B
Bikenut
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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
TheQ
Regular Member
Not that there is a prayer of it passing with "one tough nerd"!
budlight
Regular Member
Here we go with the racism stuff again....
griffin
Regular Member
Dr. Todd
What you say is true about there will now be a varying standard for OC. By losing a few current places, we will now have a situation where potentially someone can go from legal to illegal by changing locations. (Of course, that was previously true for CC, so the shoe is just on the other foot).
However, I am hopeful that in the future that we can get that corrected. We can use the preemption argument. That was why preemption was created in the first place, so that people wouldn't have to worry about going from legal to illegal just by changing location. It's the same thing here. After SB59 passes, all of a sudden potentially 340,000 CPL holders can legally carry in those PFZs. How much easier will it be in the future to get the law changed to make the standard the same all across the board? With the change to add the smaller OC community again, there will be little valid "blood in the streets" type argument.
Of course, we might need a different governor.
What you say is true about there will now be a varying standard for OC. By losing a few current places, we will now have a situation where potentially someone can go from legal to illegal by changing locations. (Of course, that was previously true for CC, so the shoe is just on the other foot).
However, I am hopeful that in the future that we can get that corrected. We can use the preemption argument. That was why preemption was created in the first place, so that people wouldn't have to worry about going from legal to illegal just by changing location. It's the same thing here. After SB59 passes, all of a sudden potentially 340,000 CPL holders can legally carry in those PFZs. How much easier will it be in the future to get the law changed to make the standard the same all across the board? With the change to add the smaller OC community again, there will be little valid "blood in the streets" type argument.
Of course, we might need a different governor.
griffin
Regular Member
This is an excellent response.
griffin
Regular Member
It was said. It was said not only at the meeting, but here as well by yance, me, and probably others. Just not as well as scot623 just did.
griffin
Regular Member
I just did a quick survey. There are 17 people here on OCDO that have been publicly vocal against this bill and MOC's support of it. (To be fair, not everyone against the bill jumped on MOC, but a lot did).
Of those 17 people, only five are MOC members. Twelve people complaining about it, and blaming MOC for its position, aren't even members.
That's like me complaining about a position some local church is taking, yet I am not even a member of that church. I kind of lose authority to tell an organization what to do if I am not a member of that organization.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
I've mostly stayed out of this until now, but a couple things are bothering me. First off, it appears that many people who are "going off" on MOC are not even MOC members. With all due respect, why should MOC care about what non-members think of their position? If you didn't even care enough to join why should your opinion be given much weight with them? You don't like the bill, fine, but take your complaint to the senate leadership and snyder, it's not like MOC introduced this amendment, they had no say in the matter.
People keep saying "we already have the right to OC in a PFZ", but that is complete BS. One judge has already said it is absurd, and anyone in that county who OC's in a PFZ is taking a MAJOR risk. Waterford and other school districts have already said "go ahead, i dare you". So all of you that say it's legal, I would like to see you go do it in Waterford, and please report back how it goes. Some places don't make a fuss about it, but some do. Maybe some of us don't have the thousands of dollars to fight a charge because the city doesn't agree with the "interpretation" of that loophole. 59 takes a loophole and makes it a law, in black and white. There will be no more risk involved, and for people like me that aren't rich I can much easily afford a $100 advanced CPL class than a $5,000 trial. Do you lose OC in a PFZ loophole, yes, but you gain the black and white law that you can CC there with the enhanced permit. I'd rather have a clear law than a loophole.
Why does everyone seem to think MOC can actually do anything to stop this? It's not like MOC has control over the legislature(if they did more would have been done), they were put in a very bad spot and had to make a tough decision. Going against the bill would have alienated all of the other 2A groups in the state, created hostility towards OC'ers, and guess what, it still would have passed. All MOC would have accomplished is the burning of bridges.
It seems many here have lots of questions that were thoroughly answered at the meeting last night. Unless you were working, what excuse can you possibly have for not logging on and hearing the explanation and Q&A session discussing the bill and MOC's position? If you can't even take the hour to listen to the meeting why should MOC even care what you think? If you actually cared and had legitimate questions you would have attended, because they were all answered.
For those saying why didn't they poll their members, they answered that too. But isn't that why you elected a leadership board, to make decisions? If you don't like the decision they made vote against them next time, that's how it works.
