A small setback for Open Carry and Freedom in Michigan

For those of you who were not aware, there was a case in Ingham County Circuit court, Michigan Open Carry, Inc. (MOC), vs. Capitol Area District Library (CADL). MOC's contention was that CADL did not have the authority to ban open carry of firearms in it's libraries, as CADL was created by various local units of government, and answered to the same.

CADL's position is that they are an "authority" and are not mentioned specifically in Michigan's Preemption law, which forbids local governmental bodies from creating firearm laws stronger than the state. And if that didn't work, CADL also claimed they fit into the list of Pistol Free Zones, as they are sometimes used by schools, and they claim they lease their property from a school district. For reasons unknown currently, they dropped that claim in court.

CADL also proposed that openly carrying a firearm in a holster was "brandishing," under Michigan law.

Judge Rosemarie Acquilina, apparently went with her feelings, and not the law. She had made her pre-disposition to this case known earlier, when she granted a temporary injunction against openly carried firearms several months ago. This injunction is now permanent, at least until the appeals process is exhausted.

The judge did not rule that OCing of a firearm was brandishing, so I guess CADL lost that count.

As I understand it, OCing in a CADL library is out now. Concealed carrying is still OK... so far. I guess we'll see how long that lasts.

Judge Acquilina, it's long past time for you to step down. When you let your feelings get in the way of the law, you are no longer a fair and impartial judge. Do the state of Michigan a favor, and step down NOW!

There will be more to come on this subject.

 Current Mood: Hugely disappointed
 Current Music: Bonnie Tyler - Holding out for a Hero
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm

Some observations on Canadian Gun Law

The following came from one of the many email lists I subscribe to. It struck me as something that needed further exposure, so I copied it here with just a few minor changes, mostly for spelling and/or grammar, where I thought necessary. (Comments by the original poster are in red.) The original started out with:

From a friend in Canada:

Heaven save us from this!

Here in Canada our government does not have a monopoly on justified self-defense, but they sincerely believe they should have a monopoly on all effective tools of self-defense!

While we ostensibly have here the legal mechanism for the carrying of a pistol to be allowed, only fourteen such 'carry permits' have ever been actually issued in the entire country, with a population of over thirty million! Virtually all such applications are arbitrarily rejected by isolated bureaucrats, with never an explanation.

There are some permits issued for 'wilderness carry,' but only to licensed guides, and, even then, they have to endure their own bureaucratic circus.

For us peons, one not only needs a license to possess a 'restricted firearm,' a category which includes all pistols and many rifles (all ARs, for example), the applicant must, in excruciating detail, chronicle to the government such irrelevant facts as his personal romantic history and also go through an interminable approval process prior to taking delivery of the gun.

Still with me? We're not through yet!

He must also be a member, in good standing, at a 'club,' and be vetted for an 'authorization to transport,' which allows him to take his pistol between his house and the range 'via a direct route,' unloaded, and secured in a double-locked box.

The most minor, insignificant infraction or paperwork glitch, your fault, their fault, doesn't matter, and you will find yourself charged with a criminal offense. Your home will be invaded, all your firearms will be seized, and the crown attorney will enforce a lifetime firearms prohibition against you, even when you are found not guilty!

After all that, getting your guns back from the police is nearly impossible, even with a court order. When you do finally re-claim them, they will be little more than a pile of rusted junk!

Even carrying a knife can make one vulnerable to charges of 'weapons dangerous to the public peace' or 'carrying a concealed weapon.'

OC is prohibited, at least for the purpose of use against humans. It may be carried for use against animals. Here, it is always called 'dog repellent,' by law.

Tasers and other ERDs are strictly verboten.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifgif

Our gun laws are, in fact, based on fat politicians, sitting safe and secure behind an army of personal bodyguards (all heavily armed), intently watching cheesy Hollywood movies! In fact, many firearms are prohibited by 'order in council,' and, when you read the list, it is painfully obvious that such prohibitions are based solely on appearance. That is why we can't have AKs, FALs, ARs, and AUGs, but XCRs and Tavors are okay, at least for now, since they've come on the scene relatively recently."

Comment: The foregoing are the kind of "reasonable" measures liberal politicians constantly push for. They never get specific, of course. Autocrats never do! But, this is the practical result of their never-ending assault on our personal freedom. When they can't prohibit the private ownership of guns outright, they'll, in effect, have the same practical result through bureaucratic regulation.

They love to hypocritically talk about our "right to personal, unilateral, self-defense," but then deny us any possibility of exercising that right!

They live to lord it over people. That is the only thing that really motivates them, and ever has!

However, there is some good news:

We are turning things around up here!

The draconian, failed-at-every-level, 'system' we currently have in place was put there by governments of the 80s and 90s, consisting mostly of elitist, geriatric, flower-children who, like Socialists/Communists everywhere, never earned an honest dime in their lives!

