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

[Big Gay Al]

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

What I don't get, they're happy to provide exemptions for certain "special" classes of citizens to be able to pack anywhere, why does the general population have to treated as the step child?

Oh wait, I know. We can't be trusted. Even though, those of us who have a CPL, have already had the background check, the training that was required to go with getting the CPL and all, it's just [Wayne's World Mantra] "we're not worthy," [/Wayne's World Mantra] I guess.

Pardon me, if I seem pissed off. I'm not pissed at anyone on this forum, regardless of your viewpoint/stance on the bill. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm just tired of being treated like a 2nd class....no, 3rd class citizen.

It's not enough I had to pay for the original training, then $105.00 PLUS for my license back in 2003, then another $105.00 for the renewal in 2006, followed by another $105.00 for my renewal in 2011. No, now they want to share the wealth with various certified instructors, give them more income and such. I wouldn't be surprised if they make this "additional training" mandatory even for renewals.

Ok, I'm done.

Anyone for Biggby's in Holt today? (Or anywhere in the Lansing area, for that matter.)

 

[scot623]

^unless the bill changes, after 5 years your CPL automatically becomes eligible for the exempt status. So there are conceivably hundreds of thousands of people who would already qualify for the exemption( like yourself) without having to pay for additional training.

 

[TheQ]

^unless the bill changes, after 5 years your CPL automatically becomes eligible for the exempt status. So there are conceivably hundreds of thousands of people who would already qualify for the exemption( like yourself) without having to pay for additional training.

That got removed

 

[scot623]

That got removed

Wtf. Damn.

 

[Michigander]

We lost our 2A rights little by little, we are trying to get them back in the same manner.

If you are talking about the national level, yes I sort of agree. If you are talking about the state level, not as much. As early as the 1870s if my memory serves me right, there were already anti carry laws in Michigan. And let's not forget that there was no preemption. And we all know what happened by the mid 20s on account of the Great Migration and the KKK/other racists in power.

It was after all not really that long ago that Michigan was coverd with glorious virgin pine forests, with many native American tribes living there. White settlers coming in to inahbit larger portions of the state, claiming they some how "owned" the land, and then telling each other how and when they could carry weapons, it really didn't take much time to transpire into that.

In the contexed of taking our rights back, you are dead on right that increments have been working. For reasons I have very thoroughly stated and need not reiterate on, I think SB59 is one step forward and two or three back. On your side you've got the weight of MOC and the majority of the participants on this forum.

Don't know how much time is left, if any before a vote, so I hope that everyone who disagrees with me has called in to their senators. That is, after all, why we discussed this, so everyone could decide what to tell their reps..........

 

[TheQ]

...

 

[313]

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.

But you were in the clique. You were an officer of MOC. You just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what MOC stands for. Instead you quit at the very time that MOC needed leaders to deal with the "Ponderossa Debacle." Just like Venator at the very start of the controversy. And just like Generaldet quit in the midst of it. You too Warchild are one of the Founding quitters. Instead of standing up, you decided to tuck your tail between your legs and ran away.

Now though, you find it incumbent upon yourself to try and trash what the current leaders, and they are truly leaders not QUITTERS, have accomplished. There hasn't been any change in the focus of what MOC's mission is. The organization has just embraced all forms of carry. Unlike the other Fudds like you that feel that there is only one way to carry a handgun.

Remember this Warchild, quitters are losers, because quitters never win.

 

[Bikenut]

Whatever happened to discussing? Has it become just "dissing" and "cussing"?

Look folks... plain and simple...

MOC worked hard to get the bill in place... which means they "sold" it to our legislators.

Now... MOC... why is it so hard to understand that everyone else needs to be "sold" too?

Didn't some legislators have concerns? Why shouldn't some regular folks have concerns too?

Didn't some legislators have questions and want things clarified? Why shouldn't some regular folks have questions and want things clarified too?

And last question....

Did the people who are exhibiting tender egos in this thread talk to the legislators the same way some are talking to the regular folks now?

If we, as gun owners and as activists/lobbyists want to be looked upon with respect and credibility then it would behoove ALL of us to act in a mature and adult manner.

Agreed?

 

[WilDChilD]

But you were in the clique. You were an officer of MOC. You just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what MOC stands for. Instead you quit at the very time that MOC needed leaders to deal with the "Ponderossa Debacle." Just like Venator at the very start of the controversy. And just like Generaldet quit in the midst of it. You too Warchild are one of the Founding quitters. Instead of standing up, you decided to tuck your tail between your legs and ran away.

Now though, you find it incumbent upon yourself to try and trash what the current leaders, and they are truly leaders not QUITTERS, have accomplished. There hasn't been any change in the focus of what MOC's mission is. The organization has just embraced all forms of carry. Unlike the other Fudds like you that feel that there is only one way to carry a handgun.

Remember this Warchild, quitters are losers, because quitters never win.

I dont agree or disagree I just want to know why you had to make a new screen name to flame on people here? You know to much for this to be your 5th post. People need to quit being little bitches and own the stuff they say.

 

[WilDChilD]

Q or anyone else in the Capitol Building today, did anything happen with SB59 today?

 

[Venator]

Q or anyone else in the Capitol Building today, did anything happen with SB59 today?

Postponed due to a few groups opposing the bill. New time frame is two weeks.

 

[WilDChilD]

Postponed due to a few groups opposing the bill. New time frame is two weeks.

Should we keep on pressing our senators or let it lay for a couple weeks?

 

[dekova]

If we, as gun owners and as activists/lobbyists want to be looked upon with respect and credibility then it would behoove ALL of us to act in a mature and adult manner.

Amen brother.

So anyway... hi everyone. I'm the new guy here. As I type this I've got a post count of zero. Found out about MOC through Q's posts on MGO. I've got some thoughts on this, but before I share them...

Here are reasons you shouldn't care what I say:
I've got a post count of zero and didn't even know about MOC three months back.
I've been away from Michigan for 20 or so years (but just moved back!).
I don't open carry.

With that out of the way, I'll say that I'm a fan of SB59 for two specific reasons:
1. I'd like to be able to not worry about those darned PFZ's that don't make any sense.
2. 99% of voters don't carry and only know what they hear on the news. We need to show them we're not a bunch of psychos that turn all John Woo the moment we carry a gun into a church.

#2 is super-ultra important in my mind and SB59 gets us to where we can do that.

The bill isn't perfect but those are my two reasons for supporting it and asking my senator and sheriff to do the same.

 

[TheQ]

Should we keep on pressing our senators or let it lay for a couple weeks?

If you can, meet with your Senator next week when he's at his district office during break -- in person. Bring as many sympathizers who are also constituents that you can with you at the same time. Elect one speaker in the group. The message: support SB59, oppose MHA amendment. Tell him you'll view a vote for the MHA amendment as an anti-gun vote.

If you can do that -- that's the single most effective thing you can do. Make an appointment in advance (call today to make your appt).

 

[stainless1911]

Your post count is irrelevant. That post count thing was an inside the loop statement. You are welcome here, and your input is valuable.

I hope you stick around, there's much to learn and discuss. I also hope that, after you understand it, you begin to OC. CC does nothing to strengthen the second amendment, and it is a disadvantage to you in a self defense situation. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[TheQ]

To be clear: anyone who has questions pertaining the bill can ask me at phofmeister@miopencarry.org

I'll be happy to entertain and answer questions about:
*The content of the bill.
*History of the bill's development.

I will not answer or entertain questions pertaining to:
* Philosophy or approach relating to why MOC supports the bill or why we shouldn't. These emails can instead be directed to board@miopencarry.org.

 

[fozzy71]

I dont agree or disagree I just want to know why you had to make a new screen name to flame on people here? ...

Because his last one got BANNED

 

[Big Gay Al]

Because his last one got BANNED

Well.....DOH!!! Sorry, I couldn't help myself that time.

 

[PDinDetroit]

There has been a number of "incidents" that have occurred in the past that separate us from working together. If we stay stuck on those "incidents", then in the past we will stay stuck and not moving forward for the future. We need EVERYONE in the fight for Firearm Rights. I ask everyone to drop these "incidents", to forgive THOSE INVOLVED, and to move forward TOGETHER.

Please.

 

[TheQ]

There has been a number of "incidents" that have occurred in the past that separate us from working together. If we stay stuck on those "incidents", then in the past we will stay stuck and not moving forward for the future. We need EVERYONE in the fight for Firearm Rights. I ask everyone to drop these "incidents", to forgive THOSE INVOLVED, and to move forward TOGETHER.

Please.

+1