NRA-ILA - "Your help is still needed to repeal handgun registration"


PDA






ezkl2230
October 16, 2012, 12:04 PM
Call your State Senator in Lansing and Gov. Snyder TODAY!!! This needs to be on the schedule tomorrow.

As previously reported here by the NRA-ILA, the Michigan State Police are still trying to defeat House Bill 5225, legislation that would eliminate the state handgun “permit-to-purchase” and registration requirements in Michigan. This important legislation is currently pending consideration by the state Senate, so the Senate leadership needs to hear from gun owners across Michigan today! This bill has faced increased opposition by the MSP. The Michigan State Police, never friendly to pro-gun reforms (including the current state Right-to-Carry law) has even proposed a number of crippling amendments to HB 5225 that would perpetuate Michigan’s antiquated registration system in the event that they are unable to stop its passage. The next legislative session is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, October 17, for only one day. Please contact your state Senator and Governor Rick Snyder TODAY and again before that date! Respectfully urge them to reject any hostile amendments to HB 5225, and to end Michigan's costly and unnecessary gun registration scheme as well as the onerous handgun purchase permit process.

The MSP has made its position clear and wants to maintain records of handguns purchased legally by law-abiding citizens in Michigan. In essence, the MSP wants to have easy access to a list of guns owned by honest people like YOU. The MSP continually ignores the fact that criminals do not buy guns at retail stores and criminals do not register their firearms. This gun control scheme has failed to prevent the violence in Detroit and Flint, two of top five most violent cities in America. Guns misused in a crime can be and are traced in the forty states without such a permit-to-purchase/registration requirement. In fact, last year alone over 5,000 firearms recovered in Michigan were run through the federal trace system.

HB 5225, introduced by state Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93), would abolish the bureaucratic “permit-to-purchase” for handguns. This system became obsolete when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) took effect in 1998. Under the current state system, gun buyers must apply with their local law enforcement agency before being authorized to buy a handgun. This “permit” is valid for only one gun and it expires after ten days. Since 1998, federal law has required a national criminal records check for the purchase of any firearm from any licensed gun dealer in every state. Accordingly, the state-required "permit" is duplicative, wasteful and antiquated. This legislative package includes two companion bills House Bill 5498, sponsored by state Representative Richard LeBlanc (D-18), and House Bill 5499, sponsored by state Representative Ray Franz (R-101).

In June, this package of bills passed in the Michigan House of Representatives by an overwhelming 74 to 36 vote. It also passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits consideration by the state Senate. All indications are that HB 5225 enjoys supermajority support in the Senate. There is no doubt that the state Senate will pass HB 5225 by a wide margin when they vote on it. However, Michigan's first-term Governor has asked leaders in the Senate to hold this bill, thus delaying and preventing critical and final action on this important Second Amendment legislation. Because the Michigan Legislature has few remaining working days before the election, this stall tactic will almost guarantee the bill's demise.

It is extremely urgent that you contact your state Senator and especially Governor Rick Snyder today and respectfully urge them to reject any hostile amendments and end Michigan's costly and unnecessary gun registration scheme as well as the onerous handgun purchase permit process. This is an historic opportunity to repeal longstanding gun control that only the most restrictive, anti-gun states currently have. Please act TODAY to ensure that Governor Snyder does not ignore Michigan gun owners.

In 2010, gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder did not answer NRA's state candidate questionnaire, so his position on this vital legislation is unknown.

Governor Rick Snyder

(517) 373-3400

(517) 335-7858

To e-mail Governor Snyder, please click here (http://www.nramedia.org/t/821635/66842919/17694/0/).

To find your state Senator please click here (http://www.nramedia.org/t/821635/66842919/1714/0/).

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA-ILA - "Your help is still needed to repeal handgun registration"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USAF_Vet
October 18, 2012, 12:49 AM
As I posted in the the other thread regarding this, I contacted Senator Rick Jones, and got his official 'I support this bill and look forward to discussing the issue with my colleagues' reply letter. Keeping my fingers crossed, but I'm not expecting much from Snyder. Hopefully the veto proof majority in the senate will get this bill passed.

