Michigan Votes Forum

 If you aren't going to let the law abiding citizen in the general public own and carry a hand gun then fire all the secret service that guards the law makes telling us we can't have them and see how they feel. I don’t want my tax money spend on guarding someone that’s voting against a right I have.

 I worked in law enforcement for 14 1/2 years and I know how the laws and rules can and are abused. Forget about free enterprise think about personal freedom and your own privacy Beside law enforcement agencies have access to your photo through the Department of Motor Vehicles already if they want it. Why should a private company be allowed to keep a file on you?

I was a licensed gun dealer for 18 years. I only had one error in my records they was worth mentioning on an inspection. But I know that over the years I received several notices that I would have to change this or that. I applied for a renewal 4 months before my license ran out. Well I got notices back 3 times that I would have to get so and so form filled out to renew the license. I had sent the forms in all 3 times and was informed that they had not received them. Even thought they had deposited my check 2 months before that time.  The second and third time they were sent registered with signature conformation which I had the receipt for. I talked to the agent in charge and was advise that I could not get my renewal or sell any more guns  (  Because my license had expired during that time ) until they had the forms. Plus if I went over 30 days I would have to reapply for a new license which was taking any where from 45 days to 4 months at that time. All they were trying to do was frustrate me to the point of just closing my business. I requested a name to send them to this time and was given the address and name. As I went to the post office to resend them for the 4^th time there was my license in the mail renewed.

  I called them back in less than an hour and ask them what I was to do with the forms. I was advised to just discard them in the trash if I had my license so you tell me there isn’t any coursing of dealers and I can call you a liar with a clean conscience.

Oh BTW the firearms section is 18.2-308

It doesn't cover anything about the records a dealer has to obtain or keep but  in Virginia toy have to keep the 4377 form for 20 years  and the state form for 2 years and you register for as long as you won the business nothing else is required

Thanks to Mackinac Center and MichiganVotes for updating the format on this “discussion” board.  Now we can at least see how discussion here has progressed in respect to any given topic.

Having reviewed this entire thread, I have to conclude that both facts and reason expressed by opponents of this legislation overwhelmingly support opposition to the bill.  No coherent, fact-sustained argument to support it has been advanced.

This bill only seeks to interfere with private business owners’ prerogatives to conduct and document their sales transactions as they see fit by banning certain completely legal practices.  It should be rejected by the legislature on that basis.

 our friend, the dipweed, has taken on a monicer and has serruptitiously re-posted his watered down views.

now, how can anyone CLAIMING to be sane insist that this bill has had no positive support, and that no valid reasons for it's passage have been given? they can't. but our friend, the dipweed, is. i'm truly concerned that he is so deep in the anti-gun lobby that he cannot see the forest for the anti-gun bias dripping from his trees.

he sees NO PROBLEM with interfering with basic constitutional rights, but applauds PRIVATE BUSINESSES doing the job of LAW ENFORCEMENT. not a tenable position on this site. he still hasn't supplied the answers to such questions as...

1. what does walmart gain by keeping gun sales photos for the government? (perhaps immunity from prosecution?)

2. why would walmart spend millions to implement what is clearly NOT THEIR CONCERN. (perhaps a zoning variance?)

3. why do mayors give a flying rat's ass about who purchases guns anyway? (perhaps they wish to disarm their citizenry?)

4. why does dipweed support the mayors, and not walmart? doesn't a retailer have the right to say NO? (OBVIOUSLY NOT)  

Personal attacks, name calling and, spurious and scurrilous claims about someone's political positions and a bunch of rhetorical questions do not make an argument in support of or against this bill or any other.

What will support an argument is facts and reason.  

The facts in this case are quite simple, and have been well established above.  

This bill seeks to prohibit gun dealers in Michigan from engaging in a particular sales documentation procedure that is otherwise perfectly legal.  That means, very simply, the bill proposes a law that unnecessarily interferes with the conduct of private business.  That is why it should be rejected. 

 so, if it is PERFECTLY LEGAL, why is the legislature seeking to make the practice ILLEGAL?

now, what FACTS did you supply? in fact, you have supplied NO FACTS, only opinionated drivel, very slanted toward the left.

you have openly OBJECTED to government interfering with the day to day workings of government, but you SUPPORT a bunch of mayors, REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT doing exactly that. this law stops that kind of interference, the theory being that if it is unethical for GOVERNMENT to interfere, it's unethecial for GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES to interfere.

so, why do you OBJECT to is on the one hand and SUPPORT IT on the other? because, like a good liberal, you support the disarmament of the citizenry. you believe whole heartedly in taking away citizen's guns. because you fear them, fear they will be able to defend themselves, and thus, not need to be NANNIED.

now, we're still waiting for those facts.

SaneMichigander:

Personal attacks,

<you mean like the ones you made on homeschoolers JUST FOR FUN?>

 name calling

<you mean like the name calling YOU engaged in?>

 and, spurious and scurrilous claims about someone's political positions

<you mean like the claims you made about myself and others in your previous posts?>

 and a bunch of rhetorical questions

<you mean like the ones you STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED? whatsammata? afraid?>

 do not make an argument in support of or against this bill or any other.

<oh, but supporting a bunch of meddling mayors who hold zoning variances for ransom so walmart cannot build a store where it wants?>

What will support an argument is facts and reason.

<i'm interested in the reason why the mayors won't let walmart build a store on the island of manhattan without taking pictures of pistol purchasers.>  

The facts in this case are quite simple, and have been well established above.  

This bill seeks to prohibit gun dealers in Michigan from engaging in a particular sales documentation procedure that is otherwise perfectly legal.  That means, very simply, the bill proposes a law that unnecessarily interferes with the conduct of private business.  That is why it should be rejected. 

 now, if you would be so kind as to answer my questions, i may have others for you. they DO get tougher as they go along, so study hard, and remember, no only liberals read this site.

Neither the National Rifle Association (NRA) nor the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) has chosen to support this legislation.  Both organizations are aggressive in supporting "pro-gun" and -- more to the point -- opposing what they perceive as "anti-gun" legislation.  In fact, MCRGO's legislative analyst has dismissed this bill as inconsequential to legal and responsible gun ownership while noting it is an undue imposition on private businesses.

That puts this bill in proper perspective.  It has no purpose other than to outlaw what is now a perfectly legal sales documentation practice that may be employed by a licensed gun dealer if the dealer chooses to use it.  

That makes it an unwarranted intrusion on private business practices.

As has been stated here before, and repeatedly, if a prospective gun buyer does not like the way a particular dealer chooses to transact business, he or she is entitled to trade elsewhere.  That is a time-honored, simple and very effective way to get what you want. Government interference of the sort proposed by this bill is unnecessary and undesirable. 

 dear dipweed.

this legislation is intended to STOP an interference by a QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL group of mayors (elected representatives of government all) from imposing IMPROPER duties above and beyond federal law on ONLY ONE lawful business in exchange for zoning variances and licenses to do business in their cities.

by the way, these licenses are still not forthcoming AFTER walmart agreed to the exchange. i didn't know it was legal to hold zoning considerations for ransom. You seem to think that is the right thing to do.

by the way, if they are making walmart, the worlds largest retailer do it, what makes you think they are not DEMANDING EVERY gun dealer in their city do it? what would you suggest, gun purchasers go to another state to buy firearms?

Anonymous Citizen:

Wal-Mart is a private business entity. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition is a voluntary, non-governmental association of city mayors, who are elected officials. The mayors’ group has no governmental authority or power.

<i just love the way you think that a mayor has no governmental authority. he IS governmental authority in his city. why do mayors feel that they must join together to photograph gun buyers in their cities? why not simply pass an ordinance (OR LAW) that says it's necessary to photograph gun buyers in their cities?>

At best or worst – and in any case -- it may be viewed as a political advocacy organization, just like the National Rifle Association.

<it MAY be viewed as a group of political officials trying to change gun laws nationally. if the N.R.A. was composed ENTIRELY of elected officials, i could see your point, but it isn't.

 At present (11/15/08) only two Michigan mayors are listed as members of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition.

<one must ask if walmart has a store in their cities YET?>

 Wal Mart has voluntarily -- that is, of its own choice as a business entity – agreed to adopt the mayors’ group program in the way it handles gun sales. Imagine and blurt out what else you may, but that will not change the fact that voluntary association or adoption of voluntary policies is -- by definition -- not coerced.

<kind of like VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS ARE NEVER COERCED.>

 Voluntary association like this-- between Wal-Mart and the mayors or the NRA and its members -- is a right protected by Amendment I, of the United States Constitution. No government entity has the right to bar you or me or anyone from joining the National Rifle Association and adopting its programs and political positions and legal practices as our own. Likewise, no government entity is empowered to bar Wal-Mart or any other business from partnering with the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition and adopting its recommended policies and practices. It is OK to criticize and harangue against Wal-Mart for itbelievs chosen business practices and choice of voluntary associations. It is OK to be critical of the mayors’ coalition. It is OK to be critical of the NRA. The right to criticize is a right also protected by the First Amendment. With rights go responsibilities. The right to criticize entails a responsibility be fact-based and honest in criticizing. Criticism built on lies and distortions is morally bankrupt. It is OK to take your business elsewhere if you don’t like Wal Mart’s (or the NRA’s) business policies and practices. The right of association protected by the First Amendment also implicitly embraces the right to not associate oneself with beliefs or participate in practices of which one does not personally approve. That is American individualism in action – the right to exercise personal choice. But it is not OK to pass legislation banning Wal Mart’s (or any other private business’ or association’s) voluntarily adopted and legal transaction practices or other policies that it deems appropriate just because some -- or even many -- people happen to dislike or disagree with those practices or policies. That is unwarranted governmental interference in private affairs. Such legislation certainly violates the spirit of Amendment I to the US Constitution. It also may violate the Constitution in fact. Advocating such legislation is advocating un-American practices.

<now our dipweed seems to advocate mayors using the FIRST AMENDMENT to violate the SECOND AMENDMENT. giving mayors unlimited powers despite what it says in the united states constitution, or the michigan constitution. he speaks of FREE VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS where there are none. he has no PROOF that walmart is freely and voluntarily associating with the group of mayors, in fact, the very link to the article given earlier here list the fact that things are not exactly KOSHER in new york, where the group's president is mayor, citing a long standing battle between walmart and city government over building a walmart in manhattan. you should read the article for yourself. i have.> 

 it's amazing to me that our opponent can't deal with the truth. he won't answer questions honestly, or even answer them at all. when confronted with the TRUTH, he changes the subject.

he constantly compares our "mayor's club" with the N.R.A.. now, if the N.R.A. were composed entirely of PRO-GUN ELECTED OFFICIALS, then POSSIBLY he would have a point, but it isn't, and he doesn't.

what he DOES have is a twisted view of what actual governmental interference is. he believes that interfering with private citizen's rights is the proper role of government, and that government interference is inevetible. he has said so in several of his posts.

now that the TRUTH has been gotten to, he is silent.

proof positive that he has lost.

You Say ---Wal Mart has voluntarily -- that is, of its own choice as a business entity – agreed to adopt the mayors’ group program

Do you believe the same thing about my Privet business allowing my patrons to smoke????

Do we take it, then, that Michpatriot opposes this legislation as improper government interference with private business practices?

 hey sane...

you sure don't know how to "take" things...

i "take it" that you consider government deciding whether or not a customer can smoke in a private place of business is the proper role of government, but in fact it isn't. it is NOT the job of government to make that decision, it is the job of the business owner.

i "take it" that you consider government (in the form of a group of anti-gun mayors) deciding whether or not ONE company has to take photographs of it's customers conducting legal business transactions the proper role of government, but in fact it isn't. it is NOT the job of government to hold zoning variances HOSTAGE in order to forward an ANTI-GUN AGENDA. that is counter to the second amendment of the united states constitution and the michigan constitution.

i "take it" that you think that GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE is a GOOD THING in certain circumstances, but a BAD THING in others. one of these bills is CERTAINLY government interference. the other is a WATERED DOWN ATTEMPT at controlling the continued interference from the left wing of the legislative delegation.

now, i know it is against your religion to answer questions, a common ailment among leftists, but please try some THOUGHT, it makes for a refreshing change.

 dear sane.

where is the sanity in allowing some legislative body to make all of your life decisions?

do you "TAKE IT" that ALL michiganders are incapable of making such decisions for themselves? do you deny them the FREEDOM to make those decisions? do you deem yourself the arbiter of WHAT IS AND ISN'T FOR THEIR OWN GOOD???

are you UNABLE to make those kinds of decisions for yourself, and thus you feel they must be made for others? or are you just UNWILLING to make such decisions for yourself? perhaps you are UNHAPPY with the decisions others have made, and you believe that everyone else MUST BEND TO YOUR WILL?

one of the toughest things a legislator has to do is write GOOD LAW. i have seen very little, if any, GOOD LAW come out of this legislature, and certainly have seen more than enough BAD LAW to make me doubt the sanity of most, if not all michiganders.

what i HAVE seen, though, is a spirit to correct SOME of the mistakes of the past, and not to allow the leftists total control of the legislative process. this gives me SOME hope that SOMEONE in the legislature gives a rat's ass about MY RIGHTS.

i believe that you are among those that don't believe that i have a right to have a gun on my person to protect myself, without a LICENSE, or a PERMIT, or the PERMISSION OF GOVERNMENT to do it.

i believe that you are among those that don't believe that i have a right to partake in an alcoholic beverage, as you seem to be four-square in favor of every legislative control over places that serve alcohol.

i believe that you are among those that don't believe that i have the right to decide whether or not i will allow smoking in my place of business, especially if that business serves alcohol.

in other words, you think MY HEALTH is YOUR CONCERN. well, i hate to burst your little bubble, but IT ISN'T. you don't have to pay for it, you don't get to control it, and it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

neither is the bunch of choices i make on a daily basis.

now, if you want to effect smoking legislation, give the legislature, and those interested readers here a LIST OF NAMES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE "OFFICIALLY" DIED OF SECOND HAND SMOKE. i'm sure that with over three thousand supposed deaths a year, you should have no troble in finding a medical examiner who will certify that second hand smoke was the cause of death.

while you are at it, why don't you make a list of those "innocent people" who have died as a direct result of the concealed carry laws. your governor said there would be THOUSANDS. so far, i have seen NONE. that little project should keep you busy for a while.

oh, and as a last little homework assignment, why don't you also give us a list of the FACTUALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE that the leftists keep SWEARING HAVE BEEN EXECUTED? death penalty opponents have been researching this for years, and they haven't found any either. good luck on that one.

now, leftist rhetoric aside, leave my rights and my decision making ALONE. 

What is all the prattling about, anyway?

This bill seeks to ban a presently legal practice that private gun dealers may (or may not) choose to employ to document their sales to private customers.  Using the practice is a matter of free choice on the part of the dealer.  Whether or not to do business with a dealer that uses the procedure in question is a matter of choice on the buyer's part.  

This bill seeks to restrict rather than protect individual choices in how business is transacted between private parties.

Those are the simple and unvarnished and irrefutable facts about this proposal, no matter what convoluted arguments are attempted to the contrary, or what irrelevant claptrap is introduced in an effort to cloud the issue.

HB 6518 was introduced late in this legislative session by a single representative acting without co-sponsors.  It addresses a non-issue and should die when this session closes and should not be reintroduced.

 you keep comparing the "mayor's club" with the N.R.A.

the "mayor's club" is a group composed ENTIRELY OF LIBERAL DEMOCRAT MAYORS. each and every one of them an elected representative of the people. NONE of them could do this in their NORMAL capacity as mayor. to hold zoning variances "for ransom" is illegal in all fifty states, including new york.

now, the N.R.A. is composed of conservatives, liberals, civilians, elected officials, and plain old everyday folk.

the "mayor's club" has used the zoning boards of SEVERAL CITIES to hold back on variances that would allow walmart to build stores in their cities, including on manhattan island in new york. the only reason walmart entered into this VOLUNTARY agreement is to obtain those variances. but after three plus years, the variances are still not forthcoming.

i believe the word i'm searching here for is EXTORTION.

you will, of course, pigheadedly disagree...