Open carry in Michigan schools has caused panty bunching in many of Michigan schools. Particularly in the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor. But new bill would try to calm the waters through compromise. “Gun owners would be prohibited from openly carrying weapons in Michigan schools, day care centers and some other areas under legislation set to be formally introduced next week in Lansing. But the pending Senate bill would allow permit holders to carry concealed pistols in those areas instead, provided they first request an exemption from the state.” RKBA horse trading in the Wolverine State. Fair trade?
But the pending Senate bill would allow permit holders to carry concealed pistols in those areas instead, provided they first request an exemption from the state.
To get such permission from the Almighty Gov, will people have to bend over backwards or bend over forwards?
To be a citizen you are required to stand up straight and tall as you can. To be a subject you are required only to kneel.
“provided they first request an exemption from the state”
No, not fair at all. No one will get their permission slip from the government except the armed guards of the wealthy/famous.
This was the deal breaker for me as well. I’ll keep my OC, thank you. You can keep the change.
having lived in Ann Arbor, no no no. The state will never grant. Prior bills made it an absolute – no open carry in prohibited areas but the list of prohibited areas for CCW holders would be eliminated (unless they put up a metal detector). End of story.
Dirk (or anyone else familiar with Ann Arbor): where is there a public-access gun range around here? I’m in Ann Arbor for a couple months, and would love to get in some range time while I’m here.
Good luck. The closest one I am aware of is the DNR range in Grass Lake. It’s about 45 minutes West of Ann Arbor. They restrict how many rounds you can load and don’t allow rapid fire, but the range itself is pretty nice.
There are a number of gun shops with pistol ranges in the Detroit area, some of which may be closer. There are also a few clubs in the Ann Arbor area, but you would need a member to take you out as a guest.
There is/was an outdoor range down in Utica, which is just a bit SW of Rochester Hills. It’s on 22 Mile Rd & Ryan Road, at the River Bends State Park. I used to go there when I lived in Utica back in 1997-2000.
Whether it’s still there, I dunno.
Rivers bend is shotgun only
P.S. screw extra permission
Seriously?
Island lake/kensington has outdoor rifle/pistol and shotgun facilities and they’re about 20-25 minutes north in Brighton.
Ann Arbor arms is opening up a pistol range just out in Scio Township off Zeeb towards the end of the month/early august.
Another excellent pistol range (albiet a 40 minute drive) is Top Gun down in Taylor.
X2 for island lake state park. Ranges from 25-100yds + world class skeet and sporting clays.
Also just 15-20 minutes east in Livonia is center mass inc. very nice indoor range. Pistol caliber active steel target range(their frangible ammo).
If you don’t mind heading east to the county line, Western Wayne County Conservation Association is awesome. I don’t know what it takes to get to the ranges without a membership, I was always invited by a member or participating in an open competition event when I was there.
I go to top gun in Taylor, hate the staff but the facilities are very nice
The dishonesty of these folks is mind boggling. Given the choice, would you rather have a gun or cell phone in your hand if you were the principal of Sandy Hook Elementary school on that fateful day. There is only one honest answer…
I think, yes. The anti-gunners get all a-twitter when they simply see a gun. If they don’t see one, they’re safe. Right?
Yes. Calling them sheep is an insult to sheep.
More like ostriches–except that is an insult to ostriches
Possums?
” … [W]ould allow permit holders to carry concealed pistols in those areas instead, provided they first request an exemption from the state.” Wait! What? CCW holders have already “requested permission from the state” in apply for and receiving their CCW permit. They have presumably undergone training and background checks. Why would they need further permission, who would be responsible for issuing that permission. and what further criteria would be necessary to gain that permission? This sounds like a scam whereby the legislature can claim to be providing for an armed presence in the schools on the one hand and effectively making sure that it never happens with the other hand.
My wife and I volunteered to lead my son’s OM team and the school asked us to submit to a background check. We couldn’t believe it — I wanted to wave my CHP at the principal and ask “does this suffice?!”
So you’d rather the schools not check and if a child molester decided to volunteer and rape some kids I bet you would change your mind. There is nothing wrong with requiring background checks for volunteers who choose to be around children.
“So you’d rather the schools not check and if a child molester decided to volunteer and rape some kids I bet you would change your mind.”
The concealed carry permit *is* a federal criminal background check.
You would think someone with a name like “Background check” would know that.
But no, like every other Progressive Leftist Socialist jackwad like yourself you know next to NOTHING about guns.
FLAME DELETED – Persistent flamers will be permanently banned.
The bill’s probably DOA. The governor won’t sign it unless the schools can opt out. Of the three major gun groups in Michigan, Michigan Open Carry and Michigan Gun Owners were not consulted (despite Sen. Green’s statement) and MCRGO (the group that the politicians like) who backed this bill is now saying it has no official position. Even though they are lobbying heavily for it on their facebook page and banning everyone who even politely questions them.
As to another question, the exemption is free, but you have to ask for it. No extra training required.
Double permission? Gun grabbers have a funny definition of the word compromise. Not too shocking considering they also don’t understand words like shall, not, be, and infringed.
Actually they get a C grade. They DO understand “shall,” “be,” and “infringed,” for a 75% score.
Graded on a curve that’s at least a B+
Ugh. Wrong direction.
Get back to me when you’ve figured out how I can turn 75% into an F minus minus minus, which is still better than they deserve.
Just No. Once again someone wants to “feel” safer by making adults and therefore the children more vulnerable to attack. When the crazies come they will either be carrying concealed illegaly or more likely open and at the ready. And as always they won’t give a rap about all those lovely laws
Wayne county resident here.
HELL NO!
Just make them both legal.
And they should drop the fvcking pistol registry money pit while they’re at it!
There! Some money to put towards fixing these damn pot holes!
Just for the sake of making the argument: what demonstrated risk exists from open carry of firearms in schools, by holders of MI carry permits? What harm has occurred from open carry of firearms in schools, by holders of MI carry permits? In other words: what is the compelling government interest in infringing upon RKBA in this manner?
Chip, parents are open carrying in schools now. Some schools, like Ann Arbor and Clio, don’t like it, so they prohibit it. That is why they are getting sued and will lose. This bill trades OC for CC (CC is illegal in schools now but OC is legal) so that schools won’t have to see the guns. Of course, they don’t like that either, and our governor hates guns because his college roommate was murdered.
The entire reason for this bill is because schools are complaining about OC in schools. Plus, there’s more CCers than OCers, so they like the trade-off because although they CAN OC in schools, they refuse to thus go defenseless by their own choosing.
There hasn’t been a single instance of a parent OCing in a Michigan school causing harm.
Sounds more like this is about keeping children from seeing and realizing that normal, responsible, and caring people can safely carry firearms without causing harm to anyone. Why they might even realize that they too, could be a responsible gun owner!
We have a bingo. It goes even deeper than the RKBA. It indoctrinates the children to believe that government is responsible for their needs in other areas of life as well. In some Ohio schools, the children are locked in and nobody is allowed anymore to visit the school without a background check and at the discretion of the principal. This is a recent development for our local district. Before, any community member could arrive at the school, sign in, and observe all day as long as they were not disruptive. Now, the school has total control of the students and lock the parents out.
Since when has Snyder demonstrated that he hates guns? That is total BS. He has signed every pro 2A bill put before him. He sped up the CPL process and took away county approval boards ability to stall permits. Signed pro hunting bills. Signed airsoft reclassification. He even declared NDAA illegal (arresting any Feds that try to round up and indefinitely detain MI residents), all United Nations decrees are void and UN election inspectors are to be arrested. The guy has done way more than any before him to ensure MI is a gun friendly/2A respecting state.
No he hasn’t. He vetoed SB 59 in 2012, for example, that was similar to this in that it would allow CC in schools. Also, he only signed some of those bills because they were tie-barred to stuff he really wanted. In addition, many of our legislators are weenies and won’t put forth pro-gun bills they know Snyder will veto. Michael Bloomberg endorses Snyder. Get your facts straight.
You really think the readers here would let you get away with claiming that Mrs Snyder-Bloomberg signed every pro-gun bill?
Not to mention the many bills that never got out of committee because our anti-gun governor didn’t want to have to veto them in an election year (2014, is your memory so short that you’ve forgotten those already?
What harm has occurred from open carry of firearms in schools, The children will see GUNS and they will cry in fear!. For the children….
What are the criteria under which a request for permission would be judged? If the criteria are objective, resonable, and the decision to issue is non-discretionary, I could support it.
No criteria, you just have to ask for the exemption. At least on the bill as currently written.
My question is, if all you have to do is ask, no criteria, no added expense, why not automatically give it to every CPL holder?
From whom do you request an exemption, and how do you prove that such exemption was granted?
When you apply for or renew your CPL, you just tell the clerk. There is a box on the back of the CPL that gets checked if you are exempt from cPFZs (concealed pistol free zones like schools, day cares, and large entertainment facilities). Currently you pretty much need to be a LEO, etc.
So, basically, the “trade” is loss of an explicit right to carry openly in schools, in exchange for the opportunity to be denied the right to be exempted from concealed carry restrictions in schools? In other words: the “compromise” is to give up the right to carry openly in schools, while also giving up the right to carry concealed in schools.
Do I have that more-or-less accurate?
Yes, but it’s even worse than that because of the way they wrote the bill. The proper thing to do would be to simply eliminate the concealed pistol free zones, then people could CC there if they wanted.
Chip,
No. The only people who can carry a handgun openly in concealed carry “pistol free zones” are concealed carry licensees. Yes, it is odd. If you do not have a concealed carry license, you cannot carry openly nor concealed. And if you have a concealed carry license, you cannot carry concealed either — rather your only option is to carry openly.
So, the only thing that really changes is that, instead of being forced to only carry openly with a concealed carry license, you would be forced to only carry concealed with a concealed carry license.
Except that, in order to carry concealed in schools, the permit holder would have to request the PFZ exemption on his permit. That request is almost certain to be denied, because 1) it applies to all PFZs and not just schools, and 2) government bureaucrat statists gonna state; if they aren’t statutorily required to grant the exemption, they’re going to deny it.
Thus, the practical, end result, is that the right to carry openly in schools is given up, while the right to carry concealed in schools will continue to be infringed.
Chip,
While I agree your statement about the way that government typically operates, in this case the proposed legislation does not allow any wiggle room: the state is required to grant the exemption to every concealed carry licensee who requests it.
That would greatly increase the number of lawfully armed responsible people in the so-called “pistol free zones”.
Why not automatically give it?
IMO, because they are trying to play a game where they aren’t actually repealing Pistol Free Zones, while actually repealing Pistol Free Zones (for CPL holders).
I don’t think it is going to work. Bloomberg’s minions aren’t THAT dumb, and they will probably say the bill gives guns to kindergartners or some such trot anyway. Snyder has already shown that he pays more consideration to Bloomberg than his constituents.
Dont forget paying the $20 Fee for a new CPL card if you want the exemption right away, instead of waiting for your CPL Renewal
Correct, if you want it immediately you have to pay for a replacement CPL.
If? Jeff, if a frog had wings . . . . Well, you know the rest.
Frog wings? Not so much.
Frog rocket launch? Yep.
Nasa launched a rocket from their Wallops Island facility and caught on a remote camera a Froggie getting the surprise of his very likely short life.
I bet that blew his frog mind…
Nasa verified it as a real image:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/tech/innovation/frog-and-rocket/
I went to school in Ann Arbor and later lived in Berkeley. It was almost as if I never moved. Even about 10% of the people I knew at each were the same people. Nothing good can happen in either place.
Also, this bill is poorly written. It actually creates instances where OC is legal if you do NOT have a CPL, but becomes illegal if you DO have a CPL.
We have a similar conundrum here in Virginia. When entering an establishment which serves alcohol, if you are CCing then it is illegal; the firearm must be OCd. But in either case, it is illegal to imbibe if carrying.
It is unlikely to be passed into law. Governor Snyder has said that he does not want to allow carry (of any type) in schools unless individual schools can ban guns altogether, and that’s no acceptable to any in the Michigan Gun Rights movement as far as I know. Snyder vetoed a previous gun rights bill because it did not allow for local schools to ban guns.
There are not enough votes in the House to override his veto, so chances are it is just an exercise in futility and things will stay the same as they currently are (CPL holders may open carry in schools).
I suppose if all one has to do is request the exemption it’s alright.
Doesn’t say anything about having said exemption be approved.
No, and I’m from Michigan.
The bill is packed with “give backs”, and very little for gun owners. It makes the law very confusing. There would be places that you could open carry without a concealed carry license that would be illegal to open carry if you had one. The areas in contention (schools, day care, theaters and such) are only allowed OC now in you have a CPL. This bill would make that a felony.
This is a bad idea that isn’t supported except by one gun group in Michigan. All the rest I have heard from are against it.
Not only ‘no’…
If it were an even, Concealed for Open carry trade, I could at least SEE this.. Schools might be one of those rare circumstances where CC makes more sense.
But this is not a straight across trade; it would end up being a case of giving up open carry for de-facto nothing in return. As it is, this bill is simply a step backwards.
(Clearly the IDEAL would be to remove the CC restriction without touching the OC freedom.)
There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to inalienable rights. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
All the talk about “common sense” and “compromise” is garbage. It’s nothing but a pretense to chip away at our rights little by little until there’s nothing left.
Hell no, it’s not a fair trade. This is trading the exercise of a right for the potential exercise of a privilege. Also, this hides from impressionable children’s minds the fact that free people are unashamedly armed and responsible for their own safety. When the only ones the children see visibly armed are agents of government, they will grow up to expect agents of government to take care of them. We reap what we sow. POTG who support this are either fools or traitors, IMHO.
I would accept the requirement for concealment, but not the part about getting (further) government permission. Wouldn’t accept any of it if you could be arrested if your pistol was accidentally exposed.
There is no protection in this bill against printing or accidental exposure. And since OC would now be banned, one could be jammed up for just such an infraction.
Good point.
Who wants to keep MI’s restrictions while gaining FL’s restrictions?
The only fair trade is to make the law constitutional carry. Rights are not made for horse trading. They are our legacy and a lot of men and women suffered to protect them. Should we do anything less?
I agree. And, since the state does NOT agree, our only options are to:
(1) comply with unconstitutional state demands, or
(2) lobby politicians to repeal the state’s unconstitutional demands, or
(3) violate the state’s unconstitutional demands and take on the state.
Which course of action have you been actively undertaking?
So it’s ok if you do it as long as no one can see you doing it?
To me, “…shall not be infringed.” means open carry & concealed carry are both ok. It’s those that try to restrict us that I have a problem with.
Never give ground. Ever.
For instance… universal background checks, in my mind, wouldn’t be that big of a problem. But it is a problem. The huge problem with them is that once the gun grabbers get universal background checks, they’re not going to go away and give up on gun control… they just move on to the next rung in the ladder. Like mandatory registration schemes.
Never give ground. Ever.
The current situation with the extensive list of concealed carry “pistol free zones” is that the only people who can be legally armed are people with concealed carry licenses and then they must only carry openly.
So here is the rub. Almost all of the concealed carry “pistol free zones” are private entities who — almost universally — will immediately tell an open carrier to leave the property. Furthermore, most of the public entities have banned concealed and open carry (even though they have no statutory authority to do so) and are demanding that police arrest anyone who violates the ban for either trespassing or interfering with school/college/university function. And it appears that police are interested in obliging those institutions. Only slightly better, some schools insist that open carriers check-in at the school office and wait for a deputy or local police officer to escort them the entire time they are at the school.
The current reality as a result: there are virtually no legally armed people (concealed carry licensees carrying openly) in those “pistol free zones”.
Allowing concealed carry in the “pistol free zones” would greatly increase the number of legally armed patrons/visitors. First of all, the operators of those institutions probably would never even notice nor care about concealed carry. More importantly, at the absolute worst, concealed carriers (with concealed carry licenses) would only be risking simple trespass if they carried past a door with a “no guns” sign. As it stands, the state can impose a $500 fine and revoke your concealed carry license for 6 months if they catch you carrying concealed in a “pistol free zone”.
To me it is a no-brainer: a lot more people carrying concealed legally and the worst possible state sanction is a simple trespass is way better than the current situation where virtually no one is armed and, if they are, they risk a substantial fine and losing their concealed carry license for 6 months.
Soooo….Michigan, in exchange for giving up what they’re already allowed to do, they get the new opportunity to jump through hoops, before being forbidden from doing what they’re already forbidden from doing?
How about you come back when you’re sober? In the meantime, I’ll be in the men’s room wiping off whatever stray smudge on my forehead it is you’ve mistaken for the word “Stupid.”
Theres no trade or compromise here. Do we take away your right to carry a gun at all on campus, or do we just take away your right to open carry on campus. The only thing on the table here is choosing between which right gets taken away. A trade would be, no carrying on school, but anywhere else you can have constitutional/permitless concealed carry.
“provided they first request an exemption from the state”
Come again? Even Obama would recognize this isn’t a compromise, and he is the master of wording “my way or the highway” as a “compromise”.
Get out
And I thought fishing in Virginia waters without a lawyer was impossible. Seems like carrying in Michigan requires a lawyer on a leash to stay afoul of all the conflicting rules.
Would I trade Open Carry for Concealed Carry?
Yes. I would trade the other way as well. It is a surprisingly small step (not an easy step, just a small one) to go from permitless carry concealed to permitless carry open. When the sky doesn’t actually fall after the permitless carry rules go into effect it becomes its own support for taking the next step to freely carrying open or concealed.
Would I accept the trade they are offering in that bill? Hell No! That is actually a step back for gun rights! Why should free men ask for permission from the stae to do something that is legal to do?
My opinion. Your mileage may vary.
If it were truly that simple, MAYBE.
The truth is, as always, it’s NOT that simple.
Rather than these silly compromises of RIGHTS, why not just eliminate Pistol Free Zones (PFZs where you can OC with a CPL, cannot conceal carry and cannot open carry without a CPL… Make sense of that!).
No “exemption” BS. Any CCW holder can carry anywhere an ordinary cop can.
The violent crime rate of permit holders (as a group) is 1/10 that of cops (as a group).
Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution…
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
This should be all I need!!
I think I have a counter-offer; instead of trading away a current freedom for almost nothing how about make CC legal in those areas, and, in exchange, make open carry in those areas require a level 2+ retention method. Or, even, make CC legal in those areas, make OC illegal in those areas, but include a sundown clause that requires re-passage of the bill every 3 years, or both OC and CC become fully legal in those areas.
The compromise would be acceptable if the “permit” issue was removed. My gut tells me this will be one of those apply and never receive permit processes.
A Right should not have to be a bargaining chip nor require special permission.
No, actually what is going to happen is that the governor will refuse to sign it without school’s having an opt-out provision.
I would NOT make the deal.
Let’s begin with the assumption that if MI gun owners took the bait that school carry would increase by 10 times. Is that REALLY what we want?
As it is, the intrepid will OC and the kids will get used to it instantly. “Who’s the grown-up with the GUN? Oh, that’s Sally’s dad. OK; crayon-on.” Soon, Jimmy’s mom will OC and then it will become a regular occurrence. Maybe just a few; but just a few is enough.
In 8 – 16 – 24 years MI will have reared-up a couple of generations of young adults who have been immunized against hoplophobia. All of that would NOT happen if this deal were accepted.
Now, suppose that they changed the law to allow either OC or CC at the carrier’s discretion. BAD outcome. Very few but the most intrepid would OC. Instantly, we would have the 10 X increase in carry; but almost all CC. No change in recognition by the kids.
My thought is to tell the Anti’s: “NO deal. We accept the hand the ‘great Black-&-white fathers’ in Ann Arbor dealt us. Wasn’t our idea; it was theirs. It’s the bed THEY made for us to lie in and lie in it we shall.”
The PoTG have “traded” and “compromised” enough and gotten absolutely nothing in return. No more.