Rail Driver
October 18, 2012, 02:05 AM
As a former Michigan resident (with family still there) I contacted Senator Jones and Governor Snyder as well (and managed to convince my mostly apathetic family to do the same). I got the same canned response from Sen. Jones, but no response from Gov. Snyder. I also spoke on the phone with an individual in the governor's office who basically just kept trying to tell me what he though I wanted to hear while remaining as non-committal and vague as possible. Typical political doublespeak.

ezkl2230
November 4, 2012, 09:45 PM
These bills are listed as being on the agenda for the 11/08/12 Michigan State Senate legislative session.

Contact your Michigan State legislators in Lansing and tell them that you want them to actually vote on this package of bills to do away with pistol purchase permits and registration; be sure to copy Sen. Richardville and Gov. Snyder on any communications you have. And then contact Gov. Snyder's office and tell him to sign them when they are passed!

ezkl2230
November 9, 2012, 09:02 PM
Folks - there is still time before the end of the legislative year. I received the following email from Sen. David Hildenbrand's office today in response to a request for information regarding the status of the package of bills listed here:


Thank you for the email.

The Senate is in the process of developing the session agenda for the remainder of the year. The Senator asked that I let you know he will be sure to mention this bill and the support it has received from numerous constituents when those discussions are held.

Thanks again.

Folks, DON'T GIVE UP ON THIS!!!

There is still a chance to get HB 5225, 5498 and 5499 on the schedule for a vote before the legislative year ends. CALL THE SENATOR DFROM YOUR STATE DISTRICT, AND BE SURE TO COPY SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SEN. RICHARDVILLE SO THAT HE CAN SEE HOW MUCH SUPPORT THESE BILLS HAVE.

Also, we still need to see action of SB 59, which has been stuck in the Michigan House of Representatives for several months; this bill does away with "pistol free" zones in Michigan. Again, there is still time to get this on the schedule for a vote before the end of the legislative year. CALL THE REPRESENTATIVE DFROM YOUR STATE DISTRICT, AND BE SURE TO COPY HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER JASE BOLGER SO THAT HE CAN SEE HOW MUCH SUPPORT THESE BILLS HAVE.

This year isn't done yet, and neither is this fight!

powder
November 11, 2012, 10:35 AM
Please provide an official link to the MSP's position on this, a press release perhaps.

Seems to be a no-brainer that Law Enforcement wants to retain handgun registration in order to track firearms used in illegal activity.

ezkl2230
November 11, 2012, 08:50 PM
Please provide an official link to the MSP's position on this, a press release perhaps.

Seems to be a no-brainer that Law Enforcement wants to retain handgun registration in order to track firearms used in illegal activity.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/htm/2011-HLA-5225-3.htm

"The Michigan State Police has indicated opposition to House Bill 5225. (5-24-12)"

powder
November 11, 2012, 11:34 PM
"The Michigan State Police has indicated opposition to House Bill 5225. (5-24-12)"

Yes, that is listed on the Bill's information page.

So the other aspect of post #1, which you have copy/pasted, is from where? The extremely loose interpretations of MSP's intentions are from what author?

VAgunner
November 12, 2012, 08:33 AM
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/10/michigan-legislature-returns-tomorrow-for-one-day-session-and-continues-to-delay-vote-on-pro-gun-bills.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

USAF_Vet
November 12, 2012, 02:21 PM
The legislators were in session on Friday, it's now Monday. Any news?

Elmer
November 12, 2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/htm/2011-HLA-5225-3.htm

"The Michigan State Police has indicated opposition to House Bill 5225. (5-24-12)"

As a former cop, I resent the opinions of political appointee police management, becoming involved in legislation, and portraying it to speak for the entire department.

Elmer
November 12, 2012, 03:57 PM
Yes, that is listed on the Bill's information page.

So the other aspect of post #1, which you have copy/pasted, is from where? The extremely loose interpretations of MSP's intentions are from what author?

Google can be your friend..

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/bing-godbee-eight-local-mayors-oppose-new-gun-bill/

“This bill dismantles Michigan’s carefully crafted background check system and eliminates a vital law enforcement tool,” said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee in a press release. “Background checks are a critical component in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and protecting our police officers and our communities. Unfortunately, this dangerous bill would put more of our brave men and women in harm’s way.”

