Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
General Category => Announcements => Topic started by: TheQ on November 29, 2012, 10:50:25 PM
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Grocery stores ARE 750.234d PFZs. Show me one that doesn't sell liquor ;)
-
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.
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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.
-
Grocery stores ARE 750.234d PFZs. Show me one that doesn't sell liquor ;)
AFAIK Aldi's doesn't sell alcohol.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
I Would guess the more people that are on TeamSpeak the more people will hear both sides of this discussion.
-
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!
-
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 (http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/board,3.0.html)
-
I Open carry in pretty much EVERY place listed under Law now that dont allow CC.
For this to become law, its stripping my right to legally OC in such places and be forced to pay for more training in order to carry in them listed under 234d which are legal for me who is a daily Open Carrier! I will refuse to pay for another pointless class for the state/gov to get more money
-
I Open carry in pretty much EVERY place listed under Law now that dont allow CC.
For this to become law, its stripping my right to legally OC in such places and be forced to pay for more training in order to carry in them listed under 234d which are legal for me who is a daily Open Carrier! I will refuse to pay for another pointless class for the state/gov to get more money
You didn't answer the question posted in post 40. Could you maybe answer it for me?
To clear up confusion you may have, this bill doesn't change MCL 750.234d.
-
Bars, Hospitals, Schools and Stadiums I currently do go in and out of frequently open carrying under Current Law each year.
This will be not allowed once this bill passes, thus forcing me to CC and pay for a class in order to do so, to continue to OC in them places, I have to ask everyone for permission!
-
Bars, Hospitals, Schools and Stadiums I currently do go in and out of frequently open carrying under Current Law each year.
This will be not allowed once this bill passes, thus forcing me to CC and pay for a class in order to do so, to continue to OC in them places, I have to ask everyone for permission!
Those aren't the "stores" you mentioned in post 38!
-
Im not gonna make a huge list of every store i go to that i Open Carry. If they are licensed under Michigan Liquor License you cant Conceal carry in them! But I can Open carry in them. Taking that right away has no reasoning what so ever.
I also go to drag races in Michigan A LOT where attendance is over 10K people. Legally you cant Conceal carry as its over 2500 people but you can legally open carry there. I Also eat out at Taverns who serve alcohol a lot. In order to do so if passed i have to get the class training, or leave my firearm in the car!
way the law should be is include OC into the law so it dont effect open carriers. And if people want to CC in them places then make them go pay. But to force 300k+ CPL people to take a class Is insane.
Some prefer CC or OC But dont force one over the other is not right!
-
This is the list that would be affected. Not 750.234d
(28.245o)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28r2g34o552fbkwmjrhhriwx45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425o (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28r2g34o552fbkwmjrhhriwx45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425o)
-
That list is no different, ad under MCL 28.425o You can currently Open Carry in them with a valid CPL.
The bill flips the law, and then makes is illegal to OC in them places unless permission is given! And then have to take another class, and pay for the upgrade of the CPL.
I dont CC, for one its uncomfortable, Damages guns finishes, And Longer draw time when in a predicament to draw. Theres plenty for OC and Plenty for CC, no need to outlaw one over the other, just add the exception for people who are die hard CC'ers and want to do as such like OC'er they take the class.
-
I agree with your sentiments, but the part about not OCing in places licensed under the liquor control act is not correct. That is a definition in 750.234d, not 28.425o.
Currently, and after SB59, you will be able to both CC and OC in an establishment licensed under the liquor control act with just a basic CPL, assuming the establishment does not generate more than 50% of it's income from the sale of alcohol by the glass. In that case, you can currently only OC. SB59 would change that to only CC and only with additional training.
Only trying to clarify.
-
Which all in all Infringed on Our right under constitution to carry.
Makes no sense to make restrictions to OC as it is now to place CC'er at all.
Michigan needs to move up in the times and release all this crap and become Constitutional Carry State and not need CPL or PFZ.
Down the road, this bill will branch out and eventually outlaw OC all together for CPL and not CPL carriers.
-
Bars, Hospitals, Schools and Stadiums I currently do go in and out of frequently open carrying under Current Law each year.
This will be not allowed once this bill passes, thus forcing me to CC and pay for a class in order to do so, to continue to OC in them places, I have to ask everyone for permission!
If all the places you OC, bars, hospitals, school and stadiums are all friendly too you, there is NOTHING stopping you from getting permission to OC there! They've clearly welcomed you and your firearm in the past and I can't see why they wouldnt in the future. Once you get permission, this new law changes NOTHING for you!! That's a win!
Just for my curiosity, which schools, hospitals and stadiums you frequently visit are OC friendly? We haven't seen much many if any about theses places in our experiences threads.
-
I have personally Open carried in McLaren Hospital in Mt.Clemens Michigan, St, Johns St. Clair County, as well as Henry Ford Urgent Care centers though out macomb County.
Stadiums I have carried in are College Campuses as in Adrian, Eastern,Central as well as Midland for drag races. All of which have no problem when i showed up. I was even Open carrying at a Tigers Game In Comerica Park this 2012 season. Fully open and visible I was granted access, and walked pass Security who just Nodded! I never asked for permission they just Took my Ticket, Seen I had it and let me through.
I have carried on other campuses when I was in College Visiting or during Sporting events. They would tell me its not permitted and to keep it locked up while on this Campus. Or if i was openly carrying and asked to leave I do so and never return to that place ever again.
-
Im not gonna make a huge list of every store i go to that i Open Carry. If they are licensed under Michigan Liquor License you cant Conceal carry in them! But I can Open carry in them. Taking that right away has no reasoning what so ever.
Ahh! Now we get to the bottom of your confusion maybe! A store (let's say Meijer) is a zone that's off limits in MCL 750.234d. They are not an MCL 28.425o zone. MCL 750.234d is NOT changed by this legislation. Ergo, IANAL, you'll still be able to OC at Meijer (or Walmart, or Speedway, etc.) AFTER SB 59 is signed into law.
I hope this clears up your confusion? :)
-
That list is no different, ad under MCL 28.425o You can currently Open Carry in them with a valid CPL.
The list IS different!
MCL 750.234d prohibits any place that is license to sell alcohol.
MCL 28.425o prohibits any place that is a "bar or tavern whose primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic beverages by the glass"
Meijer DOES fit under the 750.234d umbrella but it ISN"T a part of the MCL 28.425o umbrella. This is a common new person misunderstanding, no worries :)
You may wish to do some reading here (http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/index.php/topic,25.0.html) to get a better understanding of the current laws so that way you'll better understand how the new law will impact them before you form and express further opinions.
-
Rocket8686: Please PM me when you've had a better chance to understand the laws before you start posting and making more confusion for others :)
-
To those of you who came out tonight, thank you for coming and I hope everyone who came now has a better understanding of why things were done than they understood before....even if they don't agree with it.