporting gun rights and the hunting industry in Michigan and I would continue to support that tradition as Governor.
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
I saw that a while ago. This is BS. I am absolutely against any type of “signage=force of law” law. Snyder must think that so many people want SB59 that he can put anything in he wants and it will pass.

No.

Dan

P.S. also Snyder is an asshat with his typical FUDD "gun rights and the hunting industry." NO ONE HAS HUNTING RIGHTS!
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
From MCRGO



IMO this bill has little to no chance. The last thing I ever want to see in Michigan is giving places the option of posting an enforceable "no guns" sign. It is my belief that if given the option, you will see them everywhere! Don't believe me drive to Ohio.

http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Rick_Snyder_Gun_Control.htm I like how according to this Rick supports the right of citizens with permits to carry. What a joke!
Looks like "pragmatism" is working out so well. Does this surprise anyone? But, I guess I'm just wondering if because we rolled over once, the expectation is that we will do so again. OC is dying before our eyes. So, where do the Open Carry organizations in this state stand with this game changer? I can't wait to see the logic that will be used to support this.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,489
Location
Portage, MI
Looks like "pragmatism" is working out so well. Does this surprise anyone? But, I guess I'm just wondering if because we rolled over once, the expectation is that we will do so again. OC is dying before our eyes. So, where do the Open Carry organizations in this state stand with this game changer? I can't wait to see the logic that will be used to support this.
They're against any type of signage a public PFZ may be able to post. As it spits in the face of preemption.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,337
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
They're against any type of signage a public PFZ may be able to post. As it spits in the face of preemption.
Who...MOC.... MCRGO.... both? It's getting hard to tell the difference. Btw, there is a huge difference between a private entity posting under the general Trespass statute and enshrining the posting of signs in the CPL law.
 
Last edited:

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
there is a huge difference between a private entity posting under the general Trespass statute and enshrining the posting of signs in the CPL law.
Not sure what you mean. Since preemption exists, part A and part B of your sentence are the same thing.

For myself, I am strictly against "signage=force of law." That is a huge thing. There are some who believe in absolute liberty and support this, but I do not. Public accommodations have certain restrictions, and just as prohibiting Jews or blacks is not allowed, many fine legal minds believe that would extend to not being able to prohibit firearms carry for personal protection as well. It just has not been litigated properly in the right places.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,836
Location
Mulligan's Valley
While I am essentially avoiding this mess of a forum for the time being, let me make this much clear. The point on Ohio, and indeed other states, such as Texas, is a good one. Even Arizona, the posterchild for gun freedom has a system where local government owned buildings can prohibit guns, and none of these places are taking a serious look at reversing that. We do NOT want that. This is essentially attempted castration of our rights. The tough nerd has turned into an audacious tyrant.

The Governor is not a king, and he needs to understand that gun carriers aren't willing to play his games any more than they're willing to give into Dianne Fienstien. Accordingly, this bill needs to die. If you value either OCing or CCing, contact your reps NOW, by email, then by phone tomorrow, and ask them to kill this bill. It would appear that the best we can hope for for the next 2 or 6 years is a stalemate.
 
Last edited:

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,514
Location
Secret Bunker
This!

I saw that a while ago. This is BS. I am absolutely against any type of “signage=force of law” law. Snyder must think that so many people want SB59 that he can put anything in he wants and it will pass.

No.

Dan

P.S. also Snyder is an asshat with his typical FUDD "gun rights and the hunting industry." NO ONE HAS HUNTING RIGHTS!
+1 Amen Brother! Could not have said it better!
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Who...MOC.... MCRGO.... both?
from MCRGO-

MCRGO nor MOC will support legislation that would compromise state preemption in local public units. We'd rather have the bill die than for that to occur. So would Sen. Green. If that happens, there will be a lot more of us open carrying in PFZs in the near future. It's tough for me as I prefer to pocket carry.
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,190
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
from MCRGO-

MCRGO nor MOC will support legislation that would compromise state preemption in local public units. We'd rather have the bill die than for that to occur. So would Sen. Green. If that happens, there will be a lot more of us open carrying in PFZs in the near future. It's tough for me as I prefer to pocket carry.
Has MOC announced that as well?
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
Has MOC announced that as well?
I assume you are not on the MOC legislative alert email list. Here is part of the most recent one:

There's a lot of unknowns right now. After House/Senate leadership have met with Snyder's office 3 times, there is still no solid deal. We may end up at a place where we have to give up on SB 59 this session because Snyder (517.373.3400) is simply asking for too much and will veto any bill that is worth passing.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,836
Location
Mulligan's Valley
from MCRGO-

MCRGO nor MOC will support legislation that would compromise state preemption in local public units.
I think it's ironic that this bill would have spat on our brain child, OCing, and now the governor is attempting to reach out and spit on MCRGO's glorious brain child, the preemption law.

I would certainly hope at this point, or at least when Snyder vetoes the bill under these demands, that MCRGO would do a 180, otherwise I do believe we would know for certain that whatever is left of MCRGO had completely gone nuts.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Has MOC announced that as well?
I'm not sure, I was on the MCRGO page not MOC's. It appears as though they are either going to let it die or pass it as is and let snyder pocket veto it. considering snyder has pissed of the anti-tax people, the unions and now gun owners, i think it's safe to say he knows he is a 1 term governor. The unfortunate thing is I really don't think he cares, he accomplished most of his goals in his first 2 years.
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
Who do you mean by "they" as in they are going to let it die? The legislators?

Mike Green has committed to not let this bill become a gun control bill. He would torpedo his own bill before that happens.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Who do you mean by "they" as in they are going to let it die? The legislators?

Mike Green has committed to not let this bill become a gun control bill. He would torpedo his own bill before that happens.
yes, the legislators.

What are the chances of getting enough votes to over ride a veto?
remember how it was suppose to pass last week then it was mysteriously moved to this week, that was to allow a pocket veto. by passing it this week there is not enough time to override a veto, if they passed it last week they would have had the chance. to quote the dems- "they've panned this all along, we've been lied to the whole way"
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,190
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
MOC on facebook

"Friends:

I am sad to report that we hear today's meeting with Rick Snyder (The Governor) about SB 59 wasn't as fruitful as we desired. Rumor is that Snyder is making demands that are unreasonable that both MOC and its legislative allies find unacceptable. I hear Snyder would like to give public and private property that are currently “pistol free zones” (K-12 schools, day cares, churches, stadium
s, movie theaters, bars, hospitals, college dorms/classrooms) the ability to post signs banning guns that have the force of trespass law.

Philosophically, we don't have a problem with private property owners being able to control their own private property, if the property is properly posted in a painfully visible manner at every public entrance. We DO have a problem with publicly owned/operated "stadium authorities", schools, and universities regulating firearms. These concepts spit in the face of preemption.

The Bill's Sponsor, Senator Mike Green has committed to not let this bill become a gun control bill. He would torpedo his own bill before that happens.

Sources tell me Senator Green and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Frank Foster have had several conversations today and rumor is they've come to a compromise they can both agree on (I don't have the details at this time). It's unclear if the Governor will be willing to sign their package or if he'll let it slide into the pocket. I'm told by Representative Foster he expects to have SOMETHING heard in committee on Wednesday (click for meeting time/location). Whether that is something MOC and/or our allies will be able to get behind remains to be seen. More details won't be known by the leadership of MOC until late tomorrow.

There's a lot of unknowns right now. After House/Senate leadership have met with Snyder's office 3 times, there is still no solid deal. We may end up at a place where we have to give up on SB 59 this session because Snyder (517.373.3400) is simply asking for too much and will veto any bill that is worth passing. The shorts of it is, Snyder is the current road block in the process and doesn't appear to care too much about us (people who take responsibility for our own personal protection by carrying firearms).

If you're interested in participating in the process, come to the committee meeting on Wednesday. Other than that, "stay tuned" and I might have more information tomorrow evening.

Tirelessly fighting for liberty,

Phillip Hofmeister
President
Michigan Open Carry, Inc."
 

griffin

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
892
Location
Okemos, MI
What are the chances of getting enough votes to over ride a veto?
From what I have been told, zero. If Snyder backs out then enough legislators will also back out (half a dozen or so) so that we will not have a veto-proof majority. There are enough people that believe Snyder is the CEO of the state and should get what he wants.
 
Top