Michigan State Police Director Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue agreed, saying, “Without this safeguard, there is no way to prevent convicted felons, the mentally incapacitated and other dangerous individuals from purchasing handguns in our state. This legislation also eliminates the state’s pistol registry, which is a critical crime solving tool that was utilized more than 21,000 times by law enforcement last year.”

Elmer
November 12, 2012, 04:06 PM
Please provide an official link to the MSP's position on this, a press release perhaps.

Seems to be a no-brainer that Law Enforcement wants to retain handgun registration in order to track firearms used in illegal activity.

When I was a cop, warrantless searches and gps trackers, elimination of Miranda, indefinite detentions, and ten o'clock curfews, would have been a "no brainer", as far as making my job easier.

Facilitating easier investigations isn't a justification for impeding rights.

Stats on the use of this registration data provided by MSP, is as likely overstated as that of traces by ATF, many of which are done routinely on guns not even suspected of crime involvement.

powder
November 12, 2012, 07:05 PM
Thank You "VA gunner".


Well, it looks like the NRA is looking to demonize Law Enforcement again, as it did in the 90s. ( Oh wait, they NEVER really stopped, DID they?)

The MSP opposes the repeal, but it is the NRA who has made jumps in logic to put words into their (MSP) mouths as to why they oppose it.

Elmer, you're gonna have to clarify what it is you have to communicate as the sentences you wrote are full of double negatives, and run-on sentences, which leaves your statement impotent: nobody is looking to eliminate Miranda, GPS trackers were warrantless until just recently, and a lot of communities still have curfews, and nobody is looking for warrantless searches as a blanket solution for anything.

Ryanxia
November 12, 2012, 07:50 PM
Powder - you seem to have an agenda. I think Elmer stated his position quite clearly.
Governments (and that's what LE is on some level) can spout several 'legitimate' reasons why they need to further impeed our rights for 'safety'. The point is that it will never stop, eventually it will lead to the measures mentioned above.

USAF_Vet
November 12, 2012, 08:13 PM
Michigan State Police Director Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue agreed, saying, “Without this safeguard, there is no way to prevent convicted felons, the mentally incapacitated and other dangerous individuals from purchasing handguns in our state. This legislation also eliminates the state’s pistol registry, which is a critical crime solving tool that was utilized more than 21,000 times by law enforcement last year.”

Has the Colonel never heard of the NICS?
Also, I wonder how many crimes were actually solved by the registry? Quite a bit of misdirection there, saying it was "utilized more than 21,000 times" but not mentioning the outcome. Just because it gets used doesn't mean it actually yields anything useful. It's probably a requirement to check the registry when a hand gun is recovered at a crime scene. I'd like to see some correlation between the registry and convictions.

ezkl2230
November 13, 2012, 09:47 AM
Has the Colonel never heard of the NICS?
Also, I wonder how many crimes were actually solved by the registry? Quite a bit of misdirection there, saying it was "utilized more than 21,000 times" but not mentioning the outcome. Just because it gets used doesn't mean it actually yields anything useful. It's probably a requirement to check the registry when a hand gun is recovered at a crime scene. I'd like to see some correlation between the registry and convictions.

Last year alone the MSP used NICS to successfully track down over 5,000 firearms that is wasn't able to find using our own, outdated system.

Monitoring legal firearms owners in no way prevents "convicted felons, the mentally incapacitated and other dangerous individuals from purchasing handguns in our state." THAT is the crux of their argument - our laws PREVENT. Right. Just like pistol free zones prevented a criminal from carrying a firearm into a bank in Grand Rapids last week when he robbed it. The fact that these people continue to acquire firearms - DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF LAWS AND REGISTRIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING - and the fact that the MSP "utilized" the registry 21,000 times reinforces the fact that gun control laws and registries prevent nothing. Their argument is great for riling the unwashed masses who don't think for themselves, but it also emphasizes the fact that gun control laws control no one except those who are most unlikely to use them illegally in the first place. If they are truly concerned about convicted felons, the mentally incapacitated and other dangerous individuals, then THOSE are the people that the MSP should be concentrating on. In terms of the best use of manpower, concentrating on convicted felons, the mentally incapacitated and other individuals identified as dangerous significantly decreases the number of people who have to be monitored by the MSP, and therefore represents the most efficient and effective use of manpower and taxpayer dollars. Their own argument is self-defeating on its face when considered by rational people.

powder
November 14, 2012, 07:41 AM
Powder - you seem to have an agenda. I think Elmer stated his position quite clearly.
Governments (and that's what LE is on some level) can spout several 'legitimate' reasons why they need to further impeed our rights for 'safety'.

Ah ha, and here lies my so-called "agenda": the NRA wanting the public to see LE as one in the same with "government". We are not.

Call for action is one thing, per legislation. Trying to rally against an LE agency by stating untrue opinions is WAY below the High Road.

Elmer
November 15, 2012, 02:26 PM
Thank You "VA gunner".


Well, it looks like the NRA is looking to demonize Law Enforcement again, as it did in the 90s. ( Oh wait, they NEVER really stopped, DID they?)

The MSP opposes the repeal, but it is the NRA who has made jumps in logic to put words into their (MSP) mouths as to why they oppose it.

Elmer, you're gonna have to clarify what it is you have to communicate as the sentences you wrote are full of double negatives, and run-on sentences, which leaves your statement impotent: -snip_

I'm guessing your agenda is anti-NRA, as you claim they're anti-law enforcement. I find this odd, since they train the majority of LE firearms instructors, support LE firearms competency through competition, etc., and a large percentage of their membership are LE, or former LE.

Standing against policies and programs of some law enforcement administrators, who are often rabidly anti-gun/2nd amendment, isn't taking a stance against LE. As much as those anti-gun administrators would like to couch it as such.

BTW, your throwing your status around as LE on this board is interesting to me, based on some of your statements here, such as this one in another thread:

If marijuana use is legallized in your state, you are no longer an " unlawful user"....

Individual States have the Authority to be LESS restrictive than Federal Laws, but NOT MORE restrictive.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8504281&postcount=72

Such an glaring lack of understanding of basic law, by someone supposedly in law enforcement, is odd, as that was something my recruits learned in the first module of their academy. That's if they failed to pick it up in high school civics class.

Elmer
November 15, 2012, 02:56 PM
nobody is looking to eliminate Miranda,

If you took a survey of LE, as to whether eliminating Miranda would make their job easier, what percentage do you think would answer yes?

GPS trackers were warrantless until just recently,

Again, you demonstrate poor understanding of law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Jones, that Jone's rights were violated by their warrantless use of the GPS device. That decision was retroactive. What the police did was illegal.

Something is not legal, until the court hears it. The court is merely the redress for citizens when illegal actions are taken by government.


and nobody is looking for warrantless searches as a blanket solution for anything.

Again, you make a baseless statement. Warrantless searches are conducted by law enforcement every day, and many are challenged and voided by courts. Clearly, some are looking to conduct them.

Make the same survey and ask LE if warrants were no longer needed, could they be more effective in their jobs. I certainly could have been. I don't know any other cop that wouldn't agree. However, that isn't grounds for such intrusive violations of rights.

You started off incredulous of claims that the MSP took the position they did, and were shown proof you could have easily found yourself. Then without missing a beat, you launched into an anti NRA rant. I'm guessing debate isn't what you're looking for.

powder
November 17, 2012, 11:08 AM
1.) No, as an NRA Instructor in multiple fields, I am not "anti-NRA". If you read what I have written please; I have cited that somebody has interpreted an NRA-ILA press release and interjected their own interpretations with a slant against MSP. Yes, the MSP has taken a position to support registration records-that is all they have said.

2.) That's correct: The DEA has intervened into medicinal dispensaries, in states legally allowed to have said dispensaries, where they have evidence of OTHER illegal activity on those premises. (Has nothing to do here, but you brought it up...)

3.) GPS trackers: GPS trackers could be placed/removed on/from ANY vehicle while it was in a public place. The Jones case pertains to said vehicle having been on private property, and the decision is absolutely correct. A recent decision (Jan.2012 IIRC) changed that: ALL GPS trackers now require a warrant, whether for placement onto a vehicle ON public or private property, it no longer matters.

4.) Warrant-less searches: there are several scenarios wherein a search can be done without a warrant, and if you were with LE in ANY capacity as you claim you would know that. Your statement took the perspective that ALL LEOs would LIKE to eliminate ALL search warrants in order to make their jobs easier-that's as false a statement as what has been implied about the MSP being an anti-gun agency.

5.) Surveys? Your positions and topic choices about hypothetically surveying LEOs per warrants, and eliminating Miranda? You can certainly state your opinion, but to claim to have support from imaginary people? I'm not "throwing around" any LE status as you infer, nor giving legal advice, but merely stating my perspective from service and experience in the field: most LEOs will agree that their job is much easier with a search warrant, which gives them legal grounds to be standing where they are, in any search scenario. Also, most LEOs that I know, and have worked with, are not anti-gun or anti-NRA. However, from the recent past of the 1990s, the NRA has taken obvious stances AGAINST Law Enforcement.


Now again, I can appreciate a fervor for a call to activism per gun rights and ownership. However, presenting a personal interpretation of the NRA-ILA's press release with a slant that is more than anti-MSP is a dangerous misrepresentation. Again, there is no law for having a negative opinion about the MSP, but to try and whip up a movement against them on false pretenses? The slippery slope is behind you...

Elmer
November 19, 2012, 09:18 PM
1.) No, as an NRA Instructor in multiple fields, I am not "anti-NRA". If you read what I have written please; I have cited that somebody has interpreted an NRA-ILA press release and interjected their own interpretations with a slant against MSP. Yes, the MSP has taken a position to support registration records-that is all they have said.

2.) That's correct: The DEA has intervened into medicinal dispensaries, in states legally allowed to have said dispensaries, where they have evidence of OTHER illegal activity on those premises. (Has nothing to do here, but you brought it up...)

3.) GPS trackers: GPS trackers could be placed/removed on/from ANY vehicle while it was in a public place. The Jones case pertains to said vehicle having been on private property, and the decision is absolutely correct. A recent decision (Jan.2012 IIRC) changed that: ALL GPS trackers now require a warrant, whether for placement onto a vehicle ON public or private property, it no longer matters.

4.) Warrant-less searches: there are several scenarios wherein a search can be done without a warrant, and if you were with LE in ANY capacity as you claim you would know that. Your statement took the perspective that ALL LEOs would LIKE to eliminate ALL search warrants in order to make their jobs easier-that's as false a statement as what has been implied about the MSP being an anti-gun agency.

5.) Surveys? Your positions and topic choices about hypothetically surveying LEOs per warrants, and eliminating Miranda? You can certainly state your opinion, but to claim to have support from imaginary people? I'm not "throwing around" any LE status as you infer, nor giving legal advice, but merely stating my perspective from service and experience in the field: most LEOs will agree that their job is much easier with a search warrant, which gives them legal grounds to be standing where they are, in any search scenario. Also, most LEOs that I know, and have worked with, are not anti-gun or anti-NRA. However, from the recent past of the 1990s, the NRA has taken obvious stances AGAINST Law Enforcement.


Now again, I can appreciate a fervor for a call to activism per gun rights and ownership. However, presenting a personal interpretation of the NRA-ILA's press release with a slant that is more than anti-MSP is a dangerous misrepresentation. Again, there is no law for having a negative opinion about the MSP, but to try and whip up a movement against them on false pretenses? The slippery slope is behind you...

I'm not going to even try to respond to all of your deflections and misstatements. Suffice it to say that the head of the MSP interjected herself into a political campaign, and deserves to be called out for it.

hso
November 21, 2012, 10:35 PM
Since this is now a moot point due to time and the discussion has turned into a two person argument of topics better suited to legal there's no need for this thread to continue.

When any group or the leadership of a group involves themselves in a political issue that involvement is a legitimate topic of discussion, just not here. Perhaps a better place would be the Activism Discussion forum?

powder
November 23, 2012, 02:37 AM
Once again, a fictional delusion per Law Enforcement: The MSP simply stated they were for handgun registration laws, as they currently stand on the books.

The NRA-ILA took their liberties of interpretations in a press release-no big deal, but to spread those opinions as facts? No Go, for the NRA....



'm not going to even try to respond to all of your deflections and misstatements. Suffice it to say that the head of the MSP interjected herself into a political campaign, and deserves to be called out for it.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA-ILA - "Your help is still needed to repeal handgun registration"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!