Back then, gun owners did not have a strong voice. The by-word in Ottawa was 'social engineering,' as they attempted to smother the life out of us us with interminable laws and 'regulations,' enforced by an army of erstwhile unemployed bureaucrats who worried infinitely more about keeping their jobs than they ever did about doing them.

Things have changed! Debate about the private ownership of firearms has become the most polarizing issue in our current political landscape. Our side is now politically active, alert, and has excellent communication. We are now a powerful symbol for the new direction in which our country is heading.

Virtually all current Leftists in government are still overtly in favor of yet additional restrictions on private gun ownership, in spite of its amply demonstrated failure to reduce violent crime, or, for that matter, even to be administered intelligently.

Last Friday (25 March, 2011), these very Leftists were toppled in a non-confidence motion, which automatically triggered an election. This spring, we are likely to see a Conservative majority government that has promised to turn Canada away from the Liberal/Socialist/Communist trend that began in the 1970s.

We have promised to hold their feet to the fire!

Comment: The biggest problem Leftists have, no matter where they are, is personal vanity and arrogance! They invariably think they deserve to be kings, and that we peons exist only to serve them.They just can't admit to themselves that they're wrong, have always been wrong, and have never been anything but wrong.

They will accept no species of correction. The are absolutely incapable of repentance. They would rather die!

I would just like to add, at one time, I considered moving to Canada. It is a beautiful country, and I have a great affection for many things, Canadian. But, after researching their gun laws, it occurred to me that I could not live the same life there, that I have here. So for now, for me, Canada is a great place to visit, but I just cannot live there, knowing my God-given/Natural right to self defense is severely denied there.

BGA


 Current Mood: Painful
 Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS 9x19mm NATO

Open Carry in Lansing, MI (Part 2)

CADL Granted Restraining Order Against Michigan Open Carry
The Capital Area District Library makes a move to help keep guns out of their building. On Wednesday they were granted a temporary retraining order by the INgham County Circuit Court against members of Michigan Open Carry or anyone affiliated with them......

...One of the attorneys for CADL, Gary Bender, said that CADL's goal is to maintain a safe, gun free zone for children and adults who frequent the library....

The last part I quoted above, shows a major flaw in their thinking. There is no such thing as a SAFE gun free zone. Gun free zones, by their very definition, are not safe. The only people who don't bring guns to a Gun Free Zone (also known more accurately as a Criminal Empowerment Zone) are law abiding citizens.

The sad thing is, the liberal weenies in charge of the CAD Library system, will never get it. They'll just keep pushing for "feel good" laws that will only make the library less safe, and they'll feel like they did a great service for the city, the state, and who ever else agrees with them.

In any event, until they remove their stupid "No Weapons" rule, I will not be using their library. I won't feel safe there, if I can't take my pistol with me.

 Current Mood: Amused
 Current Music: The Village People - San Francisco
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1

Open Carry in Lansing, MI (Part 1)

...When told Tyler and Hofmeister open carry at the library for their own safety, (CADL Director Lance Werner) Werner said, “In my opinion, that’s utterly ridiculous.”

“I’m sorry he feels that way,” Werner said. “I hope he feels like he’s in some living room. That’s how we want everyone to feel.”

If you want to read the whole story, click on the title of this blog post. I only quoted the last 2 paragraphs, as I think they highlight a bigger part of the problem.

CADL Director Lance Werner says he wants us to feel like we're "in some living room." I don't have security guards in my living room, do you? Besides which, if I'm in my living room, where ever I am, there's my gun too. So, if he wants me to feel like I'm in a living room, then I should have my gun with me.

My gun has never been turned away from anyone's living room. Most don't notice it, and some of those that do, ask to see it.

This is not about feeling safe. If it were, everyone would be encouraged to carry a gun. It's about control. Government control of the citizens. MOC and other Open Carry groups across the country are trying to get people used to seeing law-abiding citizens openly carrying firearms.

Now, I'll grant that Tyler's OC of a shotgun in downtown Lansing was not the best idea, what's he supposed to do? Lansing PD has been dragging their feet on another issue that's delaying his being able to buy a handgun. His only real means of self defense in the meantime is a long arm. So, what's he supposed to do, go unarmed? That's what the government wants. His only legal recourse, currently is to OC a long arm.

I don't know if I'd do that, if I were in his position, but I'm not in his position now, so it's not fair of me to say. He has the right of self defense, and his only current legal means is a long gun, so I guess that answers that.

Back to the original point. Anti-Gun liberals always say one of the following, they either think they have the "right to feel safe" where ever they are, the right to not see a gun, or they have the right to feel as safe as they would in their own home.

Show me in the Constitution of the USA, or of any state where it says we have the "right to feel safe." You can't. So don't try. Liberals like to insert non existent rights into our constitution, and they'd like to take out some of the inconvenient rights, like oh, the 2nd Amendment, and the 1st amendment, when it gets in THEIR way. But that's how liberals treat all laws. They like them, until they get in the way of their agenda.

 Current Mood: Awake
 Current Music: The Village People - In the Navy
My Carry Pistol: Rock Island Armory M1911-A1

The Open Carry Movement

For those of you who are not aware, Open Carry is sweeping across the country. At least, in those states where it is legal to do so. Interestingly enough, it's not legal in Texas!! Apparently this goes back to the post Civil War days (That's the War Between the States for you Southern sympathizers. ) I suppose this was to cut down on violence against the former slaves, as well as the occupation forces sent down by the Northern invaders.

I understand that now, Texas is looking into making Open carry legal again. Even for those in Texas with a CCW permit, this would be a welcome change, since as of now, if you have a CCW permit, and your pistol should become visible, you could face charges and lose your permit.

For myself, I live in Michigan, which is an Open Carry state. I have, and do carry openly, when I consider it practicable. However, I also know there are times and places when OC (the current shorthand for Open Carry) is either not prudent, or not practicable. (I like using that word, picked it from the movie "Gods and Generals" )

What I will add here is this, if you choose to OC, make sure you know the laws for your state, and local area, if applicable. It would be bad to end up in jail, just because you missed some rule about OC in your state. Check out OpenCarry dot Org for more details.



Current Mood: Sick (I think I have the flu)
Current Music: None (watching West Wing on Bravo)
My Carry Pistol: EAA Witness 10mm AutoPistol

Open Carry at the Boise ID Zoo.

Recently, a local group visited the Boise Idaho Zoo, all while Open carrying firearms. It seems to be an issue that is divided in many different areas. Not only are there people who are just plain against guns, making noise, but there are also some, who while in favor of gun ownership, and in favor of concealed carry, but are dead set against open carry.

It just seems odd to me, that a so-called "pro-2nd Amendment type" would be against someone exercising their constitutionally protected rights. I am always amazed at the attitude, and the "excuses" they bring up.

1. You'll be the bad guy's first target, because he'll see your gun.

The reality is, if you're out and about in public, and open carrying your pistol, most likely, if a bad guy is about to commit a crime, and sees your gun, he's more likely to seek out a safer target than risk you shooting him.

2. You're giving away the tactical advantage of surprise.

Maybe, then again, you've got the advantage of a faster draw available to you. The plain truth is, by openly carrying your pistol, you've got more deterrent effect than carrying concealed. And I always the thought the idea of carrying a gun for self defense was in the hope you'd never need to use it. It seems to me, that with OC, you're cutting down on the possibility of ever needing to actually use it for self defense.

3. The police will hound you.

Depends on where you live, but this actually has a little bit of truth. Some police departments, in states where OC (Open Carry) is legal, need more education on this subject. Or else they need better Chiefs.

I happen to have a Concealed Pistols License. Which oddly enough, will let me OPEN carry in places I can't carry concealed due to the stupid way the law was written. By law, and thanks to State Attorney General's Opinion 7113, I can openly carry in a school, hospital, bar, a sports arena or stadium, a day care center, and a host of other places that are off limits to open carry without a CPL, and are off limits to concealed carry WITH a CPL.

Doesn't make must sense, does it.

Well, that's state lawmakers for you.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Walther P-38 9x19mm

The argument for Open Carry

I have read many responses to the idea of "Open Carry" with regard to pistols. I've seen anti-2nd amendment types get all hysterical over it, and I've seen so-called pro-2nd amendment types get equally as hysterical also. I've read posts in various forums both pro and con, and some even arguing that the recent decision by the US Supreme Court ONLY affects Washington DC.

What I see as having been virtually ignored is that as stated numerous times, (in numerous places) the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, any more than any state law or state constitution does. The 2nd amendment merely protects that right. Whether or not any state law or constitution says so, we still have the right to self-defense, and as an extension, the tools necessary to exercise those rights.

We still have the right to keep and bear arms, even without the 2nd Amendment. Just as we also have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, trial by a jury of our peers, the right to not testify against ourselves.

But it seems that government isn't the only entity that has forgotten those rights. Many of us, have forgotten them also. And this is in spite of all the amendments and the Constitution.

How many of us have run into US law enforcement officers, under the mistaken impression that if there isn't a law saying we can do something, then it must be illegal? Where do they get this idea? Where does anyone get the idea that a right not granted by law, doesn't exist?

It still exists, but if we don't properly exercise our rights, we will lose them, by ignorance, as well as by legislation. If for no other reason than this, we must press on for open carry, and eliminate any bans that exist.

States rights should not usurp the rights of the individual citizen. The idea of free, elected governments is to serve the citizens, not rule them. If we are ruled, then we are not free. If we are not free, we are not citizens. If we are not citizens, we are slaves.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Macho Man - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT-92AFS 9x19mm NATO