Michigan Senate debating SB 59 this week -- CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR!
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
Like Tree2Likes

Michigan Senate debating SB 59 this week -- CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR!

This is a discussion on Michigan Senate debating SB 59 this week -- CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR! within the Firearm Politics & 2nd Amendment Issues forums, part of the Main Category category; Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59. Gov. Rick Snyder vetoes CCW expansion | WOOD TV8...

  1. #1
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is offline I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,083

    Default Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59...

    Gov. Snyder just vetoed SB 59.

    Gov. Rick Snyder vetoes CCW expansion | WOOD TV8
    "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible… there is no comparison whatever between an armed man and a disarmed one…" Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

  2. #2
    Jason1221 is offline XTREME
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    85
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Cc is a safer way to carry in gun free zones anyhow. Plz. Everyone call email do what we have to. Be herd !!!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    S.E.MICHIGAN
    Posts
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason1221 View Post
    Cc is a safer way to carry in gun free zones anyhow. Plz. Everyone call email do what we have to. Be herd !!!!
    I agree, anyplace where your butt to belly with folks, is not a good place to have an open carry.

  4. #4
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is offline I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,083

    Exclamation

    Folks, this is still being debated! It is still possible that it will be amended to remove additional requirements for CC in "pistol free" zones! We need calls NOW!!!

    You can find your Michigan State Senator by clicking on the following link:

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jz3...ge=legislators
    "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible… there is no comparison whatever between an armed man and a disarmed one…" Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

  5. #5
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is offline I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    SB 59 is stalled in the Senate because Sen. Richardville, the majority leader, has failed to schedule it for a vote in the nearly three months that have passed since it was approved in committee. I just sent the following email to him, CC'd to my senator and Sen. Green, the author of the bill:

    Senator,

    I am curious as to why SB 59 has not yet been scheduled for a vote. It was approved in committee and sent to the full senate nearly three months ago. Although I disagree with the added burdens it places on those who wish to carry concealed in so-called pistol free zones, it is step in the right direction.

    For the record, I object to the added requirements of 9 additional hours of class time, the expenditure of nearly 100 more rounds of ammunition, and the need to request an exemption as the grounds for exercising this right. Those who choose to carry openly may do so in zones designated as "pistol-free" without any added requirements; they don't have to attend any additional classes (other than the initial CPL class), shoot more rounds, or request an exemption in order to exercise their right to carry in these areas. This represents a discriminatory and undue burden under the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution on those who have gone through the CPL training, paid the fees, and jumped through the hoops to obtain their CPL, but choose to carry concealed.

    The added requirements also represent a gross violation of the recent federal district court (Maryland) opinion that clearly states that the existence of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment (magnified by the existence of the same right in the Michigan State Constitution) is all the justification one needs to carry; the current legislation limiting the free exercise of this right amounts to "rationing" of the right, and cannot be considered to be "reasonably adapted to a government interest":

    "Rather, the regulation at issue is a rationing system. It aims... simply to reduce the total number of firearms carried outside of the home (i.e.,carried concealed in a pistol-free zone - added) by limiting the privilege to those who can demonstrate "good reason" beyond a general desire for self-defense (i.e., requiring said concealed carrier to request an exemption - added)...

    A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered "reasonably adapted" to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be… Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment surely knew that the right they were enshrining carried a risk of misuse, and states have considerable latitude to channel the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk. States may not, however, seek to reduce the danger by means of widespread curtailment of the right itself. "[E]ven the most legitimate goal may not be advanced in a constitutionally impermissible manner." Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 464-65 (1980).

    At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government`s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs."(Judge Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan, 2012, emphasis added).
    SB 59 needs to be amended to remove these additional requirements, since the government has failed to show a "satisfactory justification" for their inclusion. Such justification must be objective and quantifiable in order to be considered to be satisfactory (it cannot be hypothetical); since there are no objective data that conclusively demonstrate that concealed carry in pistol-free zones represents a greater danger to the general public than openly carrying in these zones, the added requirements under the current form of SB 59 cannot be considered to be sufficiently adapted. If we are going to open up "pistol free" zones to those who have CPLs, then we must do so without adding unjustified requirements.

