Social and Civil Liberty Issues

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

mick1001 — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:07:46 GMT

Assaults in the schools could maybe be stopped. Gun free zones are prime targets for mad men. All gun free zones send a message that says we are satting ducks. My classes for my CLP lead by the county sheriff said these gun free zones you shouldn't go to these places. Avode them as offen as you can.

I see the schools as one of these places and the chruch I attend weekly I go because I feel the need to attend. But offen think I'm a duck waiting for that hunter.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

Articulation — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:44:00 GMT

That really is silly thinking. You realize that right now everyone knows that people can't have guns in those locations. That's what we call common knowledge. When it becomes common knowledge (I.E once news media picks up that this bill has passed) that people CAN carry in those locations, they cease being common targets. Not everyone has to carry, all it takes is knowledge that people may be carrying. The Oregon shooter at the mall last week was confronted with a CPL holder and shot himself shortly thereafter.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

rebee — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:38:00 GMT

The argument that allowing the carrying of concealed weapons will prevent criminals from shooting innocent people is pretty specious one. If the weapon is concealed, who;s to know who has a weapon? A bit of silly thinking. To really make it work, it should be required that eveyone carry a concealed weapon. Then we can be fearful of everyone. And for the sword and crossbow enthusiast, they are a lot tougher to conceal. Just saying......

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

Lynda — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:27:38 GMT

if a law abiding citizen doesn't then a crazy criminal who DOESN'T follow the law will. We prepare for fires, tornadoes, power outages, our children prepare for gunman and practice lock downs in schools. If we have even one good guy with a gun in a school when a bad guy is there shooting it up then the odds of our children surviving has increased dramatically! It's not if it is going to happen it's when. We advertise "Gun free School Zones" so these nuts know where to go to not get shot back at. Our state is already an Open carry state. All this is doing is allowing someone to put a jacket on and cover their pistol. You are around guns a lot in your shopping experience and you never new it. Funny how no one was killed.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

2AMGuy — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:21:30 GMT

In a perfect world there would be no need for guns, but unfortunately and obviously we do not live in a perfect world so it makes common sense to take whatever measures we have to to protect ourselves and other innocent parties.

Legally armed, trained civilians carrying a concealed handgun is rarely a problem as we are statisically the most law abiding demographic group of folks in this country.

Currently, a person who has a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License) can legally carry his/her handgun into a school as long as the handgun is NOT concealed and in a couple of recent cases this practice cause a lot excitement when some folks chose to do this.

SB 59 would not give a Concealed Pistol Licensee the right to carry their guns onto school property (as this right already exists) but it would require them to take extra training keep their handgun concealed while they are on school property.

Schools are very "soft" targets for those looking to kill the innocent and unprotected with little or no fear of being stopped or facing any serious resistance and there's many horror stories, and a lot of dead children and teachers that confirms this.

If I had a child who was in danger, I would appreciate anyone who chose to defend them by any means available, including lethal force if necessary.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

smac — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:41:07 GMT

For those of you confused by this bill, do you realized that these zones are only "Gun Free" zones for law abiding citizens. Someone intent on taking lives dosn't care about these established zones, and one prepared adult could have ended the situation much quicker in Conneticut or Colorado and saved lives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the right to carry AND for tougher laws to obtain firearms and much longer track records for gun owner before allowing ownership of handguns.

These troubled individuals will be around, if there are no guns they will use explosives or other methods, I'm in favor of limiting the number of guns and stiffer penalties for guns that make it into the wrong hands. Police cannot be everwhere, and there is a reason why these "soft targets" are in the news these days, adults must have a way to protect when required. I wish that just one of the seven adults lost in conneticut had this right.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

James327 — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:14:50 GMT

Bill 59? On what planet does this sound ok?

I am totally confused why this is a partisan issue!

I see this bill past with basically 100 percent republican support. Would they really feel the same way if they lost a child like those in Conneticut?

Is there just one good reason to make it legal to bring a gun to any public event, school, or church?

This isn't the wild west anymore!

James

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

Traversecity — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:30:32 GMT

I do not understand why SB 59 supports registered gun users to bring guns into public schools. Bringing guns into schools does not encourage a sense of safet. Safety is a fundamental ingredient for student learning. In the wake of Friday's tragedy it makes me pause and wonder why our legislators put this into the bill. I appreciate that governor Synder is giving some thought to SB 59 before he decides whether to sign it.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

jgboehm — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:04:06 GMT

What is Substitute S-3?

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

uncled — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:32:36 GMT

This is just another way for the State to money for the Counties and/or local units of government.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

johnap88 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:47:07 GMT

Also, SB 59 holds Michigan sheriffs and local taxpayers liable (civilly and fiscally) for delays that may be beyond their control at the state or federal levels. The State police normally are the cause of delay of the CPL's being issued and they wont be held responsible but the Sheriff and Tax payers will be punished. that totally is unfair. State Officials must be held to the same standards of accountability if delays, errors or omissions occur on their end, not just the Sheriff’s Office and local taxpayers. Remember they wanted to give the Secretary of State and State police the power to issue the license? well it was abandoned but what i already stated and other issues are to give the Sheriff a hard time just so they can re-argue "Secretary of State and State police" to take over. why else to punish the sheriffs and tax payers for the state police and federal delays, errors etc? there is a ton of issues with this bill and even the Michigan Sheriffs Association is strongly against this bill. they do support permit holders to carry guns in pistol-free zones though, that i do support too but they have a ton of issues in this bill that isn't being talked about by the legislator. it used to be less than 20 pages but the bill grew to 57 pages or more(last i seen was 57). making changes and adding on to it. i would ask the Michigan Sheriffs Association about this bill to know the issues.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

johnap88 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:14:28 GMT

my bad, i misunderstood an e-mail i have that was referring to another draft of the bill. here is a response about it. Pg 25, lines 11-13 were struck because it is an improper reference to a crime. SB 59 amends the Firearms Act and the bill drafter updated the language to reflect changes that were made in the Penal Code—the conduct in lines 11-13 is now a felony, not a misdemeanor. With that, CPL permits are not granted to anyone with a felony (see pg 22, lines 20-23). yeesh

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

Articulation — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:55:09 GMT

johnap88:
The SB 59 second draft (page 16) and current draft (page 25) would require a Sheriff to issue a concealed pistol license to someone convicted of “accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes” under MCL. 750.145a, when they are NOT allowed to get a CPL now! Whose idea was that?! What agenda would those politicians or the drafters of the bill legislating that sheriffs issue a gun license to someone convicted of a heinous crime like that against our children?

That's funny, I can't seem to find that in the bill reading through it. I do find a section stating that they shall NOT issue the license to them. Maybe you misread the bill.

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

johnap88 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 00:12:30 GMT

The SB 59 second draft (page 16) and current draft (page 25) would require a Sheriff to issue a concealed pistol license to someone convicted of “accosting, enticing, or soliciting a child for immoral purposes” under MCL. 750.145a, when they are NOT allowed to get a CPL now! Whose idea was that?! What agenda would those politicians or the drafters of the bill legislating that sheriffs issue a gun license to someone convicted of a heinous crime like that against our children?

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 59 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State )

Articulation — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:41:23 GMT

You know who totally listens to laws about no-carry zones? Criminals. Cause, Y'know, Criminals totally listen to laws in general because being a criminal means you follow every single law. No. What this law does is give honest law abiding citizens willing to undergo training usually WITH A POLICE OFFICER to carry a pistol anywhere. You know who else carries into pistol free zones concealed? Off-duty police officers. And you need a squeaky clean record to get a CPL. You know what's illegal to do right now as well? Drink while you're carrying. You know where criminals prefer to shoot people? Where they know nobody will shoot back. Schools, Churches, Etc. And furthermore do you know who wanted to require you to own and know how to use a gun? The founding fathers of this country. Who wrote the bill of rights. Y'know, that document that kind of outlines the foundation of ALL our rights? Which we, as gun owners, do indeed like to quote because fear mongering people who have no knowledge of firearms tend to try and stomp them out at every turn. Guns are not scary tools of death and destruction like most anti-gun people believe. It's not the guns going into places and killing people. It's the people doing it. And honest to god they would be using crossbows or knives or any other means if all the guns were taken away. But oh wait, You know where guns are taken away and criminals still get them? England. Why? Because once again criminals will ALWAYS get guns no matter what the law is on them. Criminals are criminals by light of the fact that they do not listen to laws. The only people laws against guns hurt are honest law abiding citizens who have a right to defend themselves. "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)