Guns in the Big House? Legislation allowing concealed weapons in gun-free zones raises concerns
Purses, umbrellas and water bottles are prohibited inside Michigan Stadium, but the next time you go cheer on the Wolverines you might be able to bring a loaded gun.
A controversial bill that would change the rules around concealed weapons in Michigan and expand where they can be carried has gained traction in the Legislature's lame duck session.
Senate Bill 59, which passed out of the Republican-controlled Senate in a 27-11 vote last week, would eliminate county gun boards and allow people who get extra training to carry concealed weapons in so-called "gun-free" zones, including college campuses, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, sports arenas, bars, churches and large entertainment venues that seat thousands.
Fans crowd around Michigan Stadium on a football game day. Senate Bill 59 would allow people who get extra training to carry concealed weapons in so-called "gun-free" zones, including college campuses and sports arenas.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
"Our goal is a safe and secure environment and we don't believe the bill allows us to advance our goal of providing a safe and secure environment free from threats or acts of violence," he said. "Our state universities are some of the safest places you can be, and this bill, we think, will impede our commitment to the safety and security of our universities."
The primary sponsor of the legislation is Sen. Mike Green, a Republican who represents Arenac, Bay, Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola counties. Green could not be reached for comment, but he said last week he believes the bill would provide better service and only well-trained permit holders who know how to use a gun and how to defend themselves would be able to carry in gun-free zones.
Green said back in March the state's gun-free zones were added as part of legislative "sausage making" years ago. He said his bill addresses "dramatic inconsistencies" in how county gun boards behave, and it's not his intention that all of the hundreds of thousands of people who carry concealed weapons in Michigan will carry in gun-free zones.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners maintains forbidding law-abiding permit holders to carry concealed weapons in some public places make the sites "mass murder empowerment zones" for criminals.
Under the legislation, permit holders would be allowed to carry concealed in gun-free zones if they undergo an extra nine hours of training beyond the current eight. They also would have to fire an extra 94 rounds at the range beyond the 98 the legislation requires for a basic permit.
"That, on its face, is a little troublesome," said Kirk Profit of Governmental Consultant Services Inc., a Lansing lobbying firm that represents a number of governmental entities in Washtenaw County.
Profit said his clients — including Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ypsilanti Township, Washtenaw County, U-M and Washtenaw Community College — are concerned about the legislation due to a lack of clarity in what actually would happen if it passes.
"There's a need for clarity as to what would be the law if this thing passes," he said. "On the face of it, this would allow for concealed weapons in venues where they're not currently allowed, and that is clearly the goal of the sponsor. I've talked to him on multiple occasions and that is his goal."
Profit said the question is whether Michigan's trespass laws still would allow property owners, public and private, to exercise their right to ban guns on their properties if they choose.
"I'm not sure we want people carrying weapons either openly or concealed in large sports arenas, in classes, in emergency rooms, in daycare centers," he said. "There's trouble related to that."
The legislation would eliminate county concealed weapons licensing boards, with sheriffs taking over their duties. Sheriff Jerry Clayton said the legislation concerns him.
"There are a lot of unknowns more than anything," he said. "We are keeping a watchful eye on the bill. I will stop short of saying it presents a threat to the public, but it does cause those of us in law enforcement concern. I understand people like to carry arms, but those places were designated gun-free zones for a reason, and I don't think that reason has changed."
With a majority of the 110 members of the state House not having to worry about being re-elected again, either because they're in their final weeks in office or they'll be serving out their final term starting in January, Profit said more interesting than usual things are happening in Lansing.
With pending legislation that would expand opportunities to own large carnivores such as lions, tigers and bears, some have joked that maybe Michiganders do need to be armed.
The concealed weapons bill was introduced at the start of the legislative session in January 2011 but it sat mostly dormant until passing out of the Senate in the lame duck. It was read in the House last week and referred to Natural Resources, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Frank Foster, a Republican who represents the Petoskey area.
Foster could not be reached for comment to confirm when the bill might get a hearing and when it might go to the House floor for a vote.