    Sincerely,
    "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible… there is no comparison whatever between an armed man and a disarmed one…" Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I know this thread is few months old, but recently its been passed to go further.

    Is this law going to cause Me who is a avid OC in PFZ to lose that right to OC in them zones once passed. I read so many versions of the bill stating CC will be able to after class, but OC will no longer.
    Im confused as to why they would take away one right for OC'er to enhance CC'ers

  7. #7
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is offline I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,083

    Default Edited response re: Possible loss of OC in a PFZ

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket0086 View Post
    I know this thread is few months old, but recently its been passed to go further.

    Is this law going to cause Me who is a avid OC in PFZ to lose that right to OC in them zones once passed. I read so many versions of the bill stating CC will be able to after class, but OC will no longer.
    Im confused as to why they would take away one right for OC'er to enhance CC'ers
    ****EDITED****

    My original answer to this question was:
    No. It will have absolutely no affect on OC. And this is why I am trying to get our legislators to understand that the additional requirements in this bill if you want to carry CC in a gun free zone are unConstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The extra training (8 hours of it) will focus on carrying in public and in areas designated under law as gun free (in other words, 8 hours reviewing what you already know). I'm glad that they are finally giving this a serious look, and it is a step in the right direction, but all the additional requirements are also a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

    Two individuals, both possess a CPL.

    The one who possesses the CPL and chooses to carry OPENLY in an area designated as gun-free can legally do so without any additional training, and has always been able to do so.

    The one who possess a CPL but chooses to carry CONCEALED, on the other hand, is forbidden from exercising the exact same right in a gun-free zone unless, should this law pass in the House (not very likely - Speaker Bolger put the House Republicans on notice several months ago that there will be no fast-tracking of this bill, regardless of the support it receives, and since he is the one who schedules legislation for votes, he can make sure it doesn't get fast-tracked), he first applies for an exemption from gun free zones, then pays for another 8 hours of class and expends yet another 96 rounds of ammo on the range.

    The only difference between the two CPL holders is the METHOD OF CARRY, and under the Equal Protection Clause, that constitutes an undue burden on the right to carry concealed.
    However, I was looking over the legislation again today related to some other changes I am trying to get passed, and I came across the following (this bill, BTW, is 75 pages long - easy to miss something)

    (10) AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED UNDER THIS ACT TO CARRY A
    CONCEALED PISTOL, OR WHO IS EXEMPT FROM LICENSURE UNDER SECTION
    12A(1)(H), SHALL NOT INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY OR OPENLY CARRY A PISTOL
    ON THE PREMISES LISTED IN SUBSECTION
    (1)(A) TO (H) UNLESS THE
    INDIVIDUAL OWNS THE PREMISES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OR IS
    EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED BY THE OWNER OR OTHER PERSON WITH CONTROL
    OVER THE PREMISES DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1), IF THE POSSESSION OF
    THE FIREARM IS TO PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES FOR THE PREMISES OR IS
    OTHERWISE IN THE SCOPE OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S OFFICIAL DUTIES, OR THE
    INDIVIDUAL IS ACTING WITH THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OWNER
    OF THE PREMISES
    OR AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES.
    It is currently legal to OC in a PFZ in Michigan without any additional training or permission from the owner of the premises as long as you possess a CPL. You can OC in Michigan without a CPL everywhere except in a PFZ. As a compromise to get Gov. Snyder's signature, SB 59 does away with open carry in a pistol free zone unless you first get written permission from the owner of the property. The thinking is that there are so few in Michigan who carry openly, and the goal is to increase the number of people who will be able to carry in a PFZ - the majority of whom will do so concealed.
    "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible… there is no comparison whatever between an armed man and a disarmed one…" Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Alright, i was just making sure because I OC in PFZ on daily basis. Id hate to see them tell me now i cant OC in them unless i take a course thats pointless, expensive and waste of time! Nor should you have to pay to take a class to CC in the areas either. The class will teach us nothing we havent already learned in the first class about carrying.

