Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

[Ezerharden]

"Shall issue" criminalized natural right open carry in Meijer, Kroger, and other places that sold alcohol, churches, theaters, sports arenas, day cares, hospitals, and banks. You don't see that taking away of natural open carry rights as the taking away of natural open carry rights? OCers could no longer carry in Meijer once "shall issue" was passed.

Those were all currently legal before "shall issue."

"Shall issue" by far harmed open carry rights much more than SB 59. It forced firearms owners to pay for classes, and it force firearms owners to pay for licenses (which expire every few years) just to carry a firearm in the grocery store.

Well said, but I don't think he is going to listen to logic on this one.

 

[TheQ]

To clarify, the "compromise" that I speak against and oppose is the criminalization of currently legal firearms rights.

The elimination of may-issue's discretionary granting of the privilege to CC in a PFZ that came with shall-issue passage was NOT criminalization of what was a currently legal firearms right. It was the criminalization of what was a currently legal firearms privilege granted to a minority at the discretion of agents of the state.

OC in PFZs is a currently legal firearms right, not subject to privilege or discretion, which you obtain upon obtaining your right to legally CC, a right itself not subject to privilege or discretion. Compromise that criminalizes currently legal firearms rights that are available is what I oppose.

CC Ina PFZ was legal for people in shall issue counties prior to 2001. It became illegal with shall issue.

By your own test I just quoted, shall issue was a bad thing, no?

 

[scot623]

OC in PFZ's is a right available to all law-abiding Michigan citizens.

So you are saying a right is something that requires a background check, jumping through government hoops, mandatory training and $105? Because last I checked you cannot OC in a PFZ without a CPL.

 

[alphamale]

Tyrants seize any excuse to terrorize those freedoms and people who exercise those freedom.

Arrest, charges, or convictions for simple accidental exposure is what it leads to. Video proof from Florida:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pns3_Peke30#

The officer makes a traffic stop on the licensed CC'er. The CC'er, fully calm and compliant with the officer, accidentally exposes his CC'd weapon when complying with the officer's request for his papers.

The officer prones him out, cuffs him, tells him he's "going to court on it [the exposure of the weapon]", and says "Alright, so when you let it pop out from behind your shirt that's a violation of your permit right there."

CC'er: "How's that?"

Officer: "'Cause I saw it, that's how. It's not concealed anymore."

So, when any Michigan gun organization or gun owner says there's no real risks to going along with "compromise" and criminalizing OC in limited areas, DON'T BELIEVE 'EM!

 

[Ezerharden]

You got that straight from stainless1911! hahahaha

Actually I have heard that from several people, all much more intelligent than the source you quoted.

 

[DanM]

But Shall Issue legislation DID increase "permission slips" (added required training for example) and DID increase Government involvement (added PFZ's for example) thereby COMPROMISING what was already in place, get a CPL and carry OC or CC anywhere.

I don't know. The only thing I've been arguing against is your initial assertion way back numerous posts ago that shall-issue criminalized a right to CC in PFZs with a may-issue license. For the record, I've never stated a positive or negative position on the whole of shall-issue, just that it didn't do that specific thing you asserted. Also, for the record, I've never said or written that I'm against general compromise or concessions, just that I'm against (at least) the specific compromise or concession of criminalizing currently legal gun rights. All my posts and usage of terms are to be taken in that context.

 

[DanM]

"Shall issue" criminalized natural right open carry in Meijer, Kroger, and other places that sold alcohol, churches, theaters, sports arenas, day cares, hospitals, and banks. You don't see that taking away of natural open carry rights as the taking away of natural open carry rights? OCers could no longer carry in Meijer once "shall issue" was passed.

Those were all currently legal before "shall issue."

"Shall issue" by far harmed open carry rights much more than SB 59. It forced firearms owners to pay for classes, and it force firearms owners to pay for licenses (which expire every few years) just to carry a firearm in the grocery store.

I don't know. Perhaps, and cites of before and after laws would help. But the only thing I've been arguing against really is Ezerharden's initial assertion way back numerous posts ago that shall-issue criminalized a right to CC in PFZs with a may-issue license. For the record, I've never stated a positive or negative position on the whole of shall-issue, just that it didn't do that specific thing Ezerharden asserted. Also, for the record, I've never said or written that I'm against general compromise or concessions, just that I'm against (at least) the specific compromise or concession of criminalizing currently legal gun rights. All my posts and usage of terms are to be taken in that context.

 

[DanM]

CC Ina PFZ was legal for people in shall issue counties prior to 2001. It became illegal with shall issue.

By your own test I just quoted, shall issue was a bad thing, no?

The only thing I've been arguing against is Ezerharden's initial assertion way back numerous posts ago that shall-issue criminalized a right to CC in PFZs with a may-issue license.

My understanding of CC in Michigan is that prior to shall-issue law, the law was may-issue. No matter how liberally an agent of government may apply discretion to grant you a privilege, it is still a privilege being granted at the discretion of the government agent, not a right the government agent cannot interfere with after objective rules on your background are met, as in shall-issue.

For the record, I've never stated a positive or negative position on the whole of shall-issue, just that it didn't do that specific thing Ezerharden asserted.

 

[PDinDetroit]

"Shall issue" criminalized natural right open carry in Meijer, Kroger, and other places that sold alcohol, churches, theaters, sports arenas, day cares, hospitals, and banks. You don't see that taking away of natural open carry rights as the taking away of natural open carry rights? OCers could no longer carry in Meijer once "shall issue" was passed.

Those were all currently legal before "shall issue."

"Shall issue" by far harmed open carry rights much more than SB 59. It forced firearms owners to pay for classes, and it force firearms owners to pay for licenses (which expire every few years) just to carry a firearm in the grocery store.

Are you sure about the Bolded Part above? It certainly appears that MCL 750.234d (Michigan Non-CPL Holder Firearm Free Zones) was not changed since before "Shall Issue" became Law in MI (see Bolded Part at end of quoted section that follows). This Act was first passed in 1931 and amended in 1990, 1992, and 1994.

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931

750.234d Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited; applicability; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 234d.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person shall not possess a firearm on the premises of any of the following:

(a) A depository financial institution or a subsidiary or affiliate of a depository financial institution.

(b) A church or other house of religious worship.

(c) A court.

(d) A theatre.

(e) A sports arena.

(f) A day care center.

(g) A hospital.

(h) An establishment licensed under the Michigan liquor control act, Act No. 8 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1933, being sections 436.1 to 436.58 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(2) This section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A person who owns, or is employed by or contracted by, an entity described in subsection (1) if the possession of that firearm is to provide security services for that entity.

(b) A peace officer.

(c) A person licensed by this state or another state to carry a concealed weapon.

(d) A person who possesses a firearm on the premises of an entity described in subsection (1) if that possession is with the permission of the owner or an agent of the owner of that entity.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

History: Add. 1990, Act 321, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 218, Imd. Eff. Oct. 13, 1992 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 158, Eff. Aug. 15, 1994

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d


BTW - are you sure about Natural Right of Open Carry of a Pistol in Michigan and that there is such a thing? Until December 18th of 2012, changed by PA 377 of 2012, a Person could not Open Carry a Pistol without first obtaining a License for the Pistol (which is still required if the Pistol was obtained from a specific type of FFL Dealer, although they call it a "Record" in this case). It even appears that you have to carry the License/Record for the Pistol for the first 30 days you own it! Although the License/Record is not required to be carried with the Pistol after that first 30 days, there is nothing in the Michigan Firearm Laws that states the License/Record expires. It sure appears that there is no Natural Right of Open Carry of a Pistol in Michigan with this License/Record being required (READ: Permission Slip).

FIREARMS (EXCERPT) Act 372 of 1927

28.422 License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol; issuance; qualifications; applications; sale of pistol; exemptions; nonresidents; forging application; implementation during business hours.

Sec. 2.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a person shall not purchase, carry, possess, or transport a pistol in this state without first having obtained a license for the pistol as prescribed in this section.

...

(6)... The licensee may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the license. However, the person is not required to have the license in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period.

...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422

FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 372 of 1927


28.422a Individuals not required to obtain license; completion of record by seller; duties of purchaser; noncompliance as state civil infraction; penalty; entering information into pistol entry database; obtaining copy of information; exemption; material false statement as felony; penalty; rules; "federally licensed firearms dealer" defined.

Sec. 2a.

(1) The following individuals are not required to obtain a license under section 2 to purchase, carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol:

(a) An individual licensed under section 5b.

(b) A federally licensed firearms dealer.

(c) An individual who purchases a pistol from a federally licensed firearms dealer in compliance with 18 USC 922(t).

...

(3) ... The purchaser may carry, use, possess, and transport the pistol for 30 days beginning on the date of purchase or acquisition only while he or she is in possession of his or her copy of the record. However, the person is not required to have the record in his or her possession while carrying, using, possessing, or transporting the pistol after this period.

...

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422a

 

[PDinDetroit]

Well said, but I don't think he is going to listen to logic on this one.

Are you sure that the post was well said? Might there be some incorrect factual/legal statements with it?

:question:

 

[TheQ]

Are you sure about the Bolded Part above? It certainly appears that MCL 750.234d (Michigan Non-CPL Holder Firearm Free Zones) was not changed since before "Shall Issue" became Law in MI (see Bolded Part at end of quoted section that follows). This Act was first passed in 1931 and amended in 1990, 1992, and 1994.



http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d


BTW - are you sure about Natural Right of Open Carry of a Pistol in Michigan and that there is such a thing? Until December 18th of 2012, changed by PA 377 of 2012, a Person could not Open Carry a Pistol without first obtaining a License for the Pistol (which is still required if the Pistol was obtained from a specific type of FFL Dealer, although they call it a "Record" in this case). It even appears that you have to carry the License/Record for the Pistol for the first 30 days you own it! Although the License/Record is not required to be carried with the Pistol after that first 30 days, there is nothing in the Michigan Firearm Laws that states the License/Record expires. It sure appears that there is no Natural Right of Open Carry of a Pistol in Michigan with this License/Record being required (READ: Permission Slip).



http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422



http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422a

Just think: many here opposed HB 5225 because it would:

Eliminate CC of former Michigan pistols

Potentially cause problems with the Federal Gun Free School zone act.

In that regard, this bill too was a compromise. Although, as we all know compromise is acceptable when DanM says it is...

 

[PDinDetroit]

CC Ina PFZ was legal for people in shall issue counties prior to 2001. It became illegal with shall issue.

By your own test I just quoted, shall issue was a bad thing, no?

Can you cite a Legal Reference to "Shall Issue Counties" that existed prior to 2001? I have never seen an MCL that contained that information and would really like to see it.

 

[Ezerharden]

Are you sure that the post was well said? Might there be some incorrect factual/legal statements with it?

:question:

Not really no. Prior to Shall Issue, there were no CC PFZ's in Michigan. After Shall Issue, we got CC PFZ's as a compromise to get the bill passed. Gave up one thing to get another.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Just think: many here opposed HB 5225 because it would:

Eliminate CC of former Michigan pistols

Potentially cause problems with the Federal Gun Free School zone act.

In that regard, this bill too was a compromise. Although, as we all know compromise is acceptable when DanM says it is...

Instead of reasonable discussion on the matter, statements like the above are nothing less than a veiled Personal Attack on said person. You are better than that or at least you should know better than that...

 

[TheQ]

Can you cite a Legal Reference to "Shall Issue Counties" that existed prior to 2001? I have never seen an MCL that contained that information and would really like to see it.

There was no statute; however, many counties were "shall issue" in practice.

Osceola
Clinton
Monroe

...to name 3

 

[Ezerharden]

Can you cite a Legal Reference to "Shall Issue Counties" that existed prior to 2001? I have never seen an MCL that contained that information and would really like to see it.

Can't provide a legal cite, I have looked, but I know in 1996 when I got my first permit, Monroe County was a May Issue county just as most others in MI, however the acted more like Shall Issue. And there were no CC PFZ's at the time.

 

[TheQ]

Instead of reasonable discussion on the matter, statements like the above are nothing less than a veiled Personal Attack on said person. You are better than that or at least you should know better than that...

No personal attack. DanM has said he's all about "no compromise" yet he supports shall issue and HB 5225(?). Rights were lost in both -- a compromise. Those are compromises he will accept though, so they are ok maybe?

Just stating facts.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Not really no. Prior to Shall Issue, there were no CC PFZ's in Michigan. After Shall Issue, we got CC PFZ's as a compromise to get the bill passed. Gave up one thing to get another.

The post I am referencing was not CC PFZ's but Natural Right Open Carry Pistol Free Zones.

 

[Ezerharden]

The post I am referencing was not CC PFZ's but Natural Right Open Carry Pistol Free Zones.

Well I was citing the fact that MI got Shall Issue by adding the COMPROMISE of the introduction of CC PFZ's. So a lot more people can more easily obtain a CPL thanks to compromise. But, compromise is unacceptable if it criminalizes the ability to carry. Such as criminalizing CC in an area where once it was allowed. Kind of like criminalizing OC in CC PFZ's to get the ability back to CC there. But that compromise is unacceptable.

 

[PDinDetroit]

There was no statute; however, many counties were "shall issue" in practice.

Osceola
Clinton
Monroe

...to name 3

Since the Law was "May Issue", how a specific County practiced "May Issue" did not make them a "Shall Issue" County unless you have specific Legal References to such or you have Statistical/Citable Records showing such for License Applications Processed.