TheQ
Regular Member
I think we're all against registration. There are some concerns about some side consequences.
-
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.
-
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.
Handgun Registration Repeal question
- Thread starter smellslikemichigan
- Start date
I think we're all against registration. There are some concerns about some side consequences.
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
actually, 10,000,000 have lost their rights by the pistol registration. repealing it will give that right back. so, if we're counting population with rights violated, looks like my count wins. not to mention that there are not 300,000 cpl holders with michigan pistols. thanks for playing.
Last edited:
Michigander
Regular Member
lapeer20m
Regular Member
lapeer20m
Regular Member
I wish the registration repeal bill was tied to a bill that would allow people to carry loaded long guns in vehicles.
I am all for repeal of registration, but it does creates a couple of issues. Besides negatively affecting vehicle carry, it will also allow the DNR to create rules that affect all non cpl holders when it comes to firearm possession. (The DNR's Current opinion is that they can do this now, but they are wrong)
I say repeal registration, then we can focus on fixing the other small issues.
I liked carrying my mossberg on the ceiling of the surburban. I think others should have the ability to do this.
I am all for repeal of registration, but it does creates a couple of issues. Besides negatively affecting vehicle carry, it will also allow the DNR to create rules that affect all non cpl holders when it comes to firearm possession. (The DNR's Current opinion is that they can do this now, but they are wrong)
I say repeal registration, then we can focus on fixing the other small issues.
I liked carrying my mossberg on the ceiling of the surburban. I think others should have the ability to do this.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
Yes, this.
It would be a misdemeanor. I cant remember if this is a gun forfeiting violation, but 234d will keep you from getting a CPL for 8 years.
Super Trucker
Regular Member
What rights are lost by the current registration that has been in place since before you were born? I mean EXACTLY.
You can not lose something you never had. On the other hand, they can be given away by a group of FUDDs.
TheQ
Regular Member
It could also be a felony. MCL 750.227. My guess would be that they would charge you with the felony and be willing to walk it down to the misdemeanor with me plea.
Bronson
Regular Member
Yeah, and slavery in America was just some black folks working on the farm and singing sprituals.
Bronson
Last edited by a moderator:
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
that's one of the dumbest things i've ever heard... although getting used to it at this point. if someone is born into slavery and never known freedom, then they should just remain slaves?:banghead:
TheQ
Regular Member
I see Grapeshot edited the color out of your post
John just told me via email:
Guess using color is okay....? *shrugs*
Haman J.T.
New member
I believe he's refering to 2A Rights exercised freely(by all citizens) prior to gun laws and the 1968 Gun Control Act! Prior to these,folks just buy ,sell and carry their guns Freely,accordign to their 2A Rights without any rules,regulations or "gun-control" laws.All gun control laws deny law abiding Citizens their 2A Rights,unless they recieve permission from said government! Thats true "Infringement" by government control.Licensing, "permitting"(notice the meaning of this word),registration etc.!
Small_Arms_Collector
Regular Member
OK, to summarize, and introduce some realism:
What would be lost:
Michigan Pistols (MAYBE), which already has no new new registrations after after the other law goes in to affect.
So the only people who MIGHT be affected by this are those select few who already carry Michigan Pistols, for this some would like to sacrifice the rights of every resident of Michigan so THEY may still exercise the privilege granted to them by there political masters. To keep THEIR they would throw the entire rest of the state under the bus, it's just like the Fudds who would be perfectly fine sacrificing everyone else's rights through an AWB, Magazine Ban, Registration, etc. just so they can keep their antiquated (1898 technology) bolt action dear slayer just a little while longer.
Gun free School Zones exemption.
The purchase permit over riding the "gun free school zones" has never been tested in court, and is just a theory, and the fact that we have CPLs, and that "license to carry" seems to appear only in the title of the purchase permit, and nowhere else in law, and that the permit itself specifically states that it's not a concealed carry license, and that it expires after 10 days, I would think that it would probably not hold up in court, particularly after they interpret "legislative intent". Then there is the fact that very few states (none?) other than Michigan have any such "exemption", and have not had any issues, and the fact that no one has ever been charged with violating the gun free school zones law as a standalone offense when all they were doing was otherwise legally carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school.
Since it would have to be argued in court anyway some other (possibly better) defenses would be the fact that the "gun free school zones act" is unconstitutional, and it has already been struck down once by the Supreme court (before being re passed unchanged again right after it), and that there was no Mens Rea if you did not know that it was a "gun free school zone". (To be a crime the prosecution must both prove Mens Rea "The Guilty Mind", I.E. that you knew what you were doing was wrong, and Actus Reus "the Act Itself". ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".)
What would be gained:
No more registration, or purchase permits.
Now lets look at the practicality of Michigan Pistols:
The average gun fight happens at a range of about 3 feet, lasts about 3 seconds, and 3 shots will be fired according to FBI statistics, they look nothing like what you see in the movies. It is extremely unlikely to the point of being astronomically unlikely that you will be able to fight your way back to your long gun that you left in your car, particularly if you are some distance away from your car at the time, and if you do make it back to your car, one wonders, and the prosecution will surely bring up why you do not simply flee the scene seeing as you had enough time to retrieve your long gun, and bring it to bear. Should you be attacked while in your car same thing, it's unlikely that you would be able to bring your long gun in to action in the confines of your car faster than your pistol that you already have on your hip, so the question then would be how did you have time to use the long gun? If attacked near your vehicle the question is still how did you have time to open your vehicle, retrieve your long gun, then bring it in to the fight, and why did you do that when you could have just used your pistol?
A long gun carried loaded in the car is useful/practical only in a VERY limited set of circumstances, such as:
You KNOW you are going in to a potential gun fight, and you will be taking the rifle/shotgun with you when you exit the vehicle, I.E. a patrol rifle.
You have been ambushed while en route to your destination, and your vehicle has been disabled/blocked in, and you are pinned down under enemy fire from some distance away. Short of being in a warzone, or an assassination attempt this scenario is unlikely.
You are away from home, and your vehicle is disabled leaving you stranded, and you must fight your way home through hostile territory. Short of SHTF, or the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI) with the complete break down of law, and order, and civil society (such as a riot, or Katrina style situation), or being caught behind enemy lines in a warzone this scenario is not likely.
You are paroling a large rural property, and spot a hostile (or predator) at long range, but in this scenario you would likely have time to access a cased rifle.
If you insist on taking a long gun with you in case of any of these highly unlikely scenarios, then that can be accomplished without the need for Michigan pistols. Simply carry a technical pistol, I.E. a stockless rifle, or shotgun (.410, or AOW) like the AR Pistols for example, or carry the rifle, or shotgun cased in the front seat (it does not need to actually be in the trunk, or inaccessible, merely unloaded, and cased (Or unloaded, and uncased, but taken down, such as an AR, or SU-16.). In any scenario where you would actually have the time to bring the long gun in to play in the first place you likely would also have time to uncase (or snap it together), and load it.
In short the untested gun free school zone exemption, and the convenience of the select few with Michigan Pistols in highly unlikely scenarios is not worth sacrificing the rights of 9,876,187 Michigan residents.
What would be lost:
Michigan Pistols (MAYBE), which already has no new new registrations after after the other law goes in to affect.
So the only people who MIGHT be affected by this are those select few who already carry Michigan Pistols, for this some would like to sacrifice the rights of every resident of Michigan so THEY may still exercise the privilege granted to them by there political masters. To keep THEIR they would throw the entire rest of the state under the bus, it's just like the Fudds who would be perfectly fine sacrificing everyone else's rights through an AWB, Magazine Ban, Registration, etc. just so they can keep their antiquated (1898 technology) bolt action dear slayer just a little while longer.
Gun free School Zones exemption.
The purchase permit over riding the "gun free school zones" has never been tested in court, and is just a theory, and the fact that we have CPLs, and that "license to carry" seems to appear only in the title of the purchase permit, and nowhere else in law, and that the permit itself specifically states that it's not a concealed carry license, and that it expires after 10 days, I would think that it would probably not hold up in court, particularly after they interpret "legislative intent". Then there is the fact that very few states (none?) other than Michigan have any such "exemption", and have not had any issues, and the fact that no one has ever been charged with violating the gun free school zones law as a standalone offense when all they were doing was otherwise legally carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school.
Since it would have to be argued in court anyway some other (possibly better) defenses would be the fact that the "gun free school zones act" is unconstitutional, and it has already been struck down once by the Supreme court (before being re passed unchanged again right after it), and that there was no Mens Rea if you did not know that it was a "gun free school zone". (To be a crime the prosecution must both prove Mens Rea "The Guilty Mind", I.E. that you knew what you were doing was wrong, and Actus Reus "the Act Itself". ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".)
What would be gained:
No more registration, or purchase permits.
Now lets look at the practicality of Michigan Pistols:
The average gun fight happens at a range of about 3 feet, lasts about 3 seconds, and 3 shots will be fired according to FBI statistics, they look nothing like what you see in the movies. It is extremely unlikely to the point of being astronomically unlikely that you will be able to fight your way back to your long gun that you left in your car, particularly if you are some distance away from your car at the time, and if you do make it back to your car, one wonders, and the prosecution will surely bring up why you do not simply flee the scene seeing as you had enough time to retrieve your long gun, and bring it to bear. Should you be attacked while in your car same thing, it's unlikely that you would be able to bring your long gun in to action in the confines of your car faster than your pistol that you already have on your hip, so the question then would be how did you have time to use the long gun? If attacked near your vehicle the question is still how did you have time to open your vehicle, retrieve your long gun, then bring it in to the fight, and why did you do that when you could have just used your pistol?