    We need Constitutional Carry in this State and get rid of Governing our RIGHTS

  9. #9
    ezkl2230's Avatar
    ezkl2230 is offline I am a FREEMAN!!!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket0086 View Post
    Alright, i was just making sure because I OC in PFZ on daily basis. Id hate to see them tell me now i cant OC in them unless i take a course thats pointless, expensive and waste of time! Nor should you have to pay to take a class to CC in the areas either. The class will teach us nothing we havent already learned in the first class about carrying.

    We need Constitutional Carry in this State and get rid of Governing our RIGHTS
    That's what we are working for.

    I sent the following email to a Michigan State Representative last night regarding SB 59. We ALL need to contact our legislators.


    Good Afternoon!

    I know that I have addressed this concern with you before, but now that the legislation is actually coming to the House, I want to address it again.

    I fully support most of what SB 59 hopes to accomplish. It is a step in the right direction.

    However, the additional classes required of those of us who already possess a CPL and wish to carry concealed in a gun free zone are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and is not an approach that is reasonably adapted to a government interest. This is what the Amendment says:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Two statements in this amendment apply here.

    First, "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The right to carry a firearm for one's own protection is firmly established in the Second Amendment. Michigan is already an open carry state; gun control laws that abridge that right with regard to concealed carry are a violation of the 14th Amendment.

    Second, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Consider this example:

    Two individuals, both possess a CPL.

    The one who possesses the CPL and chooses to carry OPENLY in an area designated as gun-free can legally do so without any additional training, and has always been able to do so.

    The one who possess a CPL but chooses to carry CONCEALED, on the other hand, is forbidden from exercising the exact same right in a gun-free zone unless, should this law pass in the House (not very likely since Speaker Bolger already put the House Republicans on notice several months ago that there will be no fast-tracking of this bill, regardless of the support it receives), he first applies for an exemption from gun free zones, then pays for another 8 hours of class and expends yet another 96 rounds of ammo on the range.

    The only difference between the two CPL holders is the METHOD OF CARRY, and under the Equal Protection Clause, that constitutes an undue burden on the right to carry concealed.

    As an additional consideration, the recent federal appeals case, Woollard v. Sheridan, makes the following observation:

    "If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government`s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a "good and substantial reason" why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right`s existence is all the reason he needs."
    There are no objective data to back up the notion that a CPL holder carrying concealed in a gun free zone poses any greater threat to public safety than does a CPL holder who chooses to carry openly, and that is the kind of data that would be necessary to establish that the government has an overriding interest that makes the infringement of a Constitutional right necessary.

    I am asking that, when this comes up for a vote, you offer an amendment that will strike these unConstitutional additional requirements from the bill.
    As I said, we all need the contact the legislator fro our own district to urge them to take the appropriate action on SB 59 so that the Governor can sign it before the end of the legislative year. We also need to contact House Speaker Bolger to urge him to fast-track this bill for a vote (he is responsible to schedule bills for votes, and went on record a few months ago that he will NOT fast-track this vote when it finally comes to the House regardless of the support it has both in public and in the legislature) and Governor Snyder to urge him to sign the bill when it arrives on his desk.

    There is no time to lose; if we get to the end of the year without the House passing it, we begin all over again next year - and both houses lost seats to the Democrats, meaning that we won't have quite as much support for these kinds of bills and will have to work even harder to pass them.
    "For among other evils caused by being disarmed, it renders you contemptible… there is no comparison whatever between an armed man and a disarmed one…" Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14

    Default

    I talked to a few other guys local here who are FFL dealers, and they explained it to me as If this passes, It will no longer be legal to OC in PFZ. Will only allowed CC once class is completed.

    Thats whats confusing as Seems its 50/50 on who knows what

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •