TheQ
Regular Member
No worries.
-
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.
-
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 passes the Senate with cost to Open Carriers :(
- Thread starter TheQ
- Start date
- Status
No worries.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Actually, for me personally, the bill is great. I can afford it. But I think it will decimate OC in Michigan and I still think it unwise to have given the support it has been given by "the organization". Individuals need to remember that when one is serving as a representative of a larger organization it is expected to put your personal benefit aside for the good of the cause. Yep, you met my very simple request to provide one benefit but only after every attempt to avoid the issue. I guess the greater membership as a whole will decide the wiseness of the decision.
Yes, I will make the calls and send the emails to express my displeasure regarding this legislation even though for me personally it is good .. as long as I don't OC. But what I find truly amazing is that this is the best we can do when those legislators we supported claimed how pro 2a they were.
BTW, just a short statement regarding the good in this legislation, albeit very meager, would have been more appropriate than trying out every logical fallacy to see if people would stop asking questions. Makes one begin to think someone knows this bill is $#!+.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
Here's an idea for MOC (I and my family are members so I hope to help & not offend). Maybe in the future before the board votes on any bill that could be deemed by members to have a negative effect on OC, that they be given the chance to vote on MOC's support before it is given? A simple majority vote would be fine 51% for = support approved, 51% against = support denied. 50-50 tie = I flip the Q! He lands on his head, the yeahs have it!
Kidding guys, from someone who's walked with the reaper a few times too many, it (life) is way too short for this bickering. Let's move forward and try to make the best of the situation at hand.
ETA-
Here's a factoid that may give all something to think about before raging on here. The Brady campaign scored MI with a "C" via their 2011 data, while all the other border states to us(OH, IN, WI) got big fat "F's". Oh and by the way, We, MI. are in the same category as ILLINOIS in their eyes! So to say we need pro 2A movement in MI is the understatement of the year! http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard
Let's stop fighting each other and start fighting those who will have us on our knees! Lansing Ladies and Gentlemen point your anger there, where it is well deserved in my honest opinion.
Kidding guys, from someone who's walked with the reaper a few times too many, it (life) is way too short for this bickering. Let's move forward and try to make the best of the situation at hand. ETA-
Here's a factoid that may give all something to think about before raging on here. The Brady campaign scored MI with a "C" via their 2011 data, while all the other border states to us(OH, IN, WI) got big fat "F's". Oh and by the way, We, MI. are in the same category as ILLINOIS in their eyes! So to say we need pro 2A movement in MI is the understatement of the year! http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard
Let's stop fighting each other and start fighting those who will have us on our knees! Lansing Ladies and Gentlemen point your anger there, where it is well deserved in my honest opinion.
Last edited:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
I will jump in here on this. So far as I can see, SB59 does not further OC, but it does further CC. Having said that, I will also add, that I do not OC in the CC PFZs. I don't have deep pockets, (in fact, right now they're pretty damned shallow) and if charged with violating the PFZ laws, I doubt I could successfully defend myself in court. As much as I prefer OC, I will be happy to see the PFZs go away. Granted, I'd be a lot happier if they went away without having to get extra training, but for now, I'll take it as it is.
I will add, I'd be a damn sight happier to see the PFZs go away without the restriction on OC, but obviously we had to give our anti-2A governor something to make him happy.
I will add, I'd be a damn sight happier to see the PFZs go away without the restriction on OC, but obviously we had to give our anti-2A governor something to make him happy.
griffin
Regular Member
How so? Most people don't OC in church. How often and how many people actually OCed in stadiums, arenas, or large entertainment facilities or bars? I think 98%+ of actual OC activity remains unchanged. Do you see it differently?
Again, I haven't seen anyone who wanted this late change, but it also appears to be something we'll have to live with--for now.
griffin
Regular Member
I haven't made a list, but it seems to me that a good number of people here who are complaining about MOC's position aren't even members of MOC.
griffin
Regular Member
This is funny. We get a few good points because MI requires a permit to purchase, it requires a questionnaire that's a joke, cheap locks are sold with pistols, and MI doesn't currently have an employee parking lot law. They are wrong in stating that fingerprinting is required to get a PP permit. They offer demerit points for states that allow unlicensed CC, but totally ignore the fact that MI allows unlicensed OC. Just correcting the fingerprinting error alone puts us in the "D" category.
They might give OH an F rating, but they totally ignore the fact that OH has a "signage force of law" provision which is a much more Draconian law than requiring a $1 pistol case lock be issued with a new pistol.
In short, the Brady Campaign checklist shows they don't have a full grasp on what actually affects gun owners.
(And hopefully in the future we'll have an employee parking lot law).
