Michigan Votes Forum

It was stupid to have that in law anyway, but it was a concession to help us get the CPL law passed here, and it did pass very well in the legislature and Gov. Engler signed it, but the bleeding heart liberals almost stopped it from passing when they sued their way up to the Michigan Supreme Court against it.

I think we have proved ourselves to deserve to protect ourselves in those places mentioned, and not leave them as zones where only criminals will have guns and feel free to prey upon the rest as they always do.

 sorry, msmith. 

you can never prove yourself worthy to carry a gun to a liberal.

it just ain't gonna happen.

you could be the pope, and it STILL ain't gonna happen.

Well it's now ok for the judges to do this, what are we..... second class citizens?

This needs to be enacted, GFZ should have never been put in in the first place. 

So much for equal protection un der the law, it just goes to prove that we still elites who have more rights than the commoner.

 and so much for freedom, and rights, and citizenship.

just a lie, perpetrated by the left to keep us in our place while they disarm us.

having GUN FREE ZONES in a country where every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms is a slap in the face of freedom.

Gun Free Zones should never have been enacted in the first place. You trust me to carry a firearm - in fact, you trust me to teach your children every day. Allow me to protect myself 24/7 wherever I go.  I will continue to be as careful and as guarded as I am today - and perhaps save a life somewhere along the way.

The people who will never respect any firearm restriction are criminals - don't make me risk my life to follow a section of the law that should never have been enacted.

The only peple likely to honor the "gun-free zone" provision are the law abiding citizens who will not do anything to japardise their CPL.  Criminals don't care about that law.

It's about time there was a serious effort to repeal the "criminal empowerment zones!"  The logic behind them is flawed.  If applied to fire, it is akin to banning fire extinquishers by declaring someplace a "fire free zone."  Citizens who have taken the time and expense to obtain a legal permit to carry a concealed firearm have had their background checked by the FBI and, as a group, do not cause trouble.  They are the ONLY armed people the signs / law stop from carrying in these zones.  Criminals will carry where they want with no training or vetting whatsoever.  The current law, therefore, favors the criminal!  Is this sane?  The only logical course is to dispense with the so-called "gun-free zones."

The gun-free zones provision was added in 2000 HB-381 for the simple reason that Governor Engler said he would not sign the bil without those provisions. MCRGO and NRA were fighting to get a "shall-issue" bill passed and we believed that compromise was the only way we could succeed.

It is now clear how dangerous any "gun free zone" restriction is: the two most popular places for mayhem have proven to be schools and churches, the very places were delusioned people think that they can commit mass murder without being stopped.

It's time to make Michigan safer by eliminating these restrictions. The incredible record of CPL licensees since July 1, 2001 has amply demonstrated that no mayhem will arise from allowing licensees to carry almost everywhere. Let's do it!

David, you make a strong point about the history of "gun free zones," and you accurately describe the history of this law in that respect.  

I support your position. 

 NOW look who's pandering.

David Felbeck:

The gun-free zones provision was added in 2000 HB-381 for the simple reason that Governor Engler said he would not sign the bil without those provisions.

Why did John Engler hate our constitution?

crazycajun:

 NOW look who's pandering.

So, crazycajun is against this legislation, too.

Looks like an excellant and much needed piece of legislation.

SaneMichigander:

So, crazycajun is against this legislation, too.

tell me, sane... how did you leap to that magical conclusion? it's certainly not supported by facts.

or is this another attempt at levity? perhaps a smear?

jmangan:

Why did John Engler hate our constitution?

 probably the same reason that our current governor does. with enough exposure to liberal ideals, they seem to catch on to some people. if you can control the schools, you can control the people.

Maybe with enough exposure, they'll catch on to you. Engler was a right winger too.

 engler was a r.i.n.o. republican in name only.

Thank God for some rational thought from a legislator.  If this gets passed and signed, the criminals will have no idea where it is "safe" to threaten the law abiding !!!  

Glock~ 

I am definitely for repealing the gun free zones. However, leave your gun at home if you plan on drinking irresponsibly.

Guns and booze don't mix.

 why would you assume that those who choose to be armed would also choose to drink irresponsibly?

That's the law, and people with CPLs tend to follow it better than most.  I'd like to emphasize that this goes for COPS as well!

 i agree, i also follow the law, including all the extra 'flaming hoops' i had to jump through to get my permit. we only hear of a few permit holders getting into trouble drinking, we hear of hundreds of criminals getting into trouble drinking, and occasionally, we hear of the wayward police officer getting into trouble drinking.

bottom line, i found it good advice, but a poor assumption.

 aren't gun free zones places where the government says 'your constitutional rights don't matter to us'?

Crazycajun has an opinion and about HB 4334, HB 4183, HB 4198, and SB 255.

And, that's fine.  That's his/our right.

Except he appears to hate everything.  Can everything, that's EVERYTHING about Granholm and government in general be THAT bad?  I'm no fan of Granholm, but when I see nothing but complaints on lots of posts by ONE person, I just ignore the comments made by that person.  When the company whiner starts walking my way, I go the other way.

 company whiner? boy, the "i hate crazycajun club" is out in force.

I've always wanted to have my weapon on me when at the casino. It's really scarry saying "hit me" to the blackjack dealer while being unarmed.

gypsy:

I've always wanted to have my weapon on me when at the casino. It's really scarry saying "hit me" to the blackjack dealer while being unarmed.

Ah, but lest we forget, the only reason why a CPL holder can't carry in a casino is because a despondent gambler shot himself at a gaming table after a big loss.  And guess what?  That gambler was a COP!  So what happened?  They banned carry by CPLs, but COPS CAN STILL CARRY IN A CASINO!!!  Even Stevie Wonder could see a problem with this!  Legislators didn't think, they just reacted, and reacted poorly.

 don't they psychologically screen those guys? i guess not.

Yes, they do.

 not well enough. any person who gambles away a public servant's paycheck, then offs himself in public shouldn't have ever been given a gun in the first place.

Any opinion on the proposed legislation?

 of course.

OK, thanks for sharing it with us.

 i believe everyone should be armed. whenever, wherever, however. it's our constitutional duty.

Yippee kiiyaa!

 whatever...

So it's whenever, wherever, however,....and now whatever.

 whatever. a response to "yipee kiyay", which is the cry of the movie star, or the drunk cowboy. which are you?