The new 750.227

[michhunter]

I could get one without a problem... But with a family of 5 on one income it is very hard to come up with the money to get it. So as far changing the law I am all for it.

I agree. Any law abiding citizen in Michigan can get a CPL. It is only those with criminal records that a law change like this would accommodate.

I think this politician has gone out of her way to attempt to promote this kind of legislation. But it isn't going to go anywhere because it isn't something that the mainstream gunowners see as necessary.

Thankls though for trying to help that select few that can't get a CPL.

 

[Yance]

My email to Eileen

I know its rather long winded but theres plenty of things wrong with what she stated in her email with stainless.

Eileen Kowall,

Neil Carpenter recently shared an email that he received from you regarding MCL 750.227 and potentially rewriting the current law to allow any law abiding person to possess a firearm in the passenger compartment of their vehicle, I've included that email below. I was the one that was with Neil the day he presented this issue to you in the Coney Island restaurant, I do certainly appreciate you working with Neil on this and seeing what options are available. That being said I would like to address a few things from your email to Neil that I felt were a little disturbing, things that seem to come up anytime there is talk about repealing a firearm law.

First, the assumption that if we allow any law abiding citizen who lawfully possess their firearm in accordance with the law to possess a firearm in their vehicle without a CPL that there will be groups of "hoodlums" all of a sudden carrying firearms in their vehicle and looking for trouble. The issue I have with that is these "hoodlums" of which there is concern about are already carrying a firearm in their vehicles and looking for trouble. Watching the news will back up this point, almost every day there is a story about a "Drive-by" shooting that happened in some urban neighborhood, we already have laws in place, case and point MCL 750.227, yet these individuals still carry their firearms in the car, without a CPL, violating the laws that are already on record in the State. However the concern that was voiced is that if we allow people to possess guns they will start doing this? I hope you can see what I'm getting to, even though the law states that possession of a firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle by persons without a CPL is a felony this law is broken every day by criminals and "hoodlums." Instead of taking the stance of "you would allow a group of hoodlums who are looking for trouble the ability to carry in their car" I would challenge you to find a law that currently prevents them from doing it any ways. See the problem with a statement like the one you made in your email to Neil is that you are first assuming that these "hoodlums" are not only obeying the law, but know what the law says to begin with. Unfortunately the individuals who do carry a firearm in their vehicles without a CPL that are looking for trouble typically do not know the law until they are being told what crimes they are being charged with.

Second, I would also challenge the claim that there would suddenly be an officer safety issue, there are a fair number of states in this country that allow non licensed carry in a vehicle while at the same time not requiring disclosure or making disclosure mandatory only if an officer asks if you are possessing any firearms. However statistics will show that officers in these states are at no more of a risk than officers in states where disclosure is mandatory upon being stopped by a police officer, such as our state. In fact, in our state where disclosure is mandatory there is no evidence that requiring immediate disclosure has actually save the lives of any officer. You would also have to assume that persons carrying a gun will disclose to the police officers that they have in their possession a firearm. When discussing this you also have to keep in mind that if a criminal is in possession of a gun that gun is more than likely illegal and the criminal is probably barred from possessing a firearm anyways, in this situation a criminal in possession of a gun they arent suppose to have is not going to alert police that they have a gun. Also if a person has any bad intentions with a firearm upon being stopped by police that person is not going to alert the police officer that they have a gun, if they plan to shoot the officer they will simply start shooting without saying anything. I would ask that you take a moment to consider this, the only people that will alert an officer that they are in possession of a firearm are the law abiding citizens that have nothing to hide, the same people that would not commit and act of violence against that officer. The revision of MCL 750.227 that we proposed did require immediate disclosure to a police officer upon being stopped while in the vehicle, with or without a CPL, therefore the issue of "officer safety" and disclosure has been addressed.

I would also like to address what you mentioned about a CPL being fairly simple to obtain, that is in fact the complete opposite of the truth, Michigan has the longest list of CPL disqualifications in the country when compared to other states that issue similar licenses. I would ask that you take a moment to read what criminal history disqualifies a Michigan resident from obtaining a CPL, the majority of which are not violent, nor firearm related. From the Michigan State Police web site: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html. This also doesnt address persons under 21 years of age, persons under 21 years of age in Michigan can purchase a firearm, MCL 28.422, and as long as that possession is lawful that person can carry that firearm openly. However these law abiding citizens as well are left defenseless while in their vehicle simply because they are not yet 21 years of age. Is it right to prevent them from being able to carry in a vehicle also, simply because of their age? Are they not afforded the same means to self defense?

I would also like you to not look at this issue from a politicians stand point or a CPL holders stand point, but look at this from the stand point of someone who simply wishes to protect themselves while in their vehicle. Recently in Detroit a women was shot at by "hoodlums" that were armed with rifles and wanted to take this womans vehicle, she, luckily enough, was a CPL holder and was armed and even after being shot in her hand she was able to draw her firearm and make the "hoodlums" retreat under the threat of being shot in return. To bring home my point and why I'm so vested in this issue, if that was Neil or myself, or one of the other millions of people in Michigan who cannot afford a CPL or do not qualify for a CPL because of the extensive list of disqualifications, we may have perhaps lost our life because our politicians left us with no means to protect ourselves unless we received permission from the government to carry in our private vehicle by receiving a CPL. If you would like to read the news story you can find it here: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ers/-/1719418/16286410/-/106i4mj/-/index.html. The Michigan constitution says that "Every person has the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of himself and the state." With the only apparent exception being if someone like myself, or Neil, or one of the other millions of residents in Michigan who cannot obtain a CPL for one reason or another wants to carry in their vehicle, simply for their protection from possible crimes like I stated above. Are we not afforded the same basic right to self defense which every person is entitled to simply because we cannot receive a CPL? As otherwise law abiding individuals it is not right to keep our basic right to self defense away from us at the threat of a felony charge.

At what point do we as people start putting our personal safety above an unjust and unconstitutional law? To protect ourselves, the innocent, law abiding people of Michigan who do not and cannot obtain a CPL have two choices, either be unarmed and defenseless and at the mercy of a potential attacker or risk receiving a felony charge and receive a 5 year prison sentence with hefty fines to go along with it. And why? Because we chose that, in todays society, having a way to defend yourself is absolutely necessary. So I would have to ask, which is a better solution for the people you represent, fighting for a way for them to protect themselves so they have a means to protect their life if they are ever in a position like the woman I mentioned above or continue to support laws that would leave them helpless against an attack?


I sincerely appreciate your time, especially given the length of this email and look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you,

Yance

 

[stainless1911]

Thanks Yance.

In the sentence (snip) "suddenly be an officer safety issue, there are a fair number of states in this country" I would have said that "The majority of states...". And you later in the paragraph indicated that disclosure is mandatory here, but that only applies to CPL holders.

I think you may have overused her term, hoodlums, I hope she doesnt take offense.

I will be writing her also, and plan on meeting with her on this issue again.

Is there a way that some of us could speak on this issue in person in front of everyone in Lansing so that these concerns could be addressed prior to a vote should it go that far?

 

[HKcarrier]

Sounded pretty good to me, Yance. Yes, long winded, but what can you do. You made some good points.

 

[Yance]

Thanks Yance.

In the sentence (snip) "suddenly be an officer safety issue, there are a fair number of states in this country" I would have said that "The majority of states...". And you later in the paragraph indicated that disclosure is mandatory here, but that only applies to CPL holders.

I think you may have overused her term, hoodlums, I hope she doesnt take offense.

I will be writing her also, and plan on meeting with her on this issue again.

Is there a way that some of us could speak on this issue in person in front of everyone in Lansing so that these concerns could be addressed prior to a vote should it go that far?

My intent was to actually use her use of "hoodlum" against her, not only is it poor word choice but it is a much more poor excuse. She's looking at the issue from the stand point of a politician and thats where the problem is, our politicians need to stop looking at these issue as politicians but they need to start seeing these issues the way we the people they represent see them. We dont see the issue of hoodlums getting into a car, however we see an issue of how are we going to be able to protect ourselves if one of these hoodlums attacks us. Its the politician mindset that has the residents of this state in the position we are in, we need to first attack their mindset so they will stop thinking as politicians and start thinking as a regular joe they represent might.

 

[Yance]

Sounded pretty good to me, Yance. Yes, long winded, but what can you do. You made some good points.

I read it after typing it and I was just thinking "ugh this is way too long" but I felt as though if I cut anything out I wouldnt be able to explain my position as well, thanks for the kind words though!

 

[stainless1911]

My intent was to actually use her use of "hoodlum" against her, not only is it poor word choice but it is a much more poor excuse. She's looking at the issue from the stand point of a politician and thats where the problem is, our politicians need to stop looking at these issue as politicians but they need to start seeing these issues the way we the people they represent see them. We dont see the issue of hoodlums getting into a car, however we see an issue of how are we going to be able to protect ourselves if one of these hoodlums attacks us. Its the politician mindset that has the residents of this state in the position we are in, we need to first attack their mindset so they will stop thinking as politicians and start thinking as a regular joe they represent might.

+1

I dont think it was too long, it shows you take the issue seriously, and were interested in addressing her concerns.

 

[Yance]

+1

I dont think it was too long, it shows you take the issue seriously, and were interested in addressing her concerns.

I havent heard back from her yet so lets just hope shes interested in reading it.

 

[stainless1911]

By my previous experience with her, I'm certain she will read it. I plan on writing one up this weekend.

 

[scot623]

"At what point do we as people start putting our personal safety above an unjust and unconstitutional law?"

Yance, I was with you right up until that sentence. Vaguely implying the people should ignore unconstitutional laws, as you put it, immediately starts the "us versus them" stuff. The people versus politicians/LEO's.

We want to be seen as helping the people, helping provide for their self defense. Not saying if we don't get what we want, we'll just do it anyways because we feel the law is unconstitutional.

 

[HKcarrier]

I read it after typing it and I was just thinking "ugh this is way too long" but I felt as though if I cut anything out I wouldnt be able to explain my position as well, thanks for the kind words though!

What I meant was that while it was long, you kept making point after point and I think they were all equally powerful and important... thus couldn't be cut... so it's length was just an "is what it is" thing... Again, nicely done.

 

[stainless1911]

"At what point do we as people start putting our personal safety above an unjust and unconstitutional law?"

Yance, I was with you right up until that sentence. Vaguely implying the people should ignore unconstitutional laws, as you put it, immediately starts the "us versus them" stuff. The people versus politicians/LEO's.

We want to be seen as helping the people, helping provide for their self defense. Not saying if we don't get what we want, we'll just do it anyways because we feel the law is unconstitutional.

It needed to be said and he said it well.

 

[Yance]

"At what point do we as people start putting our personal safety above an unjust and unconstitutional law?"

Yance, I was with you right up until that sentence. Vaguely implying the people should ignore unconstitutional laws, as you put it, immediately starts the "us versus them" stuff. The people versus politicians/LEO's.

We want to be seen as helping the people, helping provide for their self defense. Not saying if we don't get what we want, we'll just do it anyways because we feel the law is unconstitutional.

I wanted to present her with the only two options that those of us without CPLs are faced with, which is a reality for most people. I'm not advocating any illegal activity by any means, however for many residents those are the two options that they (we) face. Either violate the law to protect our lives or go unarmed because we dont have the convenience of a CPL issued by the state, either because we dont qualify though were law abiding and can possess a firearm, or because the expenses to afford one are just too much.

I guess the interpretation of how I wrote that particular sentence is just dependent on who reads it.

 

[scot623]

I wanted to present her with the only two option that those of us with CPLs are faced with, which is a reality for most people. I'm not advocating any illegal activity by any means, however for many residents those are the two options that they (we) face. Either violate the law or go unarmed because we dont have the convenience of a CPL issued by the state, either because we dont qualify though were law abiding and can possess a firearm, or because the expenses to afford one are just too much.

I guess the interpretation of how I wrote that particular sentence is just dependent on who reads it.

But the premise of your whole email is about helping "law abiding citizens". If you say, at some point we "law abiding citizens" will simply ignore this law if you refuse to change it, what are you really saying? The reason for ignoring the law, may well be noble(protecting yourself and family), but in the end you are telling everyone in Lansing, change the law or we will ignore it. That does not seem to be the way to make friends with the law makers we need to change this law.

 

[scot623]

It needed to be said and he said it well.

Actually, I don't think it needed to be said.

 

[Yance]

But the premise of your whole email is about helping "law abiding citizens". If you say, at some point we "law abiding citizens" will simply ignore this law if you refuse to change it, what are you really saying? The reason for ignoring the law, may well be noble(protecting yourself and family), but in the end you are telling everyone in Lansing, change the law or we will ignore it. That does not seem to be the way to make friends with the law makers we need to change this law.

The intent was that if the law isn't changed what options are we really left with as otherwise law abiding citizens. I understand where you're coming from, I honestly do, if I would have thought of the points you have brought up I would have done my best to word it in a more wise fashion so it didnt sound like I was advocating people violate the law.

However for someone like myself who is about as law abiding as they come, I can still buy firearms, open carry, use, sell, all that fun stuff that comes with being able to legally own a firearm my world is a lot different than those of you who have a CPL. If I simply wish to carry for my protection I either cannot because the state has not granted me permission to (in my vehicle) and I simply do not and if the time ever comes I find myself at the mercy of an attacker or risk a heft felony because I value my protection. I cant just get in my car and carry, if someone approaches me in a parking lot or at a light and draws a gun and/or starts shooting at me to steal my vehicle I have no options except try to drive away while sitting there and taking whatever attack may be coming my way.

Knowing every time you get in your vehicle you could be at the mercy of an attacker because you have no means of self protection (which is a real possibility in todays world) is not a pleasant feeling, one those of you with CPLs are very out of touch with.

 

[scot623]

Knowing every time you get in your vehicle you could be at the mercy of an attacker because you have no means of self protection (which is a real possibility in todays world) is not a pleasant feeling, one those of you with CPLs are very out of touch with.

You'll get no argument from me on that point whatsoever. It's just bad form to suggest to a law maker that if they don't change an existing law, people will choose to ignore it and devolve into lawlessness. It tells them "your job is meaningless", because we citizens will do whatever we feel is right, no matter what laws you create.

 

[Yance]

You'll get no argument from me on that point whatsoever. It's just bad form to suggest to a law maker that if they don't change an existing law, people will choose to ignore it and devolve into lawlessness. It tells them "your job is meaningless", because we citizens will do whatever we feel is right, no matter what laws you create.

I know, like I said if it would have dawned on me while I was writing it I would have worded it differently so it didnt sound like "if you dont pass it we'll just break the law." Hind sight is 20/20 I suppose, lets just hope she understands what I'm trying to say by using that example.

I appreciate the conversation though, next time I write a letter similar to this one I will keep in mind how different it might sound to someone else who might be reading it. I certainly wasnt trying to suggest that we'll ignore it, I was hoping to come across like those of us without a CPL are forced between a rock and a hard place when it comes to our self protection because of our current laws.

 

[stainless1911]

You'll get no argument from me on that point whatsoever. It's just bad form to suggest to a law maker that if they don't change an existing law, people will choose to ignore it and devolve into lawlessness. It tells them "your job is meaningless", because we citizens will do whatever we feel is right, no matter what laws you create.

Part of the idea that Im trying to get across, is that it is the criminal who will do whatever, no matter what laws are created.

 

[Get2DahChopper]

You'll get no argument from me on that point whatsoever. It's just bad form to suggest to a law maker that if they don't change an existing law, people will choose to ignore it and devolve into lawlessness. It tells them "your job is meaningless", because we citizens will do whatever we feel is right, no matter what laws you create.

I think he was trying to get her to understand that the badguys just do whatever they want. Is it bad form to tell her the truth? Maybe, but until we make our lawmakers understand the reallity of their actions, criminal's job's are made that much easier by them knowing the overwhelming odds are that any person in a car in MI is unarmed. If there is a couple of things politicians need to be introduced to they would be in my opinion as follows:

1 - Truth.
2 - Reallity.

We have hundreds of gun laws, who is efffected negatively by them the most? The honest citizen on a daily basis. Criminals only worry about them when they get caught - if they ever are?