Law to allow Legal guns in all parking lots!

[cmdr_iceman71]

i would prefer constitutional carry that applies to private and public property so that no one is deprived of their rights ANYWHERE!

I would have to strongly disagree regarding trampling upon the private property rights of others, however I agree with you on the public property aspect. I view private property rights as sacrosanct as our Second Amendment right and neither are powerful enough to trump the other. As I understand the concepts of unfettered liberty they extend all the way up to the point until they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Thus, if an anti-gun person doesn’t want you exercising your 2nd Amendment right on their property then that is their right and you at that point can choose to forgo exercising your right to keep and bear arms in order to gain access to said property or not enter the property and retain your right to arms. That way both parties get to choose and no one’s rights are infringed upon.

This is one of the fundamental differences between people who are hardcore concealed carriers vs. open carriers. The CCer’s basically feels like their right to self-defense anywhere at anytime trumps the private property rights of others. In this fashion, the OCer is not a hypocrite when it comes to respecting the rights of others, he gives every property owner the opportunity to exercise their right in deciding who and what enters their premises. Moreover, the OCer is more likely to ferret out the anti-gun businesses among us as opposed to the CCer.

 

[Yance]

I think you are looking at it from a private property homeowner perspective whereas I believe the poster is speaking of businesses that are privately owned but open to the public. I agree that I should be able to regulate who and if someone brings a firearm onto my property where my home is located. However, if it is a business that is privately owned but open to the public I feel that because they invite the public as a whole onto their property to do business I should be able to carry my firearms to protect myself from the public as a whole if necessary. I dont feel places like stores, gas stations, hotels and such should have the right to tell me if I can carry or not because they are open to public business and I would be paying them for their goods or services.

 

[stainless1911]

^ I agree, and would add to that, I want the ability to sue any business that has barred me from exercising my rights, if that prohibition has led to an injury to myself or those around me.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

I would have to strongly disagree regarding trampling upon the private property rights of others, however I agree with you on the public property aspect. I view private property rights as sacrosanct as our Second Amendment right and neither are powerful enough to trump the other. As I understand the concepts of unfettered liberty they extend all the way up to the point until they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Thus, if an anti-gun person doesn’t want you exercising your 2nd Amendment right on their property then that is their right and you at that point can choose to forgo exercising your right to keep and bear arms in order to gain access to said property or not enter the property and retain your right to arms. That way both parties get to choose and no one’s rights are infringed upon.

This is one of the fundamental differences between people who are hardcore concealed carriers vs. open carriers. The CCer’s basically feels like their right to self-defense anywhere at anytime trumps the private property rights of others. In this fashion, the OCer is not a hypocrite when it comes to respecting the rights of others, he gives every property owner the opportunity to exercise their right in deciding who and what enters their premises. Moreover, the OCer is more likely to ferret out the anti-gun businesses among us as opposed to the CCer.

private businesses open to the public can no more turn you away for carrying a firearm than they can turn you away for race, religion, sex
homesteads are a different matter as they are not "open to the public"

 

[stainless1911]

They do it anyhow.

 

[Yance]

The only difference is we cant claim discrimination...I dont think it would hold up too well in court.

And I agree with you stainless if I should be injured because your policy says I cant carry my firearm then I should be able to sue you. Business owners cannot guaranteee your safety, not even with armed guards or police, therefore I should be able to secure my own safety by carrying a firearm anywhere that is open to public business.

 

[rvd4now]

The only difference is we cant claim discrimination...I dont think it would hold up too well in court.

And I agree with you stainless if I should be injured because your policy says I cant carry my firearm then I should be able to sue you. Business owners cannot guaranteee your safety, not even with armed guards or police, therefore I should be able to secure my own safety by carrying a firearm anywhere that is open to public business.

wow thats food for thought.. i should be able to sue...

 

[Venator]

I would have to strongly disagree regarding trampling upon the private property rights of others, however I agree with you on the public property aspect. I view private property rights as sacrosanct as our Second Amendment right and neither are powerful enough to trump the other. As I understand the concepts of unfettered liberty they extend all the way up to the point until they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Thus, if an anti-gun person doesn’t want you exercising your 2nd Amendment right on their property then that is their right and you at that point can choose to forgo exercising your right to keep and bear arms in order to gain access to said property or not enter the property and retain your right to arms. That way both parties get to choose and no one’s rights are infringed upon.

This is one of the fundamental differences between people who are hardcore concealed carriers vs. open carriers. The CCer’s basically feels like their right to self-defense anywhere at anytime trumps the private property rights of others. In this fashion, the OCer is not a hypocrite when it comes to respecting the rights of others, he gives every property owner the opportunity to exercise their right in deciding who and what enters their premises. Moreover, the OCer is more likely to ferret out the anti-gun businesses among us as opposed to the CCer.

Including banning black people, fat people, handicapped people, etc.?

 

[Yance]

people that wear hats, people who support democrats, people who drive cars over $50,000, people who like the color forest green...if you start allowing people to ban something like firearm possession where do you draw the line?

 

[stainless1911]

You don't, which is one reason that it happens. It opens the floodgates.

 

[Evil Creamsicle]

people that wear hats, people who support democrats, people who drive cars over $50,000, people who like the color forest green...if you start allowing people to ban something like firearm possession where do you draw the line?

On private property, realistically, you don't even need to have a reason.

 

[xmanhockey7]

well its coming.

Probably at some point but we don't know when.

 

[DrTodd]

private businesses open to the public can no more turn you away for carrying a firearm than they can turn you away for race, religion, sex
homesteads are a different matter as they are not "open to the public"

Courts tend to view protected categories as things you, as an individual can't change, some being more arguable than others. However, I can choose to not carry.
Back to the legislation, did anyone notice that the law says that a CPL holder can only store it as listed here?

 

[DrTodd]

Here is my concern:

(9) THIS SECTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A PERSON WHO HOLDS A
LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL UNDER SECTION 5B OR WHO IS
EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE TO POSSESS A CONCEALED PISTOL IN A CONCEALED
MANNER OTHER THAN AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2011-HIB-5064.htm

 

[Paul C]

I contacted my State Representative, below is his response:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office and urge my support for House Bill 5064.

I believe that this type of legislation is long overdue and while I generally have concerns about the State intervening in the employer/employee relationship, I think the legislation strikes the right balance in first and foremost protecting the second amendment rights of all Michigan residents. I'd like to see this bill moved through the legislative process in a timely manner and while I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will urge the chairman to begin the public hearing process as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Representative Ken Goike
33rd District

 

[fozzy71]

Here is my concern:

(9) THIS SECTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A PERSON WHO HOLDS A
LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL UNDER SECTION 5B OR WHO IS
EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE TO POSSESS A CONCEALED PISTOL IN A CONCEALED
MANNER OTHER THAN AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2011-HIB-5064.htm

This scares me, considering I haven't read the rest of the bill yet. Can someone that is better at this stuff than myself please disect it and post cliff notes of possible issues?

 

[PDinDetroit]

This scares me, considering I haven't read the rest of the bill yet. Can someone that is better at this stuff than myself please disect it and post cliff notes of possible issues?

See post #16 in this thread.

 

[StingMP9]

If the legislative wording gets a bit better I imagine it removes the threat of termination from an employer should someone other than yourself learn that you have a firearm in your vehicle. I just started a new job and that's the first crap I noticed in the employee manual. I almost tried to argue it but barely brought it up. HR said that they could terminate an employee for having a hunting rifle in the trunk that the employee plans to use after leaving the premises. ITS CRAP!

We are just a few minutes away from GLX, lots of people shop at Bass Pro for firearms, right?

 

[kubel]

As much as I love guns and the right to carry them, I also like private property rights. I'm unable to support this law.

 

[budlight]

I think the main concept of this legislation is for the purpose of allowing employees the right to keep a firearm in their personal vehicle. Most employers have a policy prohibiting employees from bringing a firearm onto their premises even in a locked vehicle. Also note several other states have a similar statute without any mishaps.

Think about it, a lot of people either drive through a bad neighbor hood going to or from work. Or in some cases they are going to an area after work that is not the best of neighborhoods. Bottom line this bill was made to allow the lawful possession of a firearm in a car that is parked in the parking lot. It doesn’t trample on a private employers rights to ban firearms anywhere else. No where does is say you can carry on the job.