Author Topic: your take on...  (Read 20331 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ezerharden

  • Former Secretary
  • MOC Regional Coordinator, Deputy
  • ***
  • Posts: 783
  • I don't dial 911
  • First Name (Displayed): Mike
Re: your take on...
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2013, 11:36:48 AM »
That I can agree with
Want to keep informed of events in your area? Go to http://www.miopencarry.org/update

I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

Offline bigbob

  • Posts: 54
Re: your take on...
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2013, 12:46:57 PM »
Q, why were you so strongly behind SB59? Did that not mandate more training?

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
Re: your take on...
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2013, 01:15:23 PM »
Q, why were you so strongly behind SB59? Did that not mandate more training?

1. That was a decision made by the leadership team, not just me.  My "job" is to execute the will of the leadership team.
2. SB 59, which would have enhanced requirements OPTIONALLY for those who wish to get the enhanced license (which would allow conceal carry in now MCL 28.425o zones).  Those who didn't wish to get the extra training could still conceal carry everywhere they did before.

Give me a bill that simply requires people to take more training and I guarantee we'll shoot it down.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline bigbob

  • Posts: 54
Re: your take on...
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2013, 02:17:25 PM »
Q, that is a good point about it being optional. It does not change the fact that it is required if you want to have the freedoms attached to the bill.
I think some of the confusion, Is i am not suggesting we just change the requirement because it will make us feel safer. I am pretty much suggesting Arizona style law. No CPL needed. You buy and gun and go about your business free to practice your rights to self defense. But we are not going to get that through If we could not get SB59 through. Ya know what I mean? Maybe the next governor will be more friendly to our rights, but it is not going to happen right now. I understand their are revisions to SB59 and we are trying again on the bill. This is still just making the current laws suck a little bit less. And there is a tremendous amount of homework that needs to be done if you want to carry a gun in MI. Especially with open carry. It is so complicated. I did not want the original post to be 4 years long so In an attempt to stay brief I left out a lot of my thoughts in attempt to just coach the discussion as we went on. If we could trade a higher level of qualification, to do away with pistol free zones, as we have supported with sb59, and add the rest of the tedious laws that we are held to, would MOC members support it. pretty much Arizona law with the added requirement to qualify, so it has a chance at passing. show up and shoot the class with your pistol, leave with a card saying you are good to go. I absolutely agree with 99% of the discussion in this thread. I am not trying to take a fair weather 2A rights stance. I am trying to get find something that is passable though.  Thanks for everyones thoughts and input! And Q thank you for your ongoing dedication to our cause and all the time you have spent fighting for us.

Offline METL

  • Posts: 632
Re: your take on...
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2013, 09:45:44 AM »
If they actually wanted people to take additional training, they would come out with legislation that would encourage, not require, but encourage training via some sort of incentive...  be it CPL fees waived...  some sort of $100 off a gun coupon...   etc...   present training cert. and get SOMETHING to offset your expenditure.

It's not about training though.   As Scot623 said, they wouldn't even want a TRAINER to carry...   or like that City Counsel meeting where the guy stormed out because the Iraq-Vet was carrying... we're talking about a guy who's been trained by the military and ACTUALLY FOUGHT IN WAR WITH HIS GUN...   it doesn't matter, there are anti's out there that just want EVERYONE's gun, no matter what (except for their body guards).

There are fence sitters that don't mind people with guns if they are trained...   so I suppose we could win people over, but it's got to be an incentive program, not a requirement.  I mean, if they want to "clean up the environment" they can offer "cash for clunkers" but they can't offer some sort of firearms training rewards?

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: your take on...
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2013, 11:02:47 AM »
It's not about training though...they wouldn't even want a TRAINER to carry...or like that City Counsel meeting where the guy stormed out because the Iraq-Vet was carrying...it doesn't matter, there are anti's out there that just want EVERYONE's gun, no matter what (except for their body guards).

Exactly.