MI House Speaker to drag feet on repeal of "carry free" zones - cites emotions

"This is a very emotional issue...I expect that if it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to have its own fact finding and really delve into the facts of these cases...” MI House Speaker Jase Bolger.

Click to expand...

Please retract that before you mislead someone. You can open carry in pistol free zones only if you have a CPL.

Click to expand...

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

It's gonna take a long time to convince the residents of Ann Arbor, Lansing, and Detroit to go for that. And until then, it won't happen. Michigan's urban centers are holding the state hostage.

Click to expand...

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

I'm sure there are plenty of upper middle class types in places like Ann Arbor who got a CPL for their own protection, but would NEVER want to see the repeal of the things you listed.

Click to expand...

ezkl2230 said:

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/michigan_house_speaker_jase_bo.html

The issue has already been studied to death, and Michigan law already allows for open carry in many of the places designated as "gun free" or "carry free" zones in Michigan, but Speaker Bolger insists that the Michigan House of Representatives waste more time and money before approving SB 59 if it is passed by the Senate.

The facts are clear. According to the Michigan State Police, since increased access to CCW was enacted in 2001, violent crime has decreased 14% across the state - even while legal gun ownership is increasing. That have been no events in "gun free zones" involving legal firearms carriers, and Michigan law already allows OC in these areas. Simply put, there is no logical reason why Speaker Bolger should continue to stand in the way of the free exercise of our Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution (Article 1 Section 6) right to carry -- especially in light of the recent federal district court decision stating that 1) the only reason one needs to justify carry is the existence of the right in the Second Amendment and 2) one needs to be able to defend one's self anywhere one happens to be.

We need to flood Speaker Bolger's office with calls, emails, and faxes encouraging him to fast track this legislation once it is passed in the Senate. This issue isn't about emotions, as he states in the article; it is about a civil and legal right that is guaranteed by both the Second Amendment and the Michigan Constitution, and upheld in the recent federal district court decision. Here is his contact information:

House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger
1-877-BOLGER-1 (office)
517-373-9119 (fax)
[email protected]

Click to expand...

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding this very important issue.
I support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as Michigan’s Constitution as they both protect our citizen’s right to bear arms. Therefore, I support allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons.

Unfortunately, we have many horrific cases that show that banning concealed weapons in certain places does not deter those who would harm innocent people.
However, this legislation will require significant discussion in the House. This is an emotional issue and I understand and respect that there is significant disagreement among our residents. If it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to undergo its own fact finding, testimony from the public, and the bill will receive full and careful deliberation.
Thank you for your comments and please feel free to contact my office anytime with questions or concerns.


Regards,


Jase Bolger
State Representative
63rd District
(517) 373-1787

Click to expand...

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate your reply. However, I cannot be in stronger disagreement with your position.

With all due respect, we do not decide the exercise of Constitutional Rights based upon the anticipated "emotional" response that might be engendered by the exercise of the protected right.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of speech based on emotional considerations.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of religion based on emotional considerations.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of press, or association, or due process or protection from illegal search and seizure based upon emotional considerations.

As Judge Legg opined in his recent U.S. District Court decision, we decide the exercise of these rights based upon the fact that the rights EXIST. Period. That is all the justification we need.

I can point to dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents throughout our history that would support the case for limiting the exercise of the freedom of speech or press or religion - the exercise of each of these rights engenders emotional responses that have led to all manner of emotional outcry by detractors. And yet, we not only protect the exercise of these rights, we celebrate their exercise!

The same must be true with regard to the RIGHT protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution. Does the issue of firearms carry engender an emotional response? Absolutely. But just as it is true that this is not a consideration that hampers the free exercise of all of our other Constitutionally protected RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, so you cannot base your decision to continue limiting what federal courts have declared to be a basic right, the exercise thereof requiring no justification other than the existence of the right - the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in our own defense - on the argument that "[T]his is an emotional issue."

Sir, with all due respect, your continued reticence to implement the FULL EXERCISE of our Second Amendment right flies in the face of the oath that you took upon entering the Michigan legislature:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative according to the best of my ability."

Your duty is to protect and support the exercise of all of the rights prescribed in both Constitutions - regardless of the emotional response they might engender from detractors.

Respectfully,

Click to expand...