Author Topic: Letting CPL Expire (Read 15953 times)

CrossPistols · « **on:** February 13, 2011, 09:48:30 PM »

By applying for a CPL you voluntarily forfeit your rights by saying I will obey the regulations set forth in a law concerning Conceal carry. By signing you are converting your right into a privilege allowing the Govt. to regulate. There for when my CPL expires I will not be renewing it, thus ending the states physical and legal ability to regulate my Carry of Arms. A police officer is sworn by oath or affirmation along with all Judges, and Congressman to uphold the Constitution (The supreme Law of the Land...(U.S. Constitution Article 6) to up hold the Laws thereof; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No law shall conflict with rights. Now what say you?

Advanced Security · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:00:40 PM »

Quote from: CrossPistols on February 13, 2011, 09:48:30 PM

By applying for a CPL you voluntarily forfeit your rights by saying I will obey the regulations set forth in a law concerning Conceal carry. By signing you are converting your right into a privilege allowing the Govt. to regulate. There for when my CPL expires I will not be renewing it, thus ending the states physical and legal ability to regulate my Carry of Arms. A police officer is sworn by oath or affirmation along with all Judges, and Congressman to uphold the Constitution (The supreme Law of the Land...(U.S. Constitution Article 6) to up hold the Laws thereof; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No law shall conflict with rights. Now what say you?

BTAvery · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:08:43 PM »

Only reason I plan on getting a cpl beause vehicle carry is a pain in the ass.

JSteinmetz · « **Reply #3 on:** February 14, 2011, 08:25:35 AM »

While I do understand the thoughts behind this, I would still rather have my CPL.

The laws are set in place by representatives elected by the people. Imagine if more people had their CPL. Those CPL holders would be the ones voting for representatives. If 50% of all residents had their CPL, there would be a good chance that the elected person would have theirs as well. I do not see basically boycotting CPLs due to the restrictions as being a good move. Especially with the new House Bills being presented currently.

I think that we need to have more and more of us to help point out the current problems so something can be done about it.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #4 on:** February 14, 2011, 07:25:27 PM »

Quote from: JSteinmetz on February 14, 2011, 08:25:35 AM

While I do understand the thoughts behind this, I would still rather have my CPL.

The laws are set in place by representatives elected by the people (Yes, but those laws cannot negate a right-Article 6 U.S. Constitution). Imagine if more people had their CPL. Those CPL holders would be the ones voting for representatives. If 50% of all residents had their CPL, there would be a good chance that the elected person would have theirs as well. I do not see basically boycotting CPLs due to the restrictions as being a good move (I'm not Boycotting or asking anyone to do this either) . Especially with the new House Bills being presented currently (Any new Law while s step in the right direction is still Unconstitutional)

Under Article 6 of the US Constitution No law other than the ones in the Constitution can be made with out first Amending the Constitution thru A Convention or being ratified by 3/4 of the Sovereign states. Even then they legally cannot conflict with the Right of a Person (Rights are Inherent). We should not be spending time trying to make current laws more leanient, but we should be Repealing them. Further more Every last 2nd Amendment group should either be lobbying Congress to Repeal the Gun Laws, or sue every last Congressman for violating the Article 6.

I think that we need to have more and more of us to help point out the current problems so something can be done about it.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #5 on:** February 14, 2011, 07:33:28 PM »

Quote from: BTAvery on February 13, 2011, 11:08:43 PM

Only reason I plan on getting a cpl beause vehicle carry is a pain in the ass.

What I'm saying is that you don't need a CPL to carry loaded or otherwise in a car, or while wearing a coat. "Article 6" You have a right to keep and Bear that is "Supreme Law of the Land" "Article 6"

autosurgeon · « **Reply #6 on:** February 14, 2011, 08:09:51 PM »

While in theory I agree... good luck with that..

13mile9 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2011, 09:41:19 PM »

Quote

What I'm saying is that you don't need a CPL to carry loaded or otherwise in a car, or while wearing a coat.

So, does this mean that one of you first actions without a CPL will be to OC in your vehicle (clarification: which is actually CC)?

autosurgeon · « **Reply #8 on:** February 15, 2011, 07:11:58 AM »

OC in a vehicle is NOT CC. It is carrying otherwise.... which according to the various MCL's requires a CPL.

Crosspistols opinion is that the Constitution of MI overrides all of these MCL's... Like I said in theory a nice idea. In reality he better have a good attorney.

TheQ · « **Reply #9 on:** February 15, 2011, 08:50:14 AM »

While I agree Art. I Sec. 6 doesn't have a "*" by it saying "unless the legislature by law reasonably says otherwise."...

Good luck with that interpretation. If you get the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn your conviction on it (which you will be convicted of a 5 year felony -- say goodbye to all your guns) we'll all declare you a hero.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:52:32 PM »

Quote from: 13mile9 on February 14, 2011, 09:41:19 PM

Quote
What I'm saying is that you don't need a CPL to carry loaded or otherwise in a car, or while wearing a coat.

So, does this mean that one of you first actions without a CPL will be to OC in your vehicle (clarification: which is actually CC)?

Not OC, just plain Carrying by Right in a Vehicle. Do you really believe either Constitution (The US or Michigan's) entitles you to carry, unless your cold and have to wear a coat, or you have to get into a car to go to work? You have a right, regardless of what you wear, or what you do. Even if you robbed a store your only crime by Constitutional law is the robbery, the gun is irrelevant the punishment should be severe regardless if a gun was worn or not. It's Against the law to steal, not carry a gun

CrossPistols · « **Reply #11 on:** February 16, 2011, 08:55:06 PM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on February 15, 2011, 07:11:58 AM

OC in a vehicle is NOT CC. It is carrying otherwise.... which according to the various MCL's requires a CPL.

