Author Topic: The Case Against SB 442  (Read 12483 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
The Case Against SB 442
« on: October 11, 2015, 11:01:01 PM »
Here are some of the reasons why SB 442 is a dangerous sloppy mess.

http://www.miopencarry.org/news/2015/10/Case-Against-SB442-A-Dangerous-Sloppy-Mess

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2015, 07:24:26 AM »
MCRGO - What happens when you put politicians on the board of a formerly pro-gun organization.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2015, 09:02:55 PM »
One gets the impression that author Lindsay Knake doesn't like guns.
Superintendent intends to testify against guns in schools!
Superintendent testified against guns in schools, but Senators didn't listen!

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/10/ann_arbor_superintendent_to_te.html

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/10/ann_arbor_schools_chief_asks_l.html
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2015, 06:26:10 PM »
Lindsay Knake is the K-12 education reporter for The Ann Arbor News.

Lindsay Knake still doesn't like guns.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2015/10/ann_arbor_school_board_preside_2.html#incart_river_home
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2015, 06:03:58 AM »
Mike Green came right out and said it, F@ck the OCers:

Green said, “We as gun owners have every right in the world to carry in gun-free zones. Are we going to give that up? We’re trying to step back and say, ‘We’ll cover them up, if you guys are willing.'”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/29/campus-carry-bills-move-florida-michigan/

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/10/13/concealed-carry-bills-spark-war-words-mich-senate/73889076/
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2015, 08:18:28 AM »
Green is working on "fixing" the bills. Meanwhile, an alternative is brewing.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2015, 09:21:31 AM »
So a member of the legislature who wrote the current law states, “have to accept that under the U.S. Constitution, law-abiding citizens with CPLs now have the right to carry guns into schools, as long as they are not concealed,” yet a judge told the AAPS that the legislature is wrong about their own laws.

Also interesting is that the Clio school superintendent is for CC in schools and supports the bill.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2015, 09:23:19 AM »
Green said his bill would allow concealed carry in churches, and then only if the pastor or church board consents to it.  Wait, isn't that the law now?

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2015, 11:37:22 AM »
When I personally spoke to Green at Cabela's last year, his anti OC position is blatantly apparent.  Combine that with MI NRA rep, and you have two of the more powerful 2A people in the state adamant that OC is wrong, and you end up with the proposed CF legislation.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2015, 02:35:34 PM »
Green was asked in committee by the Chairman (Jones) if it was correct that his bill would not affect churches. Green indicated that was correct, it would not affect churches. Both 442 and 561 DO affect churches. Green doesn't know what he's talking about.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2015, 02:37:21 PM »
When I personally spoke to Green at Cabela's last year, his anti OC position is blatantly apparent.  Combine that with MI NRA rep, and you have two of the more powerful 2A people in the state adamant that OC is wrong, and you end up with the proposed CF legislation.

The NRA is silent on Green's bill and it is killing Green's legislation. Many NRA board members, especially one Michigan local in particular, are anti-OC, but the NRA-ILA has been very friendly with us.

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2015, 03:16:29 PM »
Green doesn't know what he's talking about.

Which is why he would introduce a bill that's not only poor for gun owners, but severely poorly written.
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline Langenc

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2015, 08:15:44 PM »
The NRA is silent on Green's bill and it is killing Green's legislation. Many NRA board members, especially one Michigan local in particular, are anti-OC, but the NRA-ILA has been very friendly with us.

Maybe NRA-ILA is friendly is they like our $$$$.

Offline bigt8261

  • MOC President
  • MOC Board Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1482
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2015, 10:05:21 AM »
Maybe NRA-ILA is friendly is they like our $$$$.

MOC does not give money to the NRA-ILA. Nothing against them, we just don't do that sort of thing.

Offline Langenc

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Re: The Case Against SB 442
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2015, 07:24:14 PM »
When I personally spoke to Green at Cabela's last year, his anti OC position is blatantly apparent.  Combine that with MI NRA rep, and you have two of the more powerful 2A people in the state adamant that OC is wrong, and you end up with the proposed CF legislation.

Doesn't the MI constitution say we are all allowed to defend ourselves and others??

I don't think it says defensive weapon has to be concealed....and they swore to uphold it?? and the citizens keep reelecting em. Somewhat different but look at Carl--5x the unions elected him and then his replacement, besides Debbie.