Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L

MICHIGAN: Constitutional Carry update

Recommended Posts

From MCRGO:
 
Constitutional Carry Wins Committee Approval
 
This past Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee approved constitutional concealed carry legislation on a party line vote of 6-4. The bills now go to the full House of Representatives for consideration. Timing on a vote is unpredictable.
 
One important change was made in committee. Both concealed pistol license holders and people carrying without a license would be required to disclose "upon request" of a peace officer. This would eliminate the current requirement for CPL holders to provide immediate disclosure but adds a disclosure requirement for carry without a license. The change was made at the request of the Michigan State Police.
 
A Democratic amendment to disqualify people from constitutional concealed carry if they would not qualify for a concealed pistol license was defeated due to the burden it would impose on law enforcement. Also defeated was a Democratic amendment to impose a mandatory training requirement for constitutional carry as it would be very difficult to enforce without a license. 
 
CPL holders would continue to enjoy the additional benefits not provided to unlicensed individuals. It is our expectation that most CPL holders would wish to retain and renew their concealed pistol licenses once the legislation becomes law rather than engaging in unlicensed carry. The additional benefits a CPL provides would likely result in an increase in the number of people seeking training and a license in the future as interest in concealed carry increases. This is the result that has been experienced in other states that have adopted constitutional carry. Counterintuitively, not mandating training results in more people pursuing it.
 
It is time to contact your state representative on these bills.  You can find your state representative HERE. Please ask them to support House Bills 4416-4419.

Share this post


Link to post

Im against the bill .

1. Is safety for our Police officers.

With a CPL License the officer calling in your plate on your car knows if you have a CPL or Not.

2. Training We dont need any more people carrying guns with out some sort of training .

3. With training comes the aspect of knowing the laws of were and win you can carry a gun .

4. When random shootings start taking place ,

The whole system will get Voided and they will say No one can have a CPL,

Many people will loose rights we have fought so hard for.

5. We all should be for our Second Amendment Rights ,

But also we should all be for Responsible Ownership and Carry !

6. As a responsible gun owner we all need to be concerned about them Mental awareness 

Of the general gun public and what type of laws are being made or changed for all responsible gun owners.

7. Your Second Amendment rights is one thing and Responsible trained carry is another.

8. Yes the system has flawless ,

But giving everyone the right to carry a gun with No Licensing or Background checks ,

is Not the right answer .

9. There will be MORE Bad guys with Guns and More Untrained people getting guns stolen

or taken away from them .

10. RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS RESPONSIBLE CARRY !

Share this post


Link to post

Respectfully disagree. 

In a free country there are risks and challenges that go along with being free.

I can exercise my right to free speech with out training.

I can exercise my freedom of religion without training.

ect.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Jimmy Reb, SASS #54804 said:

Respectfully disagree. 

In a free country there are risks and challenges that go along with being free.

I can exercise my right to free speech with out training.

I can exercise my freedom of religion without training.

ect.

 

I stand with you and our Constitution and believe that MCRGO supports these bills - I support their position.

 

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/michigan-constitutional-carry-wins-committee-approval/#axzz4jKdAJnQf

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post

 

The Second Admitted rights to Own a firearm is one thing.

The Right to Carry a firearm with out a background check and or training is a difficult and different story.

We need to be responsible gun owners fight for rights for responsible trained  citizens to  carry guns.

But to just give that right to carry a gun to anyone with out training or a background check 

Is NOT responsible !

 

Yes. I have a CPL.

Yes. Im a gun owner.

Yes. Im a NRA Life Member.

Yes . Im a NRA Certified NRA Instructor.

Yes. Im a Certified NRA Range Officer .

Yes. Im for Responsible gun rights.

No. Im not for Just anyone to have the right to Own or Carry a Gun with out a background check and or training

I Respectfully disagree with you guys also.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

 

The Second Admitted rights to Own a firearm is one thing.

The Right to Carry a firearm with out a background check and or training is a difficult and different story.

We need to be responsible gun owners fight for rights for responsible trained  citizens to  carry guns.

But to just give that right to carry a gun to anyone with out training or a background check 

Is NOT responsible !

 

Yes. I have a CPL.

Yes. Im a gun owner.

Yes. Im a NRA Life Member.

Yes . Im a NRA Certified NRA Instructor.

Yes. Im a Certified NRA Range Officer .

Yes. Im for Responsible gun rights.

No. Im not for Just anyone to have the right to Own or Carry a Gun with out a background check and or training

I Respectfully disagree with you guys also.

 

 

Doesn't the person who is carrying have to legally own the handgun? Wouldn't they have already gone through the background check?

Many states have 'open carry' and some already have 'Constitutional Carry' - those folks may or may not have formal training - have there been problems?

 

and really...

 

Who says that if we support the bill that we do not desire for people to be trained or responsible?

 

So don't tell me that I'm "NOT responsible" -

 

but yes  - we all can respectfully disagree - as mentioned I support the bill.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Gunner Gatlin, SASS # 10274 said:

 

 

Doesn't the person who is carrying have to legally own the handgun? Wouldn't they have already gone through the background check?

Many states have 'open carry' and some already have 'Constitutional Carry' - those folks may or may not have formal training - have there been problems?

 

and really...

 

Who says that if we support the bill that we do not desire for people to be trained or responsible?

 

So don't tell me that I'm "NOT responsible" -

 

but yes  - we all can respectfully disagree - as mentioned I support the bill.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Enough said .

We will Respectfully Disagree .

God bless.

Rooster .

Share this post


Link to post

Howdy:

 

It has been my experience that bad folks have been carrying with little or no training.  Also, irresponsible folks have bee doing the same.  There is no evidence that allowing honest responsible folks would suddenly cause a rash of mayhem should they be allowed the same "rights" that bad and irresponsible folks have.  If anything, it appears that in Missouri where we have such vacation spas as St Louis and Kansas City,  there has not been any such killing and maiming above what what already happening.  Also, open carry  is permitted and no "blood in the streets" scenario has occurred.  From personnel experience, I would venture to say that  there will be no change - it hasn't happened in Missouri and other states that have Constitutional carry.     

 

STL Suomi

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, St. Louis Suomi SASS #31905 said:

Howdy:

 

It has been my experience that bad folks have been carrying with little or no training.  Also, irresponsible folks have bee doing the same.  There is no evidence that allowing honest responsible folks would suddenly cause a rash of mayhem should they be allowed the same "rights" that bad and irresponsible folks have.  If anything, it appears that in Missouri where we have such vacation spas as St Louis and Kansas City,  there has not been any such killing and maiming above what what already happening.  Also, open carry  is permitted and no "blood in the streets" scenario has occurred.  From personnel experience, I would venture to say that  there will be no change - it hasn't happened in Missouri and other states that have Constitutional carry.     

 

STL Suomi

 

Agreed, 16 states have constitutional carry.  All are a lot safer than those that have the draconian gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post

Once you start putting qualifications, tests, training requirements, fees, etc. on a right it is no longer a right but alms to be begged from the State.

 

14 hours ago, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

Im against the bill .

1. Is safety for our Police officers.

 

So...California should be about the safest state for LEOs, eh?  

Just about everything in that post sounds like something from Bloomberg, Moms Against Guns, Kevin "Ghost Gun" de Leon," or de Blasio.

I guess, for the safety of our Police officers, we need to ban motor vehicles.

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 145

9/11 related illness: 4
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 3
Automobile crash: 21
Drowned: 2
Duty related illness: 1
Fall: 1
Gunfire: 63
Gunfire (Accidental): 3
Heart attack: 10
Motorcycle crash: 7
Stabbed: 1
Struck by train: 1
Struck by vehicle: 9
Vehicle pursuit: 4
Vehicular assault: 13


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
 

Share this post


Link to post

Update as of June 7
 

"LANSING, MI -- Michiganders would no longer need a concealed pistol license to carry a concealed pistol under legislation approved by the Michigan House of Representatives on Wednesday.

House bills 4416 through 4419 strike the requirement that a Michigander have a license to carry a concealed weapons. People banned from possessing firearms would be banned from carrying them as well. The bills also reduce penalties for certain infractions relating to carrying a pistol without proper identification or disclosure as well."

 

Of course, still needs to be approved by state senate and signed by governor.

Share this post


Link to post

We just had Constitutional carry approved here in ND.  Here are some of the facts from the FBI the support was based on.  Also, when a LEO calls in a license on a stop, "We are not told if the owner has a CCP by dispatch".  For officer safety, all stops are approached as if the occupants are potentially armed - so what here would change?

 

CTW

 

Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming. Each state enacted permitless carry in 2003, 2010, and 2011, respectively. And according to data from the FBI’s “Crime in the United States” report, it’s clear that none of the aforementioned states experienced an increase in the number of murders — including handgun murders — after enacting permitless carry.
In Alaska, handgun murders actually declined after the state enacted permitless carry in 2003. In fact, in the last 14 years, handgun murders have declined as a percentage of the total number of murders. Definitely no doomsday there.

1*HRP1PVoSvKyo6dOXXspztQ.jpeg

 

Arizona also saw a decrease in the percentage of murders committed with a handgun after its permitless carry law took effect in 2010. Overall murder declined, too.1*EEzING8BadO6mSQaKTNDZw.jpeg

Similar trends were seen in Wyoming — a state with a historically low murder rate. Once permitless carry went into effect in 2011, there was no spike in murders overall, or in those committed with a handgun.

1*HIvuqvL-mkWYGupBwDjNLA.jpeg

The fact is, permitless carry simply hasn’t produced the kind of dire, anarchic scenarios gun control advocates want you to believe. Public safety is not being threatened, and last we checked, saloon shootouts at high noon aren’t on the rise.

Share this post


Link to post

Even if it passes here in Michigan your right to carry will only be good IN MICHIGAN !

My Wife and I will both be Keeping our CLP'S Even if the Law takes affect.

Just sayin

Rooster 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 7:02 PM, Rooster Ron Wayne said:

Even if it passes here in Michigan your right to carry will only be good IN MICHIGAN !

My Wife and I will both be Keeping our CLP'S Even if the Law takes affect.

Just sayin

Rooster 

 

Of course it will only be good in Michigan. It's not reciprocal with other states like the CPL - that is only one of the reasons the CPL is still advantageous to have.

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.