Michigan Votes Forum

 what is the public purpose for changing the definition of a shotgun into a pistol? what is the public purpose for changing the definition of a rifle into a pistol? it will only serve to make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. law that only effects small groups is bad law. law that criminalizes legal behavior that you happen to disagree with is tyranny.

I believe you are having a hard time with the reality of this bill.

 not at all. i'm having a hard time with the tyranny of this bill.

Maybe just a hard time in general.

 some don't suffer tyrants well.

Some don't suffer the facts well.

 i'm glad you have admitted to your shortcomings. now, where did you say that gun control succeeded?

I didn't. You assumed. I am not an advocate for gun control. I am an advocate for facts. You have misinterpreted the intent of this bill.

You also misunderstood who I was referring to in my previous post.

There aparenty is a definition already for "pistol"  This will limit it.  For the record gun control is NOT crime control, in my opinion.  I agree with you bugman, we don't need more gun control, but I think this bill is not as bad as you might think it is.  Doing away with registration would be a good goal, but oposing this bill would do nothing close to repealing registration.  Just my humble opinion.

one more thing, I do not interpet gypsy as a gun control advocate... and nothing this person posted makes me think that.

Bugman,  save this energy for fighting real enemies of the 2nd Amendment.  I could give you a list of people to debate.

 thanks doctor.

michigan's gun laws are many, and mostly designed around gun control. any law that adds weapons to a registration list, like this one will do for curios and relics, is bad law. this law will do nothing to reduce crime, but will do something to increase the amount of honest, law abiding citizens that will become criminals if it passes. that is bad law.

the real enemies of the second amendment are those who believe that we do not in fact have the right to keep and bear arms. those that believe that because they disagree with that right, they can take that right away from the citizen. there are a fair number of those people who have been elected into our legislature. this is proven by the preponderance of bad law concerning firearms.

this same group believes that our other rights flow from them, not our creator.

 one more thing. gun control is always 'advertised' as crime control. every gun control measure was originally 'sold' to the people with the 'bill of goods' that had crime control right up top. i see gun control as a benefit to the criminal, and as a hinderance to the citizen. the fact that gun control laws are so pervasive in our country, leading to a supreme court decision whether or not we actually have the right to keep and bear arms, despite the fact that it is clearly stated in our constitution, is proof of the 'mentality' that gun control is truly believed to 'prevent crime'. the truth is that in fact gun control is designed to facilitate crime. it's very existance has made thousands of citizens into criminals.

there is a theory that good people write bad law. there comes a point where one must question whether there are indeed bad people behind the writing of some of this 'anti-gun' bad law.

There is nothing in this bill that changes the exception to not register curio's and relics.

 there doesn't have to be. any legal weapon under 26" is to be registered. only curios and relics are legal weapons under 26". the law does say "all" weapons under 26".

Your making a mountain out of a molehill. The exception is not rescinded by this bill.

 are you advocating adding legal weapons to a list that by definition can only exist to disarm the citizens of this state?

No.

 are you supporting this legislation?

Yes, I have read it and understand it would lessen the number of firearms that need to be registered.

 before this legislation, no rifle or shotgun, regardless of length was included on the 'pistol' list. after this legislation, they will be. this legislation adds rifles and shotguns to the pistol list. do you believe that is the right thing to do?

Here, I must tell you, you are dead wrong. I have shown you the bill, I have shown you the Michigan penal code, I have shown you the attoney generals opinion. If you insist on calling black white, OK. That's your choice.

 did you read the analysis for this bill?

Introduced by Rep. Douglas Geiss (D) on March 4, 2009, to revise the definition of “pistol” so that it applies to a firearm less than 26 inches long, rather than 30 inches. Many commercial rifles and shotguns have folding stocks that make the gun less than 30 inches when folded, presumably making them qualify for pistol registration requirements.

now, nothing says they WILL make it part of the 'pistol list' but nothing says they won't. the people doing the analysis seem to think that they will make it part of the list. i believe them. my reading says the same thing. if you choose not to believe that they will. it's up to you. don't be surprised when they do.

I choose to read the bill, and draw my conclusions from it, rather than the analysis by Michigan Votes. You may be looking and the letter behind the sponsor's name and prejudging. Even just using the analysis to come to the conclusion you do is a stretch, in my opinion.

 my problem comes from this 'definition' of the word firearm.

(b) "Firearm" means a weapon from which a dangerous projectile

may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air. Firearm does

not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and

manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or

air, BB's BBs not exceeding .177 caliber.

and this 'definition'.

(e) "Pistol" means a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 30 26

inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded firearm that by

its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.

that is where the 'loophole' is in this law. if you don't see it, contact a smart attorney. you don't mind banning deer feeding because of what might happen. i don't mind opposing laws like this because of what might happen.

I think your seeing dragons in the wallpaper. Opposing a bill that works towards your goals is counterproductive.

 i am opposing a bill that works to deprive citizens of their rights. i see it as my duty.

I hope you don't see your foot as an enemy, and shoot it.

 i don't. i wonder, do you carry a gun?

Yes.

 i wonder, does it chafe you as badly as the government that doesnt trust you to carry it? does the fact that there are those on the left that think you foolish bother you as much as your being armed bothers them?

I think your confused. It doesn't chafe me at all, I have a very comfortable holster.

 so do i. hot days still bring on the chafing. do you plan on giving up your weapon when confiscation comes?

I plan on keeping my constitutional rights.

 your constitutional rights are to be able to keep and bear arms. registration's only legitimate purpose is to confiscate weapons. your own party is working towards confiscation, and has been behind many recent confiscations in this country. is confiscation constitutional?

This bill lessens the number of guns needed to be registered.

 by adding rifles and shotguns that weren't on the list before...  of course... how many pistols have been removed from the list?

 Let's address the fact that all of these laws, gun boards, CCW, regulations, and registrations are unconstituitonal.  Michigan's constitution guarrantees the right of ALL citizens to be armed.  Period.  If, in the past, citizens let those in government attempt to steal their rights away, that is a shame.  It doesn't mean that those rights don't still exist.  Here are two ways to recover these rights:

1.  Contact your legislator.  Repeatedly.  Until they eliminate these unconstitutional statutes.  If they refuse, support someone else who will do your will.  Never vote for them again, and encourage everyone you know to never vote for them again.

2.  Read and understand your rights as a juror.  If you are ever on a case where someone is charged with any kind of weapons law violation, vote innocent.  If they robbed a bank with a machine gun, and killed ten people, convict them of bank robbery and murder, but do not convict anyone of using a gun in a crime, or being in the possession of a gun, or an unregistered gun, or illegal ammunition, or anything like that.  This is called jury nullification and it was used most reasonably to help end slavery and prohibition.

Mike Hignite:

 Let's address the fact that all of these laws, gun boards, CCW, regulations, and registrations are unconstituitonal.  Michigan's constitution guarrantees the right of ALL citizens to be armed.  Period. ...

If, in fact, these various laws violate the Michigan Constitution, as claimed, it is difficult (even impossible) to conceive that in the years they have been on the books they would not have been challenged in court and thrown out by court decision.

Arguments on many fronts can be made for liberalizing these laws.  Constitutional principles certainly are a legitimate part of those arguments.   But making specious claims about supposed violations of Michigan's Constitution does not serve the cause well at all.

Gypsy, give up. You are correct in yopur assessment but you will never get the paranoid ones to admit this is not an attempt to take their guns away.  BTW-I own rifles, pistols shotguns, support the NRA and MCRGO etc and hold a CPL.