A statement from the leadership of Michigan Open Carry on the Passage of SB 59

[TheQ]

Members of Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

There is exciting news out of Lansing regarding SB-59. It has passed the Senate and now moves to the House of Representatives for discussion. The bill has new language included which eliminates the "open carry in a PFZ with a CPL" loophole. This new language was included in a compromise. Michigan's 340,000+ CPL holders will now have the option to obtain an 8 additional hours of handgun training and then be able to conceal carry anywhere in the state except courts, casinos, and Federal buildings. When this bill is passed in the Michigan House of Representatives and signed by the Governor, Michigan CPL holders with the additional training exemption will enjoy more freedom to carry concealed than in any other state. In addition to these changes, CPL licensing will now move to the county Sheriff streamlining the process. Michigan Open Carry Inc. is happy to support this bill for the greater good of all firearm owners in Michigan. It is our hope this bill will quickly pass and be signed into law.
 
/s/
Phillip Hofmeister, President
Adam Yancer, Vice-President
Randy Davis, Secretary
Ryan Ransom, Treasurer
Rob Harris, Media Director
Jason S, IT Team
Brian Jeffs, Research Director
Sandi Beahan, Assistant SW Regional Coordinator
Ryan Adams, Assistant SW Regional Coordinator

[Ezerharden]

Glad the membership had some input into this support. So now if you accidentally expose your firearm while concealed in a CEZ, you can face charges? I mean who determines if it was intentional?

[TheQ]

Glad the membership had some input into this support. So now if you accidentally expose your firearm while concealed in a CEZ, you can face charges? I mean who determines if it was intentional?

Sorry, but not everything can be ran by mass membership meeting.  We had VERY LITTLE time to make a decision.  This is why the members elect the board and the board appoints the rest of the leadership team.  The leadership team (as signed above) agreed to unanimously support the bill.

PM me if you're interested in becoming part of the leadership team.  I'll tell you what we require.

[Ezerharden]

Actually you have at least 5 days. 1 day to gather opinions of those that voted for the current board would not have had much of an impact. After all, like the politicians the organization has to deal with, you also have "constituents".

[TheQ]

Actually you have at least 5 days. 1 day to gather opinions of those that voted for the current board would not have had much of an impact. After all, like the politicians the organization has to deal with, you also have "constituents".

I'll look forward to your PM about being on the leadership team.

[Ezerharden]

I'll look forward to your PM about being on the leadership team.

Care to answer why 1 day could not be given to let the members have some input? As to the PM, I just might.

[scot623]

Glad the membership had some input into this support. So now if you accidentally expose your firearm while concealed in a CEZ, you can face charges? I mean who determines if it was intentional?

The accidental part exposure isn't correct. It must be willful. You don't feel the benefit to the 340,000 CPL holders was worth the compromise? Keep in mind, this loophole could have been closed anyways... At least it comes with a huge benefit.

[CV67PAT]

I didn't necessarily like to "push the issue" when I am in the PFZs and am forced to OC. I run the risk of expulsion from college. Kicked out of my granddaughters school. Being refused treatment at the public hospital.And also refused entry to the hockey games at the public authority owned arena.

I feel that I have a better chance of prevailing in a lawsuit now in the event that I am refused entry to these places with an exempt CPL. Before, all of these places could be problematic exercising the oc loophole.

[gryphon]

I do not like the extra training requirement, but I support MOC's position, and stated my support of this prior to the announcement here.  Overall there is more win than lose.

I await to see what the final legislation looks like.  Any early indication if there is any desire to change it in the House?

[TheQ]

I await to see what the final legislation looks like.  Any early indication if there is any desire to change it in the House?

Governor won't sign it w/o the "OC PFZ ban".

We'll take up that fight another day.  For now, we support the legislation as passed by the senate.

[gryphon]

Do you know, was Snyder the reason the OC PFZ ban was included?

Wouldn't surprise me with the recent OC court cases.  In fact, CADL and Birmingham may have actually facilitated this legislation.  I'll give you this if you give me that.

[TheQ]

Do you know, was Snyder the reason the OC PFZ ban was included?

Yes.  He refused to sign the legislation unless this language was included.  Like always, our faithful leadership in the house and senate cow-tow'd.  Call me for more info, you have my number.

[Shadow Bear]

Glad the membership had some input into this support.

This has been discussed on the forums ad nauseum; what else is there to say about it? Besides, that why we have elected leadership- to take decisive action. Its a representative form of government, feel free to run for office next election.

[Greyh Seer]

I have to admit, I was very disappointed to see this.  I'm not sure it is ever a good idea to give up one "right" in order to gain another.  I am further confused as to why MOC would support ANY bill that limits open carry.

How are we supposed  "To demonstrate to the public at large that gun owners are one of the most lawful segments of society and they have nothing to fear from the lawful carry of a firearm." if we are not allowed to open carry? 

One of the largest reasons I am a member of this group is because I want to try to reacquire our rights which previous generations of Michiganders allowed to be legislated away. 

I did not join this group to further the cause of concealed carry, no matter how great I think it might be to be able to have those additional carry privileges.  I joined this group to further OPEN CARRY, not have it support legislation that LIMITS it.  As far as I can tell, this bill would take away my ability to carry a gun in certain areas and then give it back to me, but now I have to have additional, legislated training to do so.  Let me make it even simpler: "Take your gun, cover it up, and go pay for more training...or you are breaking the law."

How is this a compromise that an Open Carry group would want?  Heck, I'm not sure it's a compromise a gun owner would want...well, I suppose a gun owner that believes OC is wrong...

So, am I missing something here?  Is anyone else confused as to why we as a group would support this bill??

For the record, take out the OC ban from this bill and I would support it 110%

My next question would be...what other areas of Open Carry is MOC willing to compromise on for legislation?  Would we be willing to support a bill that outlawed OC altogether w/o a concealed carry permit if it gave us forced national cc reciprocity?

Does anyone else have these concerns?  I am willing to admit, maybe I don't see something that is staring me in the face.  So please, someone, educate me.

Edited to add: I will be contacting my rep in the house on this bill, but I have yet to decide if I will recommend a yes or no vote.  I have contacted my rep numerous times in the past as "a member of Michigan Open Carry" and I'm honestly not sure how I can tell them to vote yes on this bill.  I want the additional privileges it offers...but I don't want the loss of the other privileges it takes away.  I am still on the fence, but leaning towards a no vote.  Please guys, change my mind...

[Greyh Seer]

This has been discussed on the forums ad nauseum;

I did not know that discussion was going on.  I would love to read over it.  Could you by chance post a link?  I unfortunately don't have much time to search for a while.  If not, no big deal...I'll see if I can find it later this weekend...

[JSteinmetz]

I think the main fact that we need to be concerned with is that this helps everyone with a CPL in the state.  If the no-OC section was taken out, the governor would not sign the bill - he has already stated that, and his office even introduced this new section. 

The leadership of MOC has decided to support this bill to get the sections that do benefit everyone added.  The idea being that once the bill is in place with all of the extra benefits, then we can begin to fight the section about no-OC.  There was discussion at the board meeting that we may end up disenfranchising some of our members, but at the same point, we (as an organization, and also as a citizen of the state) have the obligation to help not only ourselves, but also assist in passing legislation that is for the greater good.

Again, if you take our personal feelings and preferences out of this decision, and take all the information logically, this bill is quite a few steps forward, with only one back.  I agree (as do most of the leadership, I'm sure) that this is a slap in the face to all OC'ers who do carry in those places, but it's an all-or-nothing proposition, and  I agree with the decision to support it as-is (for now).

[TheQ]

The leadership group will have a meeting at 8:00 PM tonight to explain this decision and answer any questions about the bill or the decision that anyone has.

The meeting will be on TeamSpeak and all are welcome.

[TucTom]

Is this a step forward as far as rights go? I believe so, is there further to go? I believe so.

I will stand behind MOC's decision to support this as written.

[bigt8261]

Let me see if I get this straight, please correct me where I am wrong. CPL holders will lose the ability to OC in PFZs without the ability to get it back (without legislative change). On the other hand, CPL holders will gain the ability to CC in currently CC prohibited areas (where OC is currently permitted with a CPL) only after acquiring additional training. Furthermore, a group who's stated purpose is to support OC is backing a bill that would slightly enhance CC at the expense of OC?

If all of this is correct, I will be calling my state rep later today to request that he oppose this bill, or at least oppose the bill with the "compromise". Who's "greater good" are we talking about?

[scot623]

Once the Governor realized there was a OC w/CPL im the PFZ loophole, there is nothing that says it wouldn't have been banned anyways. Someone mentioned Birmingham schools...their lawyer already opined that schools cannot enforce a gun ban because of our recent CADL win. So by now allowing only CC in PFZ's(ie. elementary schools), there is likely to be a lot less blowback because Johnny soccer mom won't see a bunch of guns in school, they'll still be there...just CC'd.

Also, remember the word "loophole". This PFZ/OC thing was never tested in court. We may have lost anyways. Because of that most people wouldn't even test it.

Losing a loophole that maybe a couple hundred people statewide used in order to benefit 340,000+ is just smart. If MOC came out against this bill, we would have been evicerated by the gun community. We would be on an island with no friends. Our ability to affect real change for OCers by getting rid of 750.234d and getting car carry without a CPL would be GONE. We need all the gun groups lobbying with us to get a bill like that removed. MOC can not stand alone. Compromise is part of the way the world works. It isn't always fun, but it is ABSOLUTELY neccesary.