Crosspistols opinion is that the Constitution of MI overrides all of these MCL's... Like I said in theory a nice idea. In reality he better have a good attorney.

Not only does Article 1 section 6 of the Michigan Constitution over ride all MCL's it is a re-enforcement of the 2nd, and both stem from Article 5 and 6 of the U.S. Constitution.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #12 on:** February 16, 2011, 09:27:26 PM »

Look at it this way...We have an inherent right to religion anywhere anytime, no permits needed, we have free speech any where anytime, no permit needed, so on and so forth. You have to realize that as long as you do not Violate, damage, and or harm any one, your rights what ever they may be, have to be protected by Govt. (Article 6 U.S. Const.) by Judges, by cops etc. If a city passes a law saying no praying in the street, then by Article 6 the Govt. is suppose to come in on our behalf and enforce the 1st Amendment...By saying look here "City" the 1st is Supreme Law of the Land, and this law Violates the right to pray same goes for the right to carry. A concealing Permit violates the right to carry, no where in the Constitution is there a law against wearing a coat there for carrying under a coat cannot be against the law. Regardless if the people vote in a law, or elect some one to represent them in the Congress. The same goes for the right to keep and bear. The only difference between the first and second Amend. is that the free speech advocates have convinced Americans that the 1st is what keeps government in check, and that the 1st is for the people, and the 2nd is for the Military. Also anti gun people have convinced sheople that guns kill, when we all know it is People. Socialist have to find or make a problem, then playing on the fears of the bleeding hearts they come up with a solution, then set a fee or fine. CPL is an example of Turning a right into a privilege, and I fell for it, and we keep perpetuating the problem by supporting CPL's and any further Legislation other than repealing CPL's. Before I got a CPL if I was pulled over for a mere traffic violation I was never asked if I had a gun, because with out RAS they cannot ask, but now that I have a CPL, I agreed to let them ask legally.

13mile9 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 16, 2011, 11:38:44 PM »

Hey, I think we are all on board with ya with where you are going with your point. However, with the current MCL's in place...I don't think very many are ready to get on board with ya on the Oakland County bus head'n to lock up....to serve out a term.

I'm trying to be a little funny....however, I personally appreciate the argument you have presented!

drtodd · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2011, 11:21:30 PM »

Quote from: CrossPistols on February 13, 2011, 09:48:30 PM

By applying for a CPL you voluntarily forfeit your rights by saying I will obey the regulations set forth in a law concerning Conceal carry. By signing you are converting your right into a privilege allowing the Govt. to regulate. There for when my CPL expires I will not be renewing it, thus ending the states physical and legal ability to regulate my Carry of Arms. A police officer is sworn by oath or affirmation along with all Judges, and Congressman to uphold the Constitution (The supreme Law of the Land...(U.S. Constitution Article 6) to up hold the Laws thereof; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No law shall conflict with rights. Now what say you?

Do as thou willst...

Michigander · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2011, 12:24:17 AM »

Rather than risk prison time, I think it might make the most sense to sue the state for arbitrarily denying you your constitutionally protected rights. No reason why you couldn't be the next McDonald or Heller if you get a good lawyer on your side. It would be rather cool if you managed to get a SCOTUS case that ensured 50 state unlicensed carry. It is possible.

ocdetroit · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2011, 02:05:55 PM »

HUM Carry On.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2011, 09:33:34 PM »

Thank you DrTodd. I knew some one would get to where I was going!

Two of my Fav's below...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

basically there should be a few politicians in jail at the state level alone for violations of the constitution..Oh gee wouldn't that be swell

CrossPistols · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2011, 09:37:59 AM »

Quote from: Michigander on February 19, 2011, 12:24:17 AM

Rather than risk prison time, I think it might make the most sense to sue the state for arbitrarily denying you your constitutionally protected rights. No reason why you couldn't be the next McDonald or Heller if you get a good lawyer on your side. It would be rather cool if you managed to get a SCOTUS case that ensured 50 state unlicensed carry. It is possible.

Michigander great to hear from you, it's been quite some time. You know as well as I do there are only two ways to get to the Supreme court...Money, and More Money. Sad thing is I shouldn't have to defend my right that has already been Guaranteed by Constitution, and Argued and Won in court. The Courts Obligation by Oath is to punish Violators of those rights I.E. Cops, Judges, Politicians so on so fourth.

Dr Todd has two Case laws at the bottom of his post in this thread, these have not been over turned.

CrossPistols · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »

I'm sorry I have one more thing to say on this, and it stems from Michiganders post. I shouldn't have to get a lawyer to argue for the 50 states, I thought that was the role of the NRA. I shouldn't need a lawyer to sue the state to defend my right to carry, while wearing a coat, or drive a car. I thought that was the role of MCRGO, MGO, & MOC. I have a right by constitutional Law. What we need is to drop this OC and CPL debate and go straight to Suing Congressman for violating State and U.S.Constitutions. We need as a group, and as Individuals is to pool our money and go from Offensive to defensive mode, and start hitting Congressmen, Executive, and Judicial Officers where it hurts...The Wallet.
Remember when we started OC'ing? We didn't get a lawyer to sue, we risked getting arrested and harassed. Some of us walked by our selves and got Harassed, so we grouped together and got Harassed but we won because we are Right. "Strength in Numbers"

News:

Author Topic: Letting CPL Expire (Read 15953 times)