• 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 213 Tracking and commentary

Ezerharden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
743
Location
Erie, MI
Last edited:

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,870
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
fify.

Nothing was "compromised" unless you consider the repeal of 4 PFZ's with no additional training required and getting rid of the county gun boards to be a "compromise".

I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

I'm not saying the bill is bad by any means and I would support it fully in its current form. What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.

Mike

PS: Thanks for re-opening the thread :) much appreciated.
 
Last edited:

bigt8261

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
181
Location
Grand Rapids
Because sometimes the compromise requested is not the compromise you had intended.

SB 59 could have been scaled back, but instead and OC ban was added. Things are not always so linear.
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,191
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
True, And it isn't like they are now going to rewrite it to remove schools hospitals and churches. I would love it if they would but such a bill would not pass. This thread is kinda useless as it wants to talk about changes that might possibly maybe happen. I would agree that more transparency in this process would be good but that aint happening.

fify.

Nothing was "compromised" unless you consider the repeal of 4 PFZ's with no additional training required and getting rid of the county gun boards to be a "compromise".
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
There are two concessions in the bill that are questionable as to why they were needed and who--which legislator(s)--felt they were needed.:

--Members of your family or household are excluded as personal references for your CPL application.
--The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.


I've argued that it is a well-known principle of negotiation that you do not come to the table with your concessions already given to your opponents. You hold off on all concessions, and use them as bargaining chips with your opponents. I've said:

DanM said:
Every competent negotiator knows that your initial offer has everything you want which advances your position from the status quo and nothing that sets your position back from the status quo or that your opponents want. The concessions come after negotiating begins.


Before proceeding, I should explain to whom that statement is directed. TheQ voiced concern it was to him, and I committed to him to address that perception. That statement is only directed at the person or people to whom it applies. If the shoe fits, wear it. Those who are specifically responsible for the insertion of concessions that we do not need to give up at this time are not acting as a "competent negotiator". I have no information that TheQ or anyone else at MOC is specifically responsible for the insertion of those concessions. The shoe doesn't fit them, so they're not to wear it. So, I hope that clears it up. TheQ felt insulted by me. I apologized privately to him about that and assured I meant no insult to him.

TheQ offered speculation that the first concession was in order to "get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard" and the second concession may be to address that "some counties have a 'policy' of saying your training is no good after 1 year. There was a desire to make a clear ruling on this matter in statute in a reasonable timeframe, as to preempt any question on the topic in the future."
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...9-Introduced&p=1902159&viewfull=1#post1902159

Paraphrasing my responses to those speculations:

The grass-roots may want to follow up with the representatives who felt there was a need to have the concessions in order to have "a remote possibility" of the bill being heard. Who were those representatives that felt specifically we needed a pre-emptive concession limiting our pool of people we could use as references? Perhaps, particularly, their constituents here and elsewhere can talk to them and get that concession struck out of the bill.

This bill moves the process away from the counties and to the MSP. MSP seems to be pretty good on such things as basing policies, bulletins, PR communication, etc. sticking to the letter of the law, and I don't think we've ever had a problem of their organization reading something into the law that isn't there. But, in case we want to prevent them from establishing their own policy on training "expiration", let's consider language to the effect of "the licensing agency shall not promulgate nor enforce any policy with regard to setting limits on the time elapsed between training and application."

I think it's possible to talk to the relevant legislator(s) responsible for these bad concessions and convince them they are not necessary and strip them out or make the language much better. We need to know who the legislator(s) is/are in order to do this grass roots activity that all of us, including MOC, wants us to engage in.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,492
Location
Portage, MI
I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

I'm not saying the bill is bad by any means and I would support it fully in its current form. What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.

Mike

PS: Thanks for re-opening the thread :) much appreciated.

Because we already tried that last session in the house and senate. I know many, including me, tried to lobby their reps to get the bill to a committee. It never even got that far. At least this one has a better chance of passing.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
mikestilly said:
I just saw the current bill that leaves religious institutions, hospitals, and schools as PFZs in place as a compromise. Why not try repealing all of them then compromise on some to get the others rather then leaving them from the start?

. . . What I was mainly trying to get across is it's bound to change due to our RINO governor who is definitely not a conservative in my opinion.

Because we already tried that last session in the house and senate. I know many, including me, tried to lobby their reps to get the bill to a committee. It never even got that far. At least this one has a better chance of passing.

So, we can't wait to make those compromises to get the RINO governor's support, we've got to make those compromises now to get some RINO legislators' support. Who are those RINO legislators, so we can start planning to unseat them?

The answer to that question is relevant to this bill, in case it fails and a better version without the compromises off-the-bat is to be introduced in the future.
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,196
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
"Nobody wants to do gun stuff now," said state Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, one of the leading gun-rights advocates in the Senate and sponsor of several of the far-reaching bills.

One of his bills -- the one that would have allowed concealed pistol license holders with special training to be able to carry weapons in schools, day care centers, churches, stadiums and bars -- was vetoed by Gov. Rick Snyder in December because it didn't allow those facilities the ability to opt out and become gun-free zones.
Green has introduced a replacement that would allow schools, hospitals and churches to opt out and be gun-free zones. But the bill wouldn't prohibit people from openly carrying guns in any building -- which is the law in most places in the state now.
"There's no sense in me trying to meet the governor halfway," Green said. "I don't want to send him a bill that he's going to veto, but this gives us room to negotiate."




http://www.freep.com/article/20130227/NEWS15/302270109/Bills-aim-to-expand-gun-rights-in-Michigan
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
"Nobody wants to do gun stuff now," said state Sen. Mike Green

So, Sen. Green answers my question. With the exception of himself and other sponsors or co-sponsors of pro-gun bills, which I presume he meant to exclude, the rest of the Republicans in the legislative and executive branch are RINOs.

Time to get to work now to throw the RINO bums out. Join your local TEA party and make a difference, folks! I have (Lakes Area TEA Party).

If we want bills like this to succeed, without horrible compromises, we may have to wait until next session and, in the meantime, do what we can to get real pro-gun representatives to defeat the do-nothing ones.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,448
Location
Lansing, Michigan
So, Sen. Green answers my question. With the exception of himself and other sponsors or co-sponsors of pro-gun bills, which I presume he meant to exclude, the rest of the Republicans in the legislative and executive branch are RINOs.

Time to get to work now to throw the RINO bums out. Join your local TEA party and make a difference, folks! I have (Lakes Area TEA Party).

That'd be great -- except many tea parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican establishment. This was proven when 2 tea party leaders sold out Courser at the last minute on the convention floor and told their delegates to vote for Schostak. If not for this last minute betrayal, Courser would have won the very close race!
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,934
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
That'd be great -- except many tea parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Republican establishment. This was proven when 2 tea party leaders sold out Courser at the last minute on the convention floor and told their delegates to vote for Schostak. If not for this last minute betrayal, Courser would have won the very close race!

The bad news is the Republican establishment was barely able to hang on.

The good news is the Republican establishment was barely able to hang on.

That was a bitter day, but the silver lining is that, once again, those predicting that the TEA party is going away were shown to be VERY wrong.

I'm sure Schostak and the rest of the establishment didn't celebrate their "win" too heartily that night. Courser was defeated, but he and his supporters sent a loud and clear message.
 
Top