1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Michigan - AG opinion regarding Proposal 2 opens the door to Constitutional Carry....

Discussion in 'Activism' started by ezkl2230, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. ezkl2230

    ezkl2230 New Member

    I just sent the following email to the NRA-ILA regarding Proposal 2; I have sent similar letters to a number of legislators in Lansing:

    All of you folks from Michigan need to call, write, email, and fax the legislators from your district about this. While the State AG's opinion was intended only to address Proposal 2, his interpretation of the relationship between Constitutional protections and limits created by legislation is directly applicable to the issue of firearm carry. It is time to really turn up the heat to have Constitutional Carry implemented in Michigan.
  2. paramedic70002

    paramedic70002 New Member

    And the Second Amendment to the US Constitution invalidates all gun laws in the United States. I agree with you mostly, but good luck with that.
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    It would seem that the best recipients would be the legislators in Michigan instead of a lobby that already knows what the constitution says and means. Urging the NRA/ILA to act on behalf of the 2A supporters is like urging the Brady Campaign to act on behalf of Antis.
  4. Jim K

    Jim K Active Member

    "they can't have it both ways"

    Sure they can. With politicians, lies and hypocrisy are unlimited resources.

  5. ezkl2230

    ezkl2230 New Member

    Did you really read my post, or do you just automatically go into critic mode?

    I began by saying that I sent a similar letter to whom? LEGISLATORS. I sent a similar email to the NRA-ILA because of a response I received from one of said LEGISLATORS:
    It stands to reason that if those who make the laws haven't made the connection between two seemingly unrelated issues, then it is just possible that even the folks at NRA-ILA haven't, either.
  6. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    You're absolutely right, I scanned instead of read your OP while doing other things and misinterpreted it. My failure.

    Do you think the proposed legislation has a chance of passing? Your argument is strengthened if there's broad support for it.

    If the NRA/ILA were strong in Michigan they'd probably already have made headway. Folks may want to change their versions to make it a personal appeal to their elected officials instead of referencing them. The idea that a constituent is saying "I want you to do this and I will work for/against your reelection based on what you do" is very personal and potentially more powerful.
  7. ezkl2230

    ezkl2230 New Member

    I think there is a very good chance that the proposal will pass. Michigan is beginning to experience a resurgence of unionism after a nearly 10 year downturn. Currently, only 14% - 17% of Michigan employees are represented by unions, down from nearly 25%. That is beginning to change, and two proposals on the November ballot are aimed at making Michigan a Constitutionally unionized state. So yes, I think Proposal 2 has a good chance of passing.

    However, even if it doesn't, the precedent has been established that Constitutional provisions supersede legislative limitations. This precept has never been stated like this in Michigan before. So while passage of Proposal 2 will make our job easier (even though I don't personally support Proposal 2), the AG's stated opinion gives us a tool we have never had in this fight in Michigan. We have tried arguing constitutionality in the past with no success, because so many bought into the idea that legislation trumps the Constitution and can be used to limit Constitutional rights. Now we have the AG's statement on the record that this is not the case. Here is a link to the legal brief he submitted opposing Proposal 2: http://www.michamber.com/files/michamber.com/Schuette%20Memo%20to%20Snyder%20re%20Ballot%20Proposal.pdf

    As you observed, we need to change the tone of our communications with our state legislators to reflect this change, and let them know that we expect them to keep their hands off our Constitutional right to carry.
  8. andrewstorm

    andrewstorm member

    the gov snyder,has refused to sign hb 5225,

    Because of pressure,from the coalition(anti gun) who spread lies that mental patients,and felons would be able to buy handguns,endangering all,what a crok,ill never vote for snyder,he says he will only vote for the new bridge,we dont need.
  9. andrewstorm

    andrewstorm member

    state right to keep and bare arms

    Means if the state deprives you of the statuatory right,you have standing to sue in federal court for deprivation of selected rights under us 1983 the kkk act
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  10. ezkl2230

    ezkl2230 New Member

    Snyder isn't just giving in to pressure, this is one of those "social issues" that he doesn't want to be bothered with. He personally is not in favor of this legislation, and he thinks it is detracting from "more important" legislation - although, what is more important than protecting our Constitutional rights, I just don't know. Thankfully, if they do put it on the agenda for a vote tomorrow as we hope, it appears that it will pass with enough votes to override the gov's veto.

Share This Page