A long gun carried loaded in the car is useful/practical only in a VERY limited set of circumstances, such as:
You KNOW you are going in to a potential gun fight, and you will be taking the rifle/shotgun with you when you exit the vehicle, I.E. a patrol rifle.
You have been ambushed while en route to your destination, and your vehicle has been disabled/blocked in, and you are pinned down under enemy fire from some distance away. Short of being in a warzone, or an assassination attempt this scenario is unlikely.
You are away from home, and your vehicle is disabled leaving you stranded, and you must fight your way home through hostile territory. Short of SHTF, or the end of the world as we know it (TEOTWAWKI) with the complete break down of law, and order, and civil society (such as a riot, or Katrina style situation), or being caught behind enemy lines in a warzone this scenario is not likely.
You are paroling a large rural property, and spot a hostile (or predator) at long range, but in this scenario you would likely have time to access a cased rifle.
If you insist on taking a long gun with you in case of any of these highly unlikely scenarios, then that can be accomplished without the need for Michigan pistols. Simply carry a technical pistol, I.E. a stockless rifle, or shotgun (.410, or AOW) like the AR Pistols for example, or carry the rifle, or shotgun cased in the front seat (it does not need to actually be in the trunk, or inaccessible, merely unloaded, and cased (Or unloaded, and uncased, but taken down, such as an AR, or SU-16.). In any scenario where you would actually have the time to bring the long gun in to play in the first place you likely would also have time to uncase (or snap it together), and load it.
In short the untested gun free school zone exemption, and the convenience of the select few with Michigan Pistols in highly unlikely scenarios is not worth sacrificing the rights of 9,876,187 Michigan residents.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
remember 2 pages ago when i told you it isn't worth arguing with this guy...now you see what i mean
Evil Creamsicle
Regular Member
The problem, apparently, is that the only problem you think we have with registration is that we 'don't feel like it' ?
...you know what you guys seem to have this one. I'm bowing out, this guy is beyond repair, and I'm not going to be able to stay civil if I get another idiotic response like the last one.
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
yeah, i'm not usually this fired up on OCDO... but i'm beginning to think we may have an anti among us.
when his grandchildren ask him some day what he did for gun rights, Super Trucker will be able to proudly say, "i fought tirelessly to keep the handgun registration in Michigan"
Last edited:
smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
probably a good idea. i'm out as well.
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
I used to live in Illinois. They don't register guns there (Chicago and a few other towns do, but the state does not.), but they do register owners. To buy a gun in Illinois, you have to get a Firearm Owner's ID card. I thought that was bad enough, until I moved here. Here in Michigan, if you don't have a CPL, you have to take a test and pass a background check to buy a handgun.
So, if I can't pass some stupid, asinine test, I can't buy a handgun?? That alone is a violation of my rights.
Frankly, I say screw MI Pistols, and the registration system, that was started as a way of racism. Get rid of it all.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
pretty much. like i said, just don't even read his posts, it makes visits here much more enjoyable
Yance
Regular Member
I know I'm late to the party...but something I haven't seen anyone mention about "Michigan pistols" and removing the purchase permit...wouldn't the definition of a pistol still apply to a Michigan pistol?
Under MCL 600.2951 which will be going into effect Jan. 2013
600.2951.amended “Approved signaling device” and “pistol” defined; use of approved signaling device; strict liability for damages; exception.
Sec. 2951.
(1)(b) "Pistol" means a firearm, loaded or unloaded, 26 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.
So by the definition in the new law a Michigan pistol will remain a pistol if it is 26 inches or less, regardless of registration since its how a pistol is defined in the law, not by its registration, that makes it a pistol. Am I missing something?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bq...age=getObject&objectName=mcl-600-2951-amended
Under MCL 600.2951 which will be going into effect Jan. 2013
600.2951.amended “Approved signaling device” and “pistol” defined; use of approved signaling device; strict liability for damages; exception.
Sec. 2951.
(1)(b) "Pistol" means a firearm, loaded or unloaded, 26 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.
So by the definition in the new law a Michigan pistol will remain a pistol if it is 26 inches or less, regardless of registration since its how a pistol is defined in the law, not by its registration, that makes it a pistol. Am I missing something?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bq...age=getObject&objectName=mcl-600-2951-amended
Last edited: