detroit_fan
Regular Member
fair enough, so under what circumstances would MOC support PP repeal? what language would have to be added? what does registration have to do with OC? why can't MOC fully support registration repeal at this time?
-
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.
What's the latest news on HB 5225?
- Thread starter detroit_fan
- Start date
fair enough, so under what circumstances would MOC support PP repeal? what language would have to be added? what does registration have to do with OC? why can't MOC fully support registration repeal at this time?
stainless1911
Banned
The gun has to be registered to you to OC it.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
if registration is eliminated, and PP is kept, how would that affect OC? they can't make carrying a registered gun a requirement if there is no registration system, correct?
stainless1911
Banned
I was thinking about 28.422
If you still had a PP, then you could
OC. getting rid of just the registration by itself would be ok. If the
PP/LTP was kept, the GFSZ (might) remain covered as it is now. As of
yet, we dont have an answer to that question.
28.422 License to purchase,
carry, possess, or transport pistol; .......Sec. 2.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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.
If you still had a PP, then you could
OC. getting rid of just the registration by itself would be ok. If the
PP/LTP was kept, the GFSZ (might) remain covered as it is now. As of
yet, we dont have an answer to that question.
28.422 License to purchase,
carry, possess, or transport pistol; .......Sec. 2.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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.
TheQ
Regular Member
See post 45 and 48.
scot623
Regular Member
If Michigan stops issuing a LICENSE to purchase/carry/possess (28.422), those who do not have a CPL open carrying within 1000 ft of a school would be committing a Federal crime. Though there have not been reported cases of this charge being filed alone, we do not find comfort in that enough to advocate people knowingly violate Federal law. Your scenario of keeping PP but ending registration is not on the table...in fact it is what Phil tried to do but was shot down.
The Gun Free School Zones Act states:[6]
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is LICENSED to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
28.422 License to purchase,
carry, possess, or transport pistol; .......Sec. 2.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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 act
Last edited:
TheQ
Regular Member
Political feasibility comes into okay if you consider opposing this bill. I think a pro-gun group that opposes a bill like this ones risks ridicule within the 2A community (see CLSD and SB 59) and will damage existing positive relationships within the legislature -- we'd also lose credibility with other pro-gun groups. I have the future influence of the organization to weigh when making such decisions (strategic versus tactical).
Plus, who amongst us doesn't want to get rid of registration
Because of the Federal GFSZ, we can't support it.
Because of the reasons above, we can't oppose it.
The only thing left is to stay neutral.
Plus, who amongst us doesn't want to get rid of registration
Because of the Federal GFSZ, we can't support it.
Because of the reasons above, we can't oppose it.
The only thing left is to stay neutral.
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
I would say one thing that ridicules a gun group is the complete absence and promotion for a Constitution Carry Rally which was supported by the professional Michigan gun groups. Those professional groups know what eating their own means and come together for the greater goal. Those groups leaders know when to get past the past and move forward.
stainless1911
Banned
I just dont think that Con Carry will go anywhere in Michigan. Even though I am a strong supporter of the idea. The people running the show are inept. Until we elect our own, it won't happen. If you want Con Carry, we will have to take, and occupy Lansing.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
so MOC would never support PP repeal without first having the GFSZ repealed?
I guess I just don't understand how every other state has no problem with this, but we are so afraid of it we are willing to keep our ridiculous PP system.There are 12 "gold star" OC states and to my knowledge none of them have PP.
TheQ
Regular Member
I don't think anything more will come of this discussion. You have what we are doing (neutral) and you have our reasons for doing it.
With that, I withdraw.
With that, I withdraw.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
that's fine, i was hoping to get a straight answer on whether or not you would ever support PP repeal without GFSZ repeal first, but oh well. i always liked you and considered you one of the good guys until your posts last night telling me you wouldn't even want my money if i offered it, simply because i disagreed with your position. i still think you took it too personal and resorted to comments that were not necessary. i wish you and MOC nothing but the best.
TheQ
Regular Member
From post 43 and 48.
"I also feel that if the legislature would have included a voluntary system of licensure, most here would have heartily supported this bill."
"I also feel that if the legislature would have included a voluntary system of licensure, most here would have heartily supported this bill."
Last edited:
Shadow Bear
Michigan Moderator
I trust our leadership, who are far closer to the details, to spend our 'political capital' wisely. This was a battle obviously not worth fighting, neither supporting or opposing. Damned with faint praise? Methinks not.
Yance
Regular Member
Regarding Consitutional Carry...If we (as gun owners) cant get behind repealing the PP and registration how can we even ask and rally to be a constitutional carry state? Once we become constitutional carry the CPL and PP go out the window. I guess if we want to know how its really handled leadership from orgs of those states that allow consitutional carry should be contacted. Consitutional carry would open someone up in the worst way to the GFSZ, so if legislature to become a constitutional carry state came about, would those of you opposing this oppose that as well?
Last edited:
WilDChilD
Regular Member
Hmmmm......
stainless1911
Banned
Good call Yance.
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
Constitutional carry isn't the magic bullet some think it is, in the states that have it there are a great many places off limits to people with firearms. Our state with the current system is just plain better than they are. We are virtually unlimited in where we can have a firearm, either open or concealed. All the places we can't carry can be counted on 1 hand with fingers to spare. We get so caught up on an idea that no one thinks about what might happen if we actually get what you want. Simply not having to get a cpl to carry a gun isn't worth what we may have to lose to get that kind of system. ConCarry is like a dog chasing a car he wouldn't be able to do anything once he caught it, if he catches it.
Same thing with this bill, it hurts more people than it helps, we get caught up on one idea, no "registration" and forget what could happen to people if that happens.
Same thing with this bill, it hurts more people than it helps, we get caught up on one idea, no "registration" and forget what could happen to people if that happens.
stainless1911
Banned
Unless you don't qualify to use your rights, then it starts looking pretty good.
detroit_fan
Regular Member
is it better though? how about the people that have to deal with PD's that make it very hard to get a PP. how about the people that can't afford a cpl class and the fee? how about the people that can't get off work to get to their PD that only issues PP for 3 hours a week, then requires you to take another day off work to come back days later to pick it up? i bet those people would not say our system is better than constitutional carry.