Last edited:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
Hey!! Not so loud. We don't want to let them know about the mistakes they're making.
TheQ
Regular Member
Here's an idea for MOC (I and my family are members so I hope to help & not offend). Maybe in the future before the board votes on any bill that could be deemed by members to have a negative effect on OC, that they be given the chance to vote on MOC's support before it is given? A simple majority vote would be fine 51% for = support approved, 51% against = support denied. 50-50 tie = I flip the Q! He lands on his head, the yeahs have it!
ETA-
Here's a factoid that may give all something to think about before raging on here. The Brady campaign scored MI with a "C" via their 2011 data, while all the other border states to us(OH, IN, WI) got big fat "F's". Oh and by the way, We, MI. are in the same category as ILLINOIS in their eyes! So to say we need pro 2A movement in MI is the understatement of the year! http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard
Let's stop fighting each other and start fighting those who will have us on our knees! Lansing Ladies and Gentlemen point your anger there, where it is well deserved in my honest opinion.
That idea came up last night in the meeting. Sorry you weren't there
You would have known why that wasn't a viable option.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
This bill not only advances CC in places which we can now OC, it also makes OC a potentially prohibited activity in places we can now do so legally.
So...why OC? Yes, in most states legally there is no difference between the two modes of carry. But, in Michigan, OC is legal almost everywhere. Good thing too because we have so many places one may not CC.
So, instead of being able to OC almost everywhere, if this bill passes, if I step on the premises of a church while OCing I will have violated the law, school, same thing. Bar or tavern which is ill defined, say goodbye to the CPL whether I have the new exemption or not. But, if I choose to CC and have this exemption I have violated no law. So, why not keep the pistol concealed at all times... then I don't need worry about violating the law. What this proposed law does is reverse the present "advantage" that OC has and puts the legal advantage to CC... but only with additional cost and time to carriers. The only advantage is a person can hide their pistol. Isn't this fear of an openly carried firearm something we have been trying to change? By supporting this, we are saying the fear is valid and yes, it is better to hide it than to upset people. Basically, CC is better than OC under this bill... and people seem to be nodding in agreement.
scot623
Regular Member
Ok. So you'll have MOC come out against this bill for all the reasons you just stated. Now 98% of CPL holders hate MOC for killing a bill they love and have waited 10 years for. MGO hates MOC, MCRGO hates MOC, Students for Concealed Carry hates MOC, pro-gun legislators hate MOC. We lose any political clout going forward to remove 234d or get car carry without a CPL. The only people left giving two craps about MOC are a couple thousand(at best) OCers statewide. Heck, even some OCers would hate MOC for lobbying to kill this bill...I know, I've personally spoken to them. So at the end of the day MOC is on an island all by themselves with ZERO support from the gun community at large. Support WE NEED if we ever expect to get OC friendly laws passed.
Sound about right, or did I miss something?
Last edited:
B
Bikenut
Guest
Phil...That idea came up last night in the meeting. Sorry you weren't there
Please stop with the not so nice stuff about if a person wasn't at the meeting to hear the answers then, because that person wasn't amongst the "special people", his questions have no merit.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Well... if those are the reasons for MOC's stand why wasn't it simply said instead of folks going all around the edges? Oh.. right... I wasn't at the meeting.
scot623
Regular Member
Some people need everything spelled out for them, I get it..I have a 19 month old daughter. Plus, it amazes me how everyone thinks MOC has the single handed power to alter the language in a bill or kill it at will. I know we've come a long way, but everyone mad at us gives us far too much credit.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
That's just too long to fit on the scroll.:lol:
B
Bikenut
Guest
Thank you for the arrogant condescension.....
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
While it is true that MOC was formed to promote OC, that alone was not it's entire mission it was it's major mission and one that we have done well, but it's role is to promote all gun rights. The by-laws also indicate that the organization would promote all gun rights. So to pigeon hole MOC is a bit unfair.
I understand why some people are upset by MOC decision to promote SB-59, it sucks that there seems to be a slight loss of OC rights to those that carry a firearm for personal protection. But there is a net gain to all those same people. In the end MOC will survive and grow as a influential gun rights organization.
The passage of this bill will be used to further our rights as we can use the data to argue the elimination of PFZ and promote CON CARRY.
Last edited by a moderator:
scot623
Regular Member
B
Bikenut
Guest
I wonder what the track record is of CC folks from those organizations supporting OC?
I wonder what % of CC'ers will support OC anywhere once it is determined that a person doesn't need to OC anywhere at all but can simply CC everywhere with one of those extra special permits?
TheQ
Regular Member
MCRGO will be helping us get legislation introduced to remove the caustic OC provision next session.
- Status