I was pretty neutral on this bill until the meeting last night, afterwards I came away with a new understanding of the circumstances and I have to say I think they made a tough decision, and the right decision. If any of you think they wanted to see OC in a PFZ go away you are delusional, sometimes you do not have the power others believe you have. A vote to not support the bill would have done NOTHING good for OC in MI, and it would not have stopped a damn thing.
There are other important parts to this bill other than the OC/CC PFZ part-
Elimination gun boards
Elimination of months-long waits for CPL
Being able to recoup costs and fees from people who try to deny you your CPL
People keep saying "we already have the right to OC in a PFZ", but that is complete BS. One judge has already said it is absurd, and anyone in that county who OC's in a PFZ is taking a MAJOR risk. Waterford and other school districts have already said "go ahead, i dare you". So all of you that say it's legal, I would like to see you go do it in Waterford, and please report back how it goes. Some places don't make a fuss about it, but some do. Maybe some of us don't have the thousands of dollars to fight a charge because the city doesn't agree with the "interpretation" of that loophole. 59 takes a loophole and makes it a law, in black and white. There will be no more risk involved, and for people like me that aren't rich I can much easily afford a $100 advanced CPL class than a $5,000 trial. Do you lose OC in a PFZ loophole, yes, but you gain the black and white law that you can CC there with the enhanced permit. I'd rather have a clear law than a loophole.
Why does everyone seem to think MOC can actually do anything to stop this? It's not like MOC has control over the legislature(if they did more would have been done), they were put in a very bad spot and had to make a tough decision. Going against the bill would have alienated all of the other 2A groups in the state, created hostility towards OC'ers, and guess what, it still would have passed. All MOC would have accomplished is the burning of bridges.
It seems many here have lots of questions that were thoroughly answered at the meeting last night. Unless you were working, what excuse can you possibly have for not logging on and hearing the explanation and Q&A session discussing the bill and MOC's position? If you can't even take the hour to listen to the meeting why should MOC even care what you think? If you actually cared and had legitimate questions you would have attended, because they were all answered.
For those saying why didn't they poll their members, they answered that too. But isn't that why you elected a leadership board, to make decisions? If you don't like the decision they made vote against them next time, that's how it works.
I was pretty neutral on this bill until the meeting last night, afterwards I came away with a new understanding of the circumstances and I have to say I think they made a tough decision, and the right decision. If any of you think they wanted to see OC in a PFZ go away you are delusional, sometimes you do not have the power others believe you have. A vote to not support the bill would have done NOTHING good for OC in MI, and it would not have stopped a damn thing.
There are other important parts to this bill other than the OC/CC PFZ part-
Elimination gun boards
Elimination of months-long waits for CPL
Being able to recoup costs and fees from people who try to deny you your CPL
B
Bikenut
Guest
If MOC didn't want to hear the opinions/questions/concerns of non members.... why was this decision posted in a forum frequented by a great many non MOC members? Seems to me that if MOC wanted to make their decision known to the public (non members) the leadership would understand that the public (non members) would surely have something to say.
In my opinion MOC's leadership should have known there was going to be a great deal of discussion concerning their decision and met it with the responsible attitude of answering questions/hearing concerns in an adult manner without condescension or assuming a stance of folks had to stop their entire lives and attend a meeting or must be a member of MOC ... in order to deserve to comment/ask questions/have concerns/express their opinions.
In my opinion MOC's leadership should have known there was going to be a great deal of discussion concerning their decision and met it with the responsible attitude of answering questions/hearing concerns in an adult manner without condescension or assuming a stance of folks had to stop their entire lives and attend a meeting or must be a member of MOC ... in order to deserve to comment/ask questions/have concerns/express their opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not trying to be rude or sarcastic, so don't take this as a personal attack, but is this the *best* one can do to explain how this benefits open carry? It sounds like a very weak case.
MOC is supporting taking away my liberty to OC in certain areas (which requires no permission from government, it's truly free) and in exchange is willing to delegate those rights away to government who gives us permission (in the form of CPL) to carry, but only if concealed.
Now don't get me wrong, I can clearly see the benefits to concealed carry- it's a HUGE victory for concealed carry. But I don't see 'Ingham losing nothing' and 'Kent County getting better CPL access' as a benefit to a group that is dedicated to preserving OC. It seems to be a compromise supporting concealed carry while offering nothing substantive to expand or preserve the liberty we have with open carry, which I always understood was the mission of MOC. It's odd to see a group that has "Nothing to Hide" as its motto support something like SB59, which sacrifices open carry in exchange for concealed carry permission.
Sorry, you lost me there.
Last edited:
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
Well, I got into the teamspeak meeting late, last night. But I did listen to everyone. For those who wondered why I didn't have any questions, I was looking over SB59 while everyone else was talking. Between reading that, and listening to the speakers, I was pretty well convinced we're better off with SB59, than we are without it. While I'll grant, that under the current rules, there is some room to argue we can OC in the CC PFZs as long as we have a CPL, it is not by any means a done deal. All we really have right now, is an AG's opinion, and an MSP training bulletin, neither of which would necessarily hold up in court. SB59 gives us a law.
Granted, it takes away our right to OC in those PFZs. But currently, that's a tenuous right at best. Just look at all the trouble Stainless had trying to exercise that "right." (Don't start down that road, I only mention him as an example. Thank you.) I for one do not have the financial capability to fight a court battle on whether or not I can OC in a CC PFZ. Probably the major reason I don't do that now.
All I can add, it's not a perfect world. If it was, we wouldn't need a permission slip to carry a gun. Then again, in a perfect world, we probably wouldn't need to carry a gun either.
Granted, it takes away our right to OC in those PFZs. But currently, that's a tenuous right at best. Just look at all the trouble Stainless had trying to exercise that "right." (Don't start down that road, I only mention him as an example. Thank you.) I for one do not have the financial capability to fight a court battle on whether or not I can OC in a CC PFZ. Probably the major reason I don't do that now.
All I can add, it's not a perfect world. If it was, we wouldn't need a permission slip to carry a gun. Then again, in a perfect world, we probably wouldn't need to carry a gun either.
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
Sorry, I don't see it that way. Currently, the "liberty" to OC in certain areas DOES require a permission slip. Technically, you can't OC in a CC or OC PFZ without a CPL. What SB 59 does is eliminate the CC PFZs if you take the extra training. And since the ability to OC in the CC PFZs is somewhat tenuous at best, I don't see the loss my self.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
Fair enough, my point being what makes non-MOC members think that MOC should really value their input and stress over their dislike of this bill? If someone does not care enough to pay $20/year to join why should MOC worry about pleasing them?
I like and respect you, but to suggest someone had to "stop their entire lives" to attend the meeting is a little ridiculous. It was an online meeting, I was home with my 1 & 2 year old and was still able to listen and participate. Even if you didn't want to ask questions, all you had to do was log on and turn your volume up, you could have continued doing anything you wanted to and still heard everything. Why can people find all the time they need to log onto here and post their grievances, but not find the time to log into a website and turn their speakers on? MOC held a meeting and explained their reasons, if anyone had issues that was a golden opportunity to address all of the MOC leadership at once and make your feelings heard and hear their reply. I just don't see how they owe non-MOC members any excuse at all.
Last edited:
griffin
Regular Member
Dude. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...n-Carriers-(&p=1859906&viewfull=1#post1859906
For starters.
If someone wants to be angry, be angry at Mike Green and Rick Snyder and half a dozen or a dozen more congresscritters who wouldn't support strong 2A legislation against the governor's wishes.
griffin
Regular Member
Huh?
Fair point.
So you're saying, MOC should support giving up some OC in order to get more CC in order to play friendly with other gun rights organizations? Are those organizations likely to support pro-OC legislation?
I just see this as a big leap forward for concealed carry (and I do intend to get the enhanced permit), but at the cost of open carry. I will no longer be able to vote while open carrying. That, to me, is sad.
griffin
Regular Member
Yes. There is no upside and significant downside to opposing it. Plus, it does have some good things in it. And to be fair, MOC doesn't support the anti-OC part of the bill. We just don't have line-item (partial) veto or edit ability at this point.
I can't disagree with you.
Last edited:
Michigander
Regular Member
Are you trying to imply that the Michigan gun registration law wasn't a racist governments response to the great migration and the Ossian Sweet case? If so, please understand that nearly everyone who has spent so much as an hour studying the issue will disagree with you.
Last edited:
G22
Regular Member
I don't speak for any organization and I don't OC very often, however, I will stand with you or any group or person(s) who promote the right to carry regardless if its concealed or open. As it sits now, this bill favors CC.
That said, I do NOT like the fact that our Governor has forced this issue into what amounts to an anti-OC bill. His decision to do so will weigh heavily on my decision of who to vote for next election.
Michigander
Regular Member
- Status