"This bill has been sitting on the floor of the Senate since last March and it has just moved very quickly, and it appears it's part of a package deal, so we're taking our concerns over to the House," Boulus said of how universities are responding to the bill's movement.
"Why would you want to expand guns into dormitories and classrooms?" he added. "It's just counterintuitive. And having firearms in our densely populated stadiums? You can't take a purse into our stadiums, but we're going to allow guns? That's just not good common sense."
Churches are worried, too.
Dave Maluchnik, spokesman for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the Catholic church in Michigan would rather see the state's gun laws remain unchanged.
"We believe churches are a place for peace and reconciliation and we don't believe a law allowing more guns in churches is good public policy," he said.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
oldgaffer
Tue, Dec 18, 2012 : 2:20 a.m.
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners' position that denying CPL holders to carry concealed weapons into the Big House makes the stadium a "mass murder empowerment zone" for criminals can scarcely be imagined as a plausible argument. Are these people insane or what?
Cory
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 7:53 p.m.
For what it's worth, it was already legal for Concealed carry permit holders to Open carry in pistol free zones. The new law only makes it so that they can carry concealed. Fewer "Man with a Gun" calls is all that will come out of this piece of legislation. Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding group of citizens in Michigan.
Robert Granville
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.
We don't need concealed carry in gun-free zones. If you want to carry your gun, it should have to be open carry.
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.
well some of us dont want to be the first target and would rather have the element of surprise.
Darwin
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
Those of you who are anti-gun, do you have a smoke alarm or fire extinguisher in your home? Why? Are you paranoid? What are you afraid of? CPL Holders apply the same thought process...it isn't paranoia, its preparedness in case there happens to be a circumstance that requires the protection of themselves and loved ones. Do obese people blame forks and spoons for being fat? Guns are inanimate objects, its people who are dangerous. In the eyes of the Law, All CPL's in the State of Michigan are upstanding citizens and have undergone an FBI background check (NCIS = Mental & Criminal) before a gun is purchased UNLESS you've obtained it by illegal means. At which point your a criminal anyway and your intentions are criminal in nature anyway. The antigun folks base arguement is to ban ALL guns, eliminate them all and it will end the gun violance. At which I point you to countries that have already implemented a "no guns" policy, such as the UK...they still have gun violence. So again banning guns is not the solution and doesnt stem violence. Nor is it realistic to create a "Nanny State" where the government must protect you from yourselves. Though some would try an argue this...I then will point you to someone who is truly paranoid.
Brady Schickinger
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:33 p.m.
Despite our position being quoted in the story, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners was not contacted to discuss some of the issues raised in this story. For example, there is no mention in the story that it is currently legal for a concealed pistol license holder to openly carry in pistol free zones with no additional training. This bill would require those gun owners to conceal their firearms and have additional training before receiving an exemption to carry in pistol free zones. The story also doesn't mention that many states allow trained concealed pistol license holders to carry concealed in pistol free zones without the the threat to public safety gun control supporters allege. Michigan is hardly the first state to go down this road. Finally, the reason some of the individuals above have unknowns and need clarity on legislation that was introduced in January 2011 is because they have refused to work with the sponsor on the bill. Michael Boulus, in particular, has been approached by gun groups and legislators numerous times over the past decade regarding bans on campus carry and he refuses to discuss the issue. College campuses are not as safe as he alleges -rapes and violent assaults aren't uncommon and there's been a long history of colleges and universities attempting to downplay crime on campus in order to protect student recruitment efforts. His position requires a woman with a concealed pistol license to disarm herself when walking across campus at night, risking her safety or forcing her to find an escort, risking her independence. Brady Schickinger Legislative Director MCRGO
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:06 p.m.
Under current federal law, retired Federal workers and retired police officers are given an unrestriced Federal CPL. They already carry at the big house.
Morris
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:33 p.m.
There is a proven axiom: The more people who carry guns, the more people get shot/killed. We don't need more guns in churches or schools.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 1:48 a.m.
This is not necessarily true. I think we have a society problem, not a gun problem. There are a few countries who mandate that each individual household have a gun - some countries every male must serve in the armed forces and afterwords keep, and maintain, their firearm. These countries have some of the lowest crime rates presumably because everyone knows that every house has a firearm in it.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 5:32 p.m.
You call that an axiom?? Funny, because there's just as much correlation with the number of motor vehicles and the number of people who're killed because of their ubiquity. So by your logic, reducing the number of motor vehicles is a priority because "we don't need them." Right? There's no inalienable right to posses a motor vehicle, but federal courts decided that does apply to the U.S. Constitution in regard to civilian gun ownership. And I believe it's Article 6 of the Michigan Constitution which includes the statement: citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of the state and of themselves. And you side step the matter of state certified and licensed carrying of guns. About 750,000 hunters around the state carry rifles, shotguns and pistols every hunting season but the number of fatalities directly attributed is tiny (like 6 or so). There are 350,000 citizens licensed to carry concealed pistols but the number of deaths caused by THOSE guns is also tiny - and way below the number of killings caused by criminals using guns. What're you suggesting? - that we should eliminate criminals? If you've discovered the secret to that, you'll be famous for all of history. :-) Oh, by the way: before one can say we don't need more guns in churches or schools - we have to know how many are already in those places and how that affects the number of people shot/killed (by those guns). Maybe you can tell us: how many guns are currently in churches and schools? How many deaths resulted from that number of guns being in those places? You may have a car & license to own & operate it. I can see why a person with a perfect driving record might have credibility when it comes to expressing /advocating their opinion about other driver/car owners. Your experience in some areas lends credibility to your opinion so unless you're licensed & have experience with guns, your opinion isn't relevant.
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.
Can you show me the proof???
oldguy
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
What a totally idiotic bill this is. Bring your gun to the game where a good number of people are drunk from taligating, emotions are running high, people are crowded into seats that were sized for 1927 sized butts.... oh yeah, allowing guns in here is a great idea. NOT !!!! Where does it stop ? people carrying AK47`s over their shoulders in public.... how about a granade launcher mounted on your car.... come to campus in your own tank... aggggghhhhh
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.
FYI, I could walk down the street legally in any city with an AK47 - and - a tank (as long as I made it street legal with lights, registration and stuff).
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:07 p.m.
Undercurrent law you can carry an AK-47 down main street.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:59 p.m.
First of all: this whole topic contains more to think about than can be contained in one article by any one person - comprehensive coverage is not the way to describe this article. RE: ""Why would you want to expand guns into dormitories and classrooms?" he added. "It's just counterintuitive. And having firearms in our densely populated stadiums? You can't take a purse into our stadiums, but we're going to allow guns? That's just not good common sense." I'd say that just because something seems "intuitively" right or wrong is hardly a basis for solid reasoning. This statement omits one glaring fact: There are 350,000 citizens licensed (with mandatory training) to carry concealed pistols in Michigan. FACT: no one can see these 350,000 people carrying their CONCEALED pistols - REGARDLESS OF WHERE they may be!! The purposely concealed fact is: these "gun free zones" are violated every day, in every county - but in 10 years there've been none of the feared "mass shootings" by any licensee. It's unexpected - because of unreal expectations, not because the law actually does anything to protect anyone. Church leaders: Your fears have already been realized - some of your congregation members have been coming to church armed with loaded pistols. FOR YEARS. And - if you're honest, you'd admit that you already knew this before making any statements which imply that you SOMEHOW have control of that matter. University leaders: just admit that you already know you have ZERO control over guns on campus. Policies and laws "against guns" have been in place for years around the country - NONE of those has prevented the few attention-grabbing shootings , NONE of those shootings which have happened were done by licensed individuals. Of course: every normal person wants to prevent mass shootings & mass murders. But are laws establishing "gun free zones"doing the job?? No.
Robert Granville
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 2:51 p.m.
There have been two mass shootings in the past two months perpetrated by licensed gunmen. It happens annually. Don't lie about it. We can read the news.
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.
It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon with a blood alcohol above .001. About one swig of mouth wash. It should have been stated in the story, but that would have killed the fears of drunken gun fights and not supported the liberal bias of AA.com.
Frank Lee
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:22 p.m.
After reading all of the comments, I think it's abundantly clear that many are unaