Son of SB 59 Introduced

[Raggs]

In fairness what happened to SB59 was Newtown Ct. I agree with Bronson, shooting for the stars and settling for the moon seems a prudent way to get the moon. However as is I can get behind this Bill. I am however concerned , rightfully I believe, that this is not the Bill that would eventually make it to the Governors desk.

The problem with this is it's linear thinking. Once you bring in related yet separate issues, things change. Look at SB 59. SB 59 started with only good, then more was added to it. Later, a lot of bad (banning OC in PFZs) was added to it on top of scaling back some of the good.

Think of it like this. You're in Lansing and would like to get to Mackinac. Somewhere along the line you end up in Flint. Yes according to one measure (moving north) you have made progress, but according to other measures (you're in FLINT!) you are worse off.

Sometimes if a tree grows too fast it falls over. I believe this is what happened to SB 59.

 

[TheQ]

While I understand that compromises will need to be made I don't understand why they are written into the bill right off the bat. What is the reasoning for not presenting the exact bill we want and negotiate down from there. What's the saying? "Shoot for the stars and settle for the moon." Why not present a bill that is just a straight repeal of all pistol free zones and then concede a few individual zones in negotiations?

Bronson

Because we had a bill like that last session, SB 58. It was never heard. We're trying get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard.

 

[DetroitBiker]

Just saw this artical on the facebook Hartland Patch page,looks like a House bill introduced to let Schools Opt in.
have you heard anything about this Phil?

http://hartland.patch.com/articles/cpl-license

HB4098 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k5...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2013-HB-4098

 

[scot623]

While I understand that compromises will need to be made I don't understand why they are written into the bill right off the bat. Why not present a bill that is just a straight repeal of all pistol free zones and then concede a few individual zones in negotiations?

Bronson

Because the negotiations were going on for months behind the scenes prior to the bill being presented.

 

[TheQ]

See SB 213

 

[Bronson]

Because we had a bill like that last session, SB 58. It was never heard. We're trying get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard.

Ok, that's a fair answer.

Bronson

 

[Yooper]

I don't see anything in the bill to be against. As far as I can see, it's all steps forward, and none backwards.

I'm sure hell (the biblical place, not the MI town) will freeze over before we see registration repeal, but when that happens I will jump for joy...if I can still jump at that point.

 

[Bronson]

May I ask what is the rationale for allowing schools, churches, and hospitals to opt in vs. making them opt out?

Bronson

 

[quarter horseman]

Unless it gives us Constitutional Carry with no PFZs and eliminates every other oppressive gun law in the state I'm against it. All or nothing I say.

Yeah, what he said. I am sick of nudging, sick of tip toeing around what we really want.

 

[Yooper]

May I ask what is the rationale for allowing schools, churches, and hospitals to opt in vs. making them opt out?

Bronson

i think it has to deal with preemption, and setting a precedent. If CCW in schools is legal in state law, but allowed to 'opt-out', that puts a ding in the preemption law, because the school districts could then pass a rule/law/whatever you wanna call it, that is more strict than state law. Then, if they can do it, why can't everyone else...
However, if it isn't legal by state law, unless the school allows it, we don't have entities making rules/laws that are stricter than state law, but gives those places the option to allow CCW if they choose to do so.

 

[TheQ]

i think it has to deal with preemption, and setting a precedent. If CCW in schools is legal in state law, but allowed to 'opt-out', that puts a ding in the preemption law, because the school districts could then pass a rule/law/whatever you wanna call it, that is more strict than state law. Then, if they can do it, why can't everyone else...
However, if it isn't legal by state law, unless the school allows it, we don't have entities making rules/laws that are stricter than state law, but gives those places the option to allow CCW if they choose to do so.

Pretty much

 

[DanM]

SB 213 looks ok so far, but I do have a question at this point as I'm reading it.

It is a well-known principle of negotiation that you do not come to the table with your concessions already given to your opponents. You hold off on all concessions, and use them as bargaining chips with your opponents.

Why, then, does SB 213 have written into it from the outset the following concessions?

--Members of your family or household are excluded as personal references for your CPL application.
--The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.

I'm not saying the above concessions can't be given, but why were they not held back as bargaining chips?
Every competent negotiator knows that your initial offer has everything you want which advances your position from the status quo and nothing that sets your position back from the status quo or that your opponents want. The concessions come after negotiating begins.

Aside from that question so far, the bill is looking ok. Thanks MOC and Sen. Green.

 

[Venator]

SB 213 looks ok so far, but I do have a question at this point as I'm reading it.

It is a well-known principle of negotiation that you do not come to the table with your concessions already given to your opponents. You hold off on all concessions, and use them as bargaining chips with your opponents.

Why, then, does SB 213 have written into it from the outset the following concessions?

--Members of your family or household are excluded as personal references for your CPL application.
--The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.

I'm not saying the above concessions can't be given, but why were they not held back as bargaining chips?
Every competent negotiator knows that your initial offer has everything you want which advances your position from the status quo and nothing that sets your position back from the status quo or that your opponents want. The concessions come after negotiating begins.

Aside from that question so far, the bill is looking ok. Thanks MOC and Sen. Green.

All good questions for this guy. Here is his contact.
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/Green.asp?District=31

 

[Raggs]

Or Maybe The president of MOC could ask and find out for DanM

All good questions for this guy. Here is his contact.
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/Green.asp?District=31

 

[scot623]

Or Maybe The president of MOC could ask and find out for DanM

Why go through a middle man when you can get your questions answered directly from the source?

 

[scot623]

All good questions for this guy. Here is his contact.
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/Green.asp?District=31

When you do contact him DanM, you may not want to imply he is not a "competent negotiator" lol. Your email may get deleted instead of answered.

 

[Raggs]

True, that is a much more trustworthy way

Why go through a middle man when you can get your questions answered directly from the source?

 

[DanM]

All good questions for this guy. Here is his contact.
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/Green.asp?District=31

Why go through a middle man when you can get your questions answered directly from the source?

Sent to Sen. Green well before I posted. I don't know when there will be a reply. MOC partnered with Sen. Green, so MOC may logically have some feedback:

Michigan Open Carry, Inc. is proud to partner with Senator Green (Bill sponsor) and his office. We will be behind him, giving him the needed grass roots support.

MOC partnered with Green. Either Green totally cut MOC out of the final drafting of this bill at the end, ending the partnership, or MOC was a partner to the end and may have some feedback on that added concession language. Brian and Rob, your responses could have been confirming either one of those, or telling me you don't personally know and maybe another person in MOC, as well as Green, might know. Brian and Rob, you are my friends and I know you well enough to know that your responses to me to just basically "take it up with Sen. Green" are weirdly short and curt, given that MOC itself announced they are partnering with Green.

C'mon, guys. Your shortness and curtness is coming off as weirdly defensive when this question is asked about concessions in the bill. Does this have anything to do with my being a vocal critic of MOC on a specific point with the last SB 59? If so, let's move on, my friends. And I use "friends" in the sincerest sense. I've been in the trenches many times with you, and you are my friends.

When you do contact him DanM, you may not want to imply he is not a "competent negotiator" lol. Your email may get deleted instead of answered.

That's not a real issue. The question I have about concession language added before start of negotiations is still valid. MOC partnered with Green. "Partner" implies knowledge and discussion of deleted and added language. Does MOC have any feedback? This isn't necessarily a question for you, Rob, but for those MOC guys involved in the partnership with Green on this. Sen. Green may have feedback, but also MOC may have feedback as well.

Like I said, the bill looks OK. I'm just curious about why concessions were made before negotiations even start.

 

[TheQ]

Or Maybe The president of MOC could ask and find out for DanM

Sorry to say, the President of MOC is a very very busy man. He can't do everything for you -- he's just one guy . Maybe you should ask yourself?

 

[TheQ]

Because we had a bill like that last session, SB 58. It was never heard. We're trying get a bill that has a remote possibility if being heard.

SB 213 looks ok so far, but I do have a question at this point as I'm reading it.
Why, then, does SB 213 have written into it from the outset the following concessions?

--The time between CPL training and application can't be more than 5 years.

As to the first question, see the quote above, particularly the bold part.

As to the second question, some counties have a "policy" of saying your training is no good after 1 year. There was a desire to make a clear ruling on this matter in statute in a reasonable timeframe, as to preempt any question on the topic in the future.

That's all I have to say...really, it is.

I'm just a middle man. Take your thoughts to the man. (517) 373-1777 I'll give you one valuable hint: ask for Ryan.

Okay...one more thing. I saw a draft of this bill 2-3 weeks before it was introduced. I read it...all of it. There were no "surprises" for me in the introduced bill.