What's the latest news on HB 5225?

[stainless1911]

Thanks PD, I have seen similar maps, just never one of Michigan.

 

[detroit_fan]

PFZ is our current priority and we tend to keep our powder dry for that issue.

As for this bill, we had some concerns already laid out in this thread. If you feel our lack of lobbying for this bill has hurt it and that will prevent you from "supporting" us in the future. I'm sorry.

Perhaps you'd consider joining our organization and becoming involved with our leadership if you'd like more input into what we do...?

PFZ repeal is great, but it doesn't mean you can't support other things too.

If by concerns you mean the GFSZ, it seems to me that all the MI citizens that are dealing with PP and registration BS from the anti-2A PD's are a much bigger problem than a law that has never been used to charge someone with a standalone crime. One problem exists now, one is just a possibility.

I've had my reasons for not becoming a paying member of MOC, the same reason I'm not a paying NRA member anymore, I think my money is better spend being donated to lawsuits and other issues that come up. I donated this years NRA money to the CADL lawsuit. I will admit I was considering joining MOC at some point, but now knowing that MOC does not support PP and registration repeal would definitely prevent me from ever doing so. I'm not going to lie, my mind is pretty blown finding out this is MOC's position on these issues, I would have never guessed.

 

[Yooper]

IF Michigan currently did NOT have PTP/Registration, but a bill was going through the legislature to enact it, would anyone here support it?
Would anyone support a bill to register shotguns/rifles so those who don't own handguns can openly carry them in the GFSZ?

I would be opposed to the above scenarios, which makes me opposed to keeping the current PTP/Registration scheme

 

[stainless1911]

If it got rid of the GFSZ, I would reluctantly support it.

 

[DrTodd]

IF Michigan currently did NOT have PTP/Registration, but a bill was going through the legislature to enact it, would anyone here support it?
Would anyone support a bill to register shotguns/rifles so those who don't own handguns can openly carry them in the GFSZ?

I would be opposed to the above scenarios, which makes me opposed to keeping the current PTP/Registration scheme

I do understand your point and feel it is valid. And, I personally agree with you to a point. The salient part of this discussion is that we are dealing with a a federal law that impacts what we do at the state level. I think that if the benefit concerned state law, meaning that the gfsza was a state law, the support would have been there for this bill because we could envision that law being tossed at some point in time. I also feel that if the legislature would have included a voluntary system of licensure, most here would have heartily supported this bill. But, as it is written, within the confines of present reality, the gain in one area would have been a loss in another. Yes, registration is terrible, but so is the federal gfsza.
But, this exemplifies to me, once again that the current legislature is no friend of gun owners... the best they have been able to do is pass legislation that makes minor changes to already existing law. If they truly were supportive, there would have been a cognizance of the problems and these issues would have been dealt with. Let's face it, they offer legislation up that in it's original form sounds great, but by the time it actually hits a committee it has become increasingly less so. I find it is interesting that many here thought with a Republican governor and a Republican majority in the legislature, we would have seen something at this point. Anyone who believes that a member of either party has the interest of gun owners in mind only needs to look at the current session and what it has produced to know that Republicans in this state are no friend of ours. In fact, I would argue that their legislative agenda has done more harm to organizations such as MOC by causing dissent over issues such as this than any group of blatant antis ever could devised. I won't go so far as to say that this sort of breaking ranks was planned, but I honestly do wonder.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Royal Oak City Ordinances: Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance

Don't think for a second that the Federal Gun-Free School Zone is the only one in play in Michigan:

A. Short title. This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Gun-Free School Zone Ordinance."

B. Possession of firearms in school zones.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(2) Subsection B(1) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm if any of the following apply:

(a) The firearm is possessed on private property not part of school grounds.

(b) The individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State of Michigan.

(c) The firearm is not loaded and in a locked container, or in a locked firearms rack which is on a motor vehicle.

(d) The firearm is in the possession of an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual.

(e) The firearm is in the possession of a law enforcement officer.

C. Violations and penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not exceeding $500 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 90 days, or be both so fined and imprisoned, in the discretion of the court.

D. Signs to be posted. The City is authorized to post signs around school zones giving warning of prohibition of the possession of firearms in a school zone.

http://ecode360.com/8260270

NOTE: The City of Royal Oak has not posted signs AFAIK.

 

[stainless1911]

Wouldnt the LTP be argued against the ordinance as well? This sounds like it might be overstepping 1102 as well.

 

[TheQ]

I do understand your point and feel it is valid. And, I personally agree with you to a point. The salient part of this discussion is that we are dealing with a a federal law that impacts what we do at the state level. I think that if the benefit concerned state law, meaning that the gfsza was a state law, the support would have been there for this bill because we could envision that law being tossed at some point in time. I also feel that if the legislature would have included a voluntary system of licensure, most here would have heartily supported this bill. But, as it is written, within the confines of present reality, the gain in one area would have been a loss in another. Yes, registration is terrible, but so is the federal gfsza.

This summarizes MOC's leadership's position. It is a win/loss.

I'm sorry if some value the elimination of purchase permits more than the GFSZ exemption. That doesn't get rid of the fact the bill is win/lose.

People are free to join or not join MOC. I won't beg anyone and I definitely won't swing my board vote based on one person (esp. one who might/was thinking about becoming a member -- but isn't a member).

To my detractor: have you called your rep? Have you lobbied around Lansing for this bill? What have you done for this bill other than complain MOC won't "support" it? Talk is cheap, show me your action. Would it surprise you to know that I spent over two hours working with both the NRA and the bill's sponsor to make the language such that Michigan Open Carry would support it? Know what I was told? "We don't care about open carriers"

Would it surprise you to know I have just as many people upset that I won't oppose it? It's lonely at the top. Why don't you join me? On second thought, keep your $20, we don't want it!

"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." -King Henry VI

 

[detroit_fan]

This summarizes MOC's leadership's position. It is a win/loss.

I'm sorry if some value the elimination of purchase permits more than the GFSZ exemption. That doesn't get rid of the fact the bill is win/lose.

People are free to join or not join MOC. I won't beg anyone and I definitely won't swing my board vote based on one person (esp. one who might/was thinking about becoming a member -- but isn't a member).

To my detractor: have you called your rep? Have you lobbied around Lansing for this bill? What have you done for this bill other than complain MOC won't "support" it?

Would it surprise you to know I have just as many people upset that I won't oppose it? It's lonely at the top. Why don't you join me?

"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." -King Henry VI

I'm not not asking you to "swing" your vote, and I'm certainly not asking you to beg me, that is just absurd. I'm simply stating my opposition to your official stance as pro-2A gun rights group, the same as I do to the NRA and other organizations when they take stances I disagree with. It's not just the PP, it's the registration too. I thought most of us were in agreement that registration was the first step in confiscation, as evidenced in many other societies. What good is a GFSZ pass if we have no weapons to carry? What good is being able to carry in the GFSZ if you can't get a PP because your local PD does them 3 hours a week and you can't get off work?

You can also just call me out, you don't have to say "esp. one who might/was thinking about becoming a member -- but isn't a member". I would not state my feelings publicly if I wasn't prepared to back them up and have people comment against them, that is what a forum is for.

Have I called my rep? Yep, sure have. I've told you before that I email back and forth with Sen Richardville and have called him. I also told you that if you needed any help at all with SB59 I would do everything I could to get Sen Richardville on board. I've also contacted my State rep Dale Zorn concerning pretty much every 2A bill that has been mentioned since he took office. So just because I'm not a MOC member does not mean i sit on the sidelines and just complain, I do my part too. Could I do more, yes, I'm sure we all could, but I try to do what I can with the time I have available.

Would it surprise me that people want you to oppose it? No, because I know there are many in the 2A community that only care how a law affects them, instead of looking at the greater good it can do for the entire population.

I don't care to join you, I don't envy the position you are in. You have to deal with a lot of BS that I have no desire to deal with, but I do feel like sometimes when someone disagrees with MOC you seem to take it a little personally. I appreciate all the hard work you do( I think most of us on here do), and I think MOC has done lots of great things, that's why I was so disappointed to hear that they want to keep PP and registration. When I talk to people and we discuss 2A rights I always make it a point to make sure I bring up MOC, because I considered them to be one of the best 2A groups we have. If paying members are the only ones that are allowed to give input and make their feelings known on legislation and other incidents I understand. I'll try to steer clear of it in the future.

 

[detroit_fan]

On second thought, keep your $20, we don't want it!

Really? We have to take it there?

 

[NHCGRPR45]

Am I really reading that some are advocating to keep a gun control law on the books?!?!?! Get rid of the PTP/Registration scheme.

This is similar to the bill that changed what a pistol is in this state. I was 100% against the change in that law, but was shouted down because of in fighting and the "majority" wanted change. It eliminated the ability to have a full sized "rifle" ready to go in ones car. Reducing the ability to defend ones self and others. This current bill is also garbage, it opens up a garbage can of hot zones that people who can't, won't or don't want a CPL to literally walk a minefield of danger zones. This is unacceptable IMO. It is a bad bill, with little to no advantage, also the gun is still registered, it is in the "bound" copy of the FFL you did the transfer at so its still registered! So how this "helps" gun owners is not enough. It eliminates 1 step in the registration process, the purchase permit helps more than it hurts right now. Leave it alone, and let it protect those that I already mentioned until the protection is no longer neeeded.

Why not get a CPL? If one is to give their name to the government, I'd rather it be once, and let them guess as to how many handguns I have, rather than know exactly how many I have, when I got them, etc.
Besides, just because one has a CPL doesn't mean they even own a gun. They might have it for a taser, or simply to borrow a friends gun on occasion.

They still know all that information is still in the bound copy that FFLs have. And if its a private sale your talking about the trail always follows you. shaun sold the gun to steve then to frank then to mark then to......You get the picture finding it just takes longer.

 

[TheQ]

Yeah I was hoping to hear from Q on this.

You're the one who asked me to join this thread.

You asked for the organizations leaderships thoughts. I gave them to you and I even explained the reason behind them to you. You didn't like them so you began to berate the organization. How would you like me to react?

 

[stainless1911]

I dont like registration either.The way the laws work, I could borrow my friends 30-06 to OC, but I cannot borrow the XD that I gave him.

Nevermind that I was the one who bought the gun new, I pretty much learned to shoot with it, I OCed with it for years, I learned to reload on that gun, ands so on and so forth.

I could OC someones Barret 50BMG, but they couldnt loan me their P-22. You could use the .22 for the primer for the .50.

 

[detroit_fan]

You're the one who asked me to join this thread.

Yes I was. I was hoping to see what what going on with the bill, I just don't understand why you felt the need to get personal about it. If you look at my post towards you I praised your (and MOC's) efforts and said I appreciated all the work you do. Why do you feel the need to reply telling me you wouldn't even want my money? This is exactly what i meant when I said you take things too personally when discussing MOC. I'm not against you Q, I am just in complete disagreement with MOC's stance on PP and registration. I already stated that if MOC doesn't want the input of non-paying members I would do my best to not make statements towards you or MOC on legislation and other issues.

 

[stainless1911]

If not for GFSZ, I HIGHLY doubt MOC would be taking this position.

 

[detroit_fan]

You asked for the organizations leaderships thoughts. I gave them to you and I even explained the reason behind them to you. You didn't like them so you began to berate the organization. How would you like me to react?

I really am sorry if you feel I berated MOC . I was simply trying to express my amazement at teh position they were taking on PP and registration, it caught me very off guard. Obviously you are free to react as you wish

ETA- I don't think this was berating MOC-

I appreciate all the hard work you do( I think most of us on here do), and I think MOC has done lots of great things, that's why I was so disappointed to hear that they want to keep PP and registration.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Wouldnt the LTP be argued against the ordinance as well? This sounds like it might be overstepping 1102 as well.

AFAIK, the current PPP/LTP provided by MCL 28.422 covers the "Licensed by the State" exemption. Get rid of that, lose the exemption.

The City of Royal Oak is free to enact that ordinance due to the existence of the Federal Gun Free School Zone.

Regulation of pistols or other firearms.

Sec. 2.

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

 

[stainless1911]

Thank you for the correction PD.

 

[scot623]

I think MOC has done lots of great things, that's why I was so disappointed to hear that they want to keep PP and registration.

See, that is where you are wrong. MOC does not want to keep PP and registration. We want it gone as much as you. We just don't want to open up a large segment of citizens who do not have or want a CPL to a federal gun charge. That's why Phil attempted to get language added to clear up that issue. When we were ignored, we chose to stand neutral and not lobby for or against the bill. There really wasn't any other position for us to take. We are MOC, open carry means more to us than most and not all our members(or non members) have CPL's.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

See, that is where you are wrong. MOC does not want to keep PP and registration. We want it gone as much as you. We just don't want to open up a large segment of citizens who do not have or want a CPL to a federal gun charge. That's why Phil attempted to get language added to clear up that issue. When we were ignored, we chose to stand neutral and not lobby for or against the bill. There really wasn't any other position for us to take. We are MOC, open carry means more to us than most and not all our members(or non members) have CPL's.

Agreed.