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

[bigt8261]

Specifically to the CC/OC in a PFZ part of the bill, I do not see how this is a compromise. It appears to me, in the end, our rights will only be further restricted.

What we lose:
OC with CPL (1 to get 1)

What we get:
CC with CPL and additional training (2 to get 1)

Thus it becomes harder and more expensive for someone to protect themselves in a PFZ. Otherwise known as our rights are further restricted. I know there are other good parts of the bill, but this is a step backward in my book.

[scot623]

Specifically to the CC/OC in a PFZ part of the bill, I do not see how this is a compromise. It appears to me, in the end, our rights will only be further restricted.

What we lose:
OC with CPL (1 to get 1)

What we get:
CC with CPL and additional training (2 to get 1)

Thus it becomes harder and more expensive for someone to protect themselves in a PFZ. Otherwise known as our rights are further restricted. I know there are other good parts of the bill, but this is a step backward in my book.

What PFZ's do you currently OC in? Really, I'm just curious. I've OC'd in a school once for a blood drive, a bar once and two different hospitals one time each over  the past 2 years.

[TheQ]

Joint Statement from MCRGO and MOC

The Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) and Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (MOC) support Senate Bill 59 S-5.

Michigan is the only state of the nation which still uses county gun boards inefficient administrative relics from early in the last century that cause a lot of grief for both Michigan gun owners and county governments. Senate Bill 59 would vest their authority in the county sheriff, streamlining the process of approving concealed pistol licenses and bringing Michigan in-line with other shall-issue states.

In addition, the bill creates a new enhanced concealed pistol license with additional training requirements that will allow anyone with a CPL the opportunity to carry in most pistol free zones.

On behalf of Michigan's 340,000+ concealed pistol license holders, Michigan Open Carry, Inc. and the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners request that the Michigan House of Representatives adopt this legislation before adjourning for the year.


Sincerely,

/s/
Phillip Hofmeister, President, MOC
Brady Schickinger, Legislative Director, MCRGO

[METL]

I'm all for this law going through. 


I am not excited about losing OC in these areas, but to be honest, I didn't do it anyways because it wasn't a rock solid proposition.  Too much risk involved for my liking.


I will CC in PFZs on a daily basis if this passes.


My only big concern is that this doesn't now create a ton of PFZs...   the legislature could easily add tons of locations to the PFZ list, making it nearly impossible for non-CPL OCers to OC.  I def could see them trying to make this happen.  A underhanded, back door way to effectively ban OC... with us SUPPORTING it....


Once the A-CPL holders are allowed to carry in PFZ, there will be less resistance to make more PFZs...  because the CCers would still be allowed to carry in them.  Grocery stores, libraries, restaurants, shopping centers, etc could all become PFZs.  Obviously that would be TERRIBLE.

[TheQ]

Grocery stores ARE 750.234d PFZs. Show me one that doesn't sell liquor

[bigt8261]

What PFZ's do you currently OC in? Really, I'm just curious. I've OC'd in a school once for a blood drive, a bar once and two different hospitals one time each over  the past 2 years.

In 2012:
A few banks/credit unions many times. 750.234d (1)a
A church 3 times voting. 750.234d (1)b
A few bars a few times. 750.234d (1)h
I have not had the need to go into a school or a hospital yet.

The joint statement from MCRGO and MOC only talks about the good and none of the bad. I really like the good. There are many times when I would just rather CC into a bar to avoid a potential issue with a drunk idiot. The gun board part is great. The time limit is even better. However, I don't like the cost.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think the notion that we take this step and then fight the OC part later is naive. It was my understanding that one of the purposes of this group was to desensitize people to guns. How, is that supposed to happen when OC is restricted further? If our legislature sees this as an "acceptable compromise", then in my mind adding libraries and public parks to the PFZ list to prevent OC is no stretch at all.

To the best of my limited knowledge, this is the first time OC specifically will be limited in Michigan. I'm worried where this slippery slope will lead. Even in Texas they think it's ok to prohibit OC. Again, this bill would make it HARDER not easier to protect one's self in a PFZ.

[bigt8261]

My only big concern is that this doesn't now create a ton of PFZs...   the legislature could easily add tons of locations to the PFZ list, making it nearly impossible for non-CPL OCers to OC.  I def could see them trying to make this happen.  A underhanded, back door way to effectively ban OC... with us SUPPORTING it....


Once the A-CPL holders are allowed to carry in PFZ, there will be less resistance to make more PFZs...  because the CCers would still be allowed to carry in them.  Grocery stores, libraries, restaurants, shopping centers, etc could all become PFZs.  Obviously that would be TERRIBLE.

Exactly what I'm thinking. I can see it now 'well, we wouldn't actually be restricting carry by adding this place to the PFZ list because there is technically a way for a citizen to obtain the necessary training, licenses, tests, medical exams, and mental exams necessary to legally carry here. We would just be making it safer and preventing people from being frightened by that which they do not understand.'

[Shadow Bear]

This is a game of inches; we did not lose our rights overnight, and we certainly won't get them back overnight, either.

We need a unified front on this, as well as on the next step forward.

[yance]

They could have added any location to the list of PFZ's at ANY time...the passage of this bill does not change that.

As well this bill does not criminalize OC in general, it would simply be prohibited in PFZ's under SB 59 if signed into law, it does not take away your right to OC out in public as you would any day of your life.  But in all honestly how many of you that are complaining about MOC's support of this bill actually OC into a PFZ on a DAILY basis? 

As was previously stated, OC in a PFZ was not held up by any law or court precedent, it was an individuals understanding of the law..a loop hole.   We never really had OC in a PFZ to begin with, now that the governor is aware that by the loop hole people could OC into a PFZ MOC's leadership was left in a VERY difficult place.

Do we:

-support this bill because of all of the benefits while closing a loop hole in the law

-not support this bill and we do not gain PFZ carry, retain the CPL licensing board, then potentially face a bill that prohibits OC in a PFZ anyways because Gov does not approve of OC in a PFZ.

So which one would you have been more upset with?  Think about that.

[Ezerharden]

Grocery stores ARE 750.234d PFZs. Show me one that doesn't sell liquor

AFAIK Aldi's doesn't sell alcohol.

[yance]

As well 750.234d is not a list of Pistol Free Zones, its a list of possession free zones if you do not have a CPL

If you have a CPL you MAY carry into an establishment licensed to sell alcohol (grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants) concealed or openly.  This version of SB 59 DOES NOT change that.

[JSteinmetz]

AFAIK Aldi's doesn't sell alcohol.

Some Aldi's do.  That may mean that they are licensed by the LCC as a chain, such as Speedy Q markets - not all of them sell alcohol, but all are licensed to do so.

[bigt8261]

As well 750.234d is not a list of Pistol Free Zones, its a list of possession free zones if you do not have a CPL

If you have a CPL you MAY carry into an establishment licensed to sell alcohol (grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants) concealed or openly.  This version of SB 59 DOES NOT change that.

You're right, I was looking at the wrong list, but I was thinking about it in the right way. Churches and bars are still valid from my list though.

They could have added any location to the list of PFZ's at ANY time...the passage of this bill does not change that.

True, but I think this makes it easier. To say they haven't done something is not the same as they won't. Especially when circumstances change. A slippery slope to a politician is like a slide on a playground. Even if things are going our way at the moment, the pendulum can always swing back the other way.

I can see how someone could think the price is small if they don't value OC or if they think OC in PFZs is a "loophole" that will likely be "closed" anyway. I'm not in either of those camps. I don't see it as a loophole and I don't see it being "closed" anytime soon. I can see MCRGO and MGO supporting this, but MOC still surprises me.

I also think it's interesting that the MOC board is against compromising when it comes to gun shows (up for review), yet is for compromising with this bill. I'm not saying either one is wrong as they are both surrounded by their own facts, I'm just saying I think it's interesting. Perhaps there is still so much I just don't understand.

[TheQ]

I also think it's interesting that the MOC board is against compromising when it comes to gun shows (up for review), yet is for compromising with this bill. I'm not saying either one is wrong as they are both surrounded by their own facts, I'm just saying I think it's interesting. Perhaps there is still so much I just don't understand.

One reflects only how we run our organization. The other impacts much more -- it's very political. See you tonight at 8 PM on TeamSpeak for the meeting to talk about SB 59?

[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.

This is the last shot to get your questions answered or have your opinion heard on the matter. Forum discussion after the meeting will be referred to the Ammo Dump.

[Ezerharden]

This is the last shot to get your questions answered or have your opinion heard on the matter. Forum discussion after the meeting will be referred to the Ammo Dump.

But will the opinions be listened to or merely only heard?

[venator]

This bill was discussed with the Governor who adamantly opposed it and said he would not sign it because he doesn't want guns in GFZs. When someone pointed out that people can already carry in Gun Free Zones now with a CPL and was shown the MSP update, he then went "Oh" then if you add the no OC part to the bill I will sign it.

So now the Gov is aware of the "loop-hole" and two things could happen, one would be worse, and the other is passing this bill which will make Michigan one of the only states that allow CPL holders to carry almost anywhere. This bill will affect, for the better, more that 340,000 CPL holders (and growing) in the state.

AND you will still be able to OC in a GFZ with permission, which was always the case, it was either explicitly given or it was implied.  And this goes for those without a CPL which always had to have permission.

It sucks but there is more gravy than grave in this bill, you just need to take it in and and read what it says.

Once this bill passes and the anti-gun people realize that nothing bad is happening by allowing guns in schools, bars, sports arenas, theaters, etc... then the Michigan gun rights organizations can work to remove the unconstitutional OC ban AND get all the GFZs eliminated for any law abiding gun owner regardless of whether they have a CPL or not.

We didn't get into this mess in one step and we won't get our rights back in one step. Remember Constitutional Carry is the next big gun right fight and 4 states have it.

I will say that the decision was a difficult and well discussed one. We tried to look at every angle and considered the possibilities of that decision. We knew full well MOC would get hit hard on the philosophical rights argument. We understand how some of our members feel and just hope that they will support us in our decision. In the end all things are political.

So to recap MOC felt that supporting this bill was in the best interest of ALL people, both our members and non-members that carry firearms for personal protection. But as stated the fight isn't over we must stand together and be ever vigilant in the onerous battle for our gun rights.

Brian Jeffs, MOC Director of Research

[TucTom]

I Would guess the more people that are on TeamSpeak the more people will hear both sides of this discussion.

[Rocket8686]

Sorry but this Bill I can Not Support, as your giving up one right to get another, which costs us MORE money! Ill refuse to be forced to pay more money to carry in stores I already been open carrying in for past 7 years! I will be calling for them to Oppose this law!

[TheQ]

Sorry but this Bill I can Not Support, as your giving up one right to get another, which costs us MORE money! Ill refuse to be forced to pay more money to carry in stores I already been open carrying in for past 7 years! I will be calling for them to Oppose this law!

You mention "stores". Tell me exactly which "stores" you'll no longer be able to OC in that you can presently OC in?

PS, welcome to MOC.  You might wish to post an introduction here:

http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/board,3.0.html