The NRA, $$$, SB59 and why we should stop it.

[Bikenut]

The more people that can legally carry in PFZ's means more likelihood that the person OCing is legal in multiple ways. Not to mention by it being generally known that any person with a CPL has the ability to be exempt there will likely be fewer calls made.

This is all just conjecture... I really think any bill that helps make it easier to carry for SD CC or OC needs our support...

So there is nothing in the bill that strengthens OC in a PFZ. Is that correct?

If it is correct then let us not pretend that OC will benefit from a CC bill.

Note I didn't say the CC bill was a bad thing. I am referencing a little thing called "truth in advertising."

 

[scot623]

I guess I'm dense since I don't understand how CC, where the gun is out of sight, in a PFZ is going to make OC, where the gun is visible, any more acceptable? It's not like CC has any value in causing folks to become accustomed to guns being around them since they still don't know there are guns around them.

And LE knowing that CC with guns that he can't see is legal in that PFZ still isn't going to stop an officer from getting "worked up" over an OC'd gun that he can see in that same PFZ. And the same reasoning holds true for the general public in those PFZs.

Look... if folks want to support a bill that benefits CC regardless of their reasons... go for it. But when it is stated that the CC PFZ bill benefits OC in PFZs, which is already legal, I'd like to know exactly how this bill makes that so.

And despite all the tender egos running around in this thread... I'm still just asking, politely and with respect, for clarification.

If the Legislature makes it legal to conceal carry in the PFZ's then the OC in a PFZ "loophole", becomes less of a loophole. The judge believes you cannot OC in a PFZ because the law says you cannot conceal carry there. Her idea was if you can't conceal there, then the legislature meant no guns should be allowed at all. If you can conceal there, clearly being able to open carry would be much less of a leap for her to make.

Think about it, in the current CPL laws, name one place you CAN conceal, but CANNOT open carry.

 

[TheQ]

"You stole $10,000 from me. Now you're giving me $100 but I won't take it, I want all $10,000 back now or I want none of it."

....that's what I hear people saying. I think the better message is:

"You stole $10,000 from me. Now you're giving me $100. Sure, I'll take it, but as soon as you give it to me I'm going to come back and ask you for the other $9,900. If you won't give me the $9,900, but will only give me $4,000 -- again I'll take it but I'll be right back asking you for the remaining $4,900 (plus interest)."

Who refuses somebody who wants to repay part of what they stole? Will I say it's payment-in-full? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Will I take the money anyhow? HELL YES! If I don't take it, I may never see you (or it) again...granted, even if I do take it I may never see you again...but at least I have $100 I wouldn't have had otherwise.

 

[Yance]

So there is nothing in the bill that strengthens OC in a PFZ. Is that correct?

If it is correct then let us not pretend that OC will benefit from a CC bill.

Note I didn't say the CC bill was a bad thing. I am referencing a little thing called "truth in advertising."

I understand the point youre trying to make, but think of it this way: currently guns are NOT allowed in PFZs listed in 28.425o, so by someone OCing an LEO may see that and assume that since no guns are allowed in PFZs that they cant do that. With the passing of SB 59 guns ARE allowed in PFZs listed in 28.425o so when an officer sees an OC'd firearm he may now just go "oh, well guns are allowed in PFZs now, he must have the exemption.

Without SB 59 LE are only aware that guns are not allowed in PFZs listed in 28.425o, the AGO and MSP 86 creates a very thin line we are walking on as you can see with the Watkins case. One wrong move and its over, but with something like SB 59 that now allows guns to be in those zones for those exempted the thin line can become more like a sidewalk for us to walk on and will potentially severely lower any chance of legal ramifications of OCing in a PFZ, because guns are allowed there period instead of only being allowed by a special "understanding" of the law.

In any case, even with an exemption given through SB 59, the CPL still does not make a requirement to conceal, it will still only be there as an option. So even with the passing of SB 59 and CC being legal in PFZ's, someone with the exemption will still not be REQUIRED by law to conceal their firearm, but only given the option.

Make sense?

 

[PDinDetroit]

For us to make progress towards Constitutional Carry, I firmly believe that we need to stop separating actions in terms of Open Carry or Concealed Carry as this keeps us as Firearm Owners and Rights Activists from working together. The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, this bill will be one of many steps we will need to take.

Glenn - Welcome Back, Missed Ya, I really like Bronson's Idea and think you would do very well at it.

 

[TheQ]

When you get back here to MI start your own statewide training organization. You can certify instructors and they can teach the current CPL requirements and the proposed extended requirements.

I know several legislators that would love to see a Michigan Instructor Training coalition that could offer/certify instructors for classes (as opposed to the NRA)

 

[DetroitBiker]

For us to make progress towards Constitutional Carry, I firmly believe that we need to stop separating actions in terms of Open Carry or Concealed Carry as this keeps us as Firearm Owners and Rights Activists from working together. The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, this bill will be one of many steps we will need to take.

Glenn - Welcome Back, Missed Ya, I really like Bronson's Idea and think you would do very well at it.

+1 Well Said PDinDetroit

 

[313]

Can't say, seeing as I haven't been to the Capitol since 2010, though I do plan to be back in Lansing soon. I don't pretend to have answers on what I think will pass and what won't. I have stated that I think this is a step in the wrong direction, not that I am someone who thinks he has a solution for everything.

So you haven't been to Lansing in 2 years. You haven't participated in any MOC advocacy activies in quite some time. But you want to trash a piece of legislation that will benefit gunowners in Michigan. There is a lot in this legislation. Onre thing that isn't talked about much is the complete elimination of the gun boards.

Come on back to town and work on getting what you want passed. But don't trash the good work of others just because your NRA tinfoil hat needs a little adjustment.

 

[313]

Even if it does nothing to improve OC, it improves CC -- something I hope we can all get behind (many people CC a BUG).

Sorry Q but I just can't get behind this line of thinking.
Michigan
Open
Carry
(insert your statement here)

Seems a bit hypocritical from my understanding of the primary goals of MOC from it's inception.

Do you honestly think this statement makes any sense? I thought you were a proponent of supporting Constitutional carry.

Are you now willing to accept their "carrot" in lieu of pursuing the goal of repealing the countless gun laws that don't work?

I have the utmost respect for you and don't mean to offend but I am clearly confused by your train of thought with this bill.

Respectfully, JB

Aren't you one of the Founding Quitters?
Didn't you quit because you got your panties in a bunch over some forum posts that questioned the open carry restrictions you wanted to impose on members?
I would've liked to have seen what you would have come up with if you hadn't QUIT the organization.
Oh but now you sure know what the MOC leaders aren't doing right.
Run for election. It'll give you a chance to quit all over again.

 

[313]

+1 Well Said PDinDetroit

+1 Well Said DetroitBiker

 

[313]

Here is the problem with your thinking Glenn. You HATE the NRA I know that and so do many others. That is irrelevant to this bill as the NRA officially has had nothing to do with it. The second problem with your thought process and the one that gives me a headache is you do not understand how we get things changed in the legislature. We do it via compromise that is only the way things get done. Hard line positions don't work most of the time.

Obviously there are things about SB59 that I would rather were different however at the end of the day it is progress in the right direction. It is easy for people to say "JUST OC IN THE PFZ" well that won't work in every situation and if you are not aware what I am referring to think about it harder.

The only NRA involvement is via those of us that are members and or Training Counselors. Training has to be that which can be made available state wide and that which is Nationally Normed. Unfortunately there are few other programs that meet these requirements.

Also this is not a new licence it is just an addition to what we have now. If you don't want the exemption then don't get it!

Now on to Constitutional Carry. There are not enough votes to get a bill heard in committee on that right now but that is not a good reason to sit on our hands.

Finally I have a great deal of respect for you Glenn however this time in my opinion your hatred of the NRA is clouding your reasoning skills! There is no NRA conspiracy in this bill no matter how much you might like to think so.

THIS!!!

The OC Fudds here are no different than the CC Fudds on MGO!

 

[WARCHILD]

Here are you answers since you can't provide All the facts:

Aren't you one of the Founding Quitters? Yes, based on the flip flop decisions noted below is why I quit.
Didn't you quit because you got your panties in a bunch over some forum posts that questioned the open carry restrictions you wanted to impose on members?
Not restrictions: I was flamed for my not supporting long gun carry at THAT time (PONDEROSA RING A BELL); take a look at what MOC's stance is on long gun carry/ posts is now? HHHMMMMMM?
I would've liked to have seen what you would have come up with if you hadn't QUIT the organization. Doesn't matter now
Oh but now you sure know what the MOC leaders aren't doing right. No, I was merely trying to find out if MOC had changed their views on OC; based on Phil's statement.
Run for election. It'll give you a chance to quit all over again.

no thanks, not interested.
Have a great day

 

[scot623]

Warchild,

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your question...

"Even if it does nothing to improve OC, it improves CC -- something I hope we can all get behind (many people CC a BUG)."

How does the above statement reflect any sort of change to MOC's mission?

 

[Big Gay Al]

So, does anyone know, what's going to be in this "additional" training? Or are we just supposed to show up and shoot another 100 rounds or so of ammo? Is there going to be a legal part? Are they going to explain that if we go into a bar, CCing, that we can't really do any drinking of adult beverages, since the legal limit for packing is .02?

The really stupid part of this, I can go South West about 100 miles into Indiana, and walk into a bar there right now, with my pistol concealed, and I won't be breaking any laws. And Indiana doesn't even require any training for their permission slip at all!!! Go figure.

 

[Venator]

So, does anyone know, what's going to be in this "additional" training? Or are we just supposed to show up and shoot another 100 rounds or so of ammo? Is there going to be a legal part? Are they going to explain that if we go into a bar, CCing, that we can't really do any drinking of adult beverages, since the legal limit for packing is .02?

The really stupid part of this, I can go South West about 100 miles into Indiana, and walk into a bar there right now, with my pistol concealed, and I won't be breaking any laws. And Indiana doesn't even require any training for their permission slip at all!!! Go figure.

The training will follow along the lines of the NRA course Defense outside the home. The legislature is still working out those details.
http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx

 

[WARCHILD]

Warchild,

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your question...

"Even if it does nothing to improve OC, it improves CC -- something I hope we can all get behind (many people CC a BUG)."

How does the above statement reflect any sort of change to MOC's mission?

It doesn't, directly. As with many posts; it's hard to put verbal emphasis (or not) to a typed question. I truly was asking if there had been a change in MOC's stance on the issues.
As is normal on forums; if you have an opinion that doesn't go along with the majority you get flamed for presenting your views or ask about ANYTHING.

I don't understand the implied response from Phil and have sent him and email stating so.

If you (or anyone else) chooses to do so; research the posts I made about the long gun carry issues. I was flamed as a "fudd" and that I didn't truly support the 2A.
Only because I said it was not the right time to press long guns until we made some headway on oc acceptance first. (ponderosa)
As I put in my post, if my thinking was so wrong; why is it now forbidden to support or discuss long gun oc on MOC? Does MOC only support PART of the 2A?
That question has NEVER been addressed when I have asked it more than once.

That is the basis for my question if MOC had changed it's views on cc in lieu of oc.

As for my not being a member of MOC, don't criticize; again as I have stated from the very beginning; keep MOC business ON MOC.
If you choose to post MOC business on a national forum; what right do you have for flaming a non-members opinion of the issue?



I thought we were all in this together; but I see nothing has changed. There is still too much in fighting; if you're not in the "click"... you're only out.

BTW: My opinions are MY OWN and not affiliated with ANY group or organization.

 

[scot623]

It doesn't, directly. As with many posts; it's hard to put verbal emphasis (or not) to a typed question. I truly was asking if there had been a change in MOC's stance on the issues.
As is normal on forums; if you have an opinion that doesn't go along with the majority you get flamed for presenting your views or ask about ANYTHING.

I don't understand the implied response from Phil and have sent him and email stating so.

If you (or anyone else) chooses to do so; research the posts I made about the long gun carry issues. I was flamed as a "fudd" and that I didn't truly support the 2A.
Only because I said it was not the right time to press long guns until we made some headway on oc acceptance first. (ponderosa)
As I put in my post, if my thinking was so wrong; why is it now forbidden to support or discuss long gun oc on MOC? Does MOC only support PART of the 2A?
That question has NEVER been addressed when I have asked it more than once.

That is the basis for my question if MOC had changed it's views on cc in lieu of oc.

As for my not being a member of MOC, don't criticize; again as I have stated from the very beginning; keep MOC business ON MOC.
If you choose to post MOC business on a national forum; what right do you have for flaming a non-members opinion of the issue?



I thought we were all in this together; but I see nothing has changed. There is still too much in fighting; if you're not in the "click"... you're only out.

BTW: My opinions are MY OWN and not affiliated with ANY group or organization.

A. MOC does not for advocate long carry. Simple enough.
B. I wasn't aware MOC had "views on CC". We spend a lot of time covering CC in our seminars and recommend everyone get a CPL. Now that SB59 comes along that increase the places a person can CC(and gets rid of gun boards), MOC supports it. We also understand the political process enough to know that if we support this bill and help it get passed, we can go back to our new friends in Lansing and begin work on 234d to get rid of the places you can can OC without a CPL.
C. As far as Phil mentioning "MOC membership", it was an offer for those who don't like the direction MOC is going(supporting this bill) to join and run for the upcoming elections to our board, thus having a say in the direction of MOC.
D. We are in this together. The only infighting I see is between those who support SB59(an incremental step in the right direction for gun rights) and those who are actively trying to kill it because they want the "Perfect Bill" and nothing else will do.

 

[WARCHILD]

A. MOC does not advocate long carry. Simple enough.
B. I wasn't aware MOC had "views on CC". We spend a lot of time covering CC in our seminars and recommend everyone get a CPL. Now that SB59 comes along that increase the places a person can CC(and gets rid of gun boards), MOC supports it. We also understand the political process enough to know that if we support this bill and help it get passed, we can go back to our new friends in Lansing and begin work on 234d to get rid of the places you can can OC without a CPL.
C. As far as Phil mentioning "MOC membership", it was an offer for those who don't like the direction MOC is going(supporting this bill) to join and run for the upcoming elections to our board, thus having a say in the direction of MOC.
D. We are in this together. The only infighting I see is between those who support SB59(an incremental step in the right direction for gun rights) and those who are actively trying to kill it because they want the "Perfect Bill" and nothing else will do.

A. Again, not an answer. Is it really that hard for people to admit when they were wrong. Sorry but it's kind of a pet peeve of mine.
People on here are often flamed for opposing opinions but when they are proved correct...NOT A WORD IS SAID...EVER! I guess CROW isn't a well received dish.
And it wasn't just with me, other posters have been treated the same...go figure. I could go on and on with examples but it would be pointless.

B. Was just asking if they had changed their views as it pertained to the inception of MOC to promote OC. Not that they were anti cc. It has always been, either way was okay as long as you carry.

C. I won't discuss my issue with Phil's comment. That's between him and I. Was merely stating, I didn't understand his intent or meaning.

D. NO, there is constant in fighting when ever there are opposing opinions on the same issue. There is little productive discussion on an issue before it turns to flame jobs and personal insults.
Anyone like myself who has a different opinion or looks to understand an issue doesn't receive the courtesy of honest discussion.

I won't derail this thread with any further comments on the issue; which will please many I'm sure.

Have great day.

 

[stainless1911]

FWIW I have always valued yours, and anyone elses opinions. I may or may not necessarily agree with them, but I value them.

 

[scot623]

A. Again, not an answer. Is it really that hard for people to admit when they were wrong. Sorry but it's kind of a pet peeve of mine.
People on here are often flamed for opposing opinions but when they are proved correct...NOT A WORD IS SAID...EVER! I guess CROW isn't a well received dish.
And it wasn't just with me, other posters have been treated the same...go figure. I could go on and on with examples but it would be pointless.

If you are looking for people to say you were right and they were wrong about an event that happened over 2 years ago...then I don't know what to tell you. You asked for MOC's position on long gun carry and I gave it. I am speaking for this current board and even the past board of which I was also VP. I don't know who want you to serve crow to, but it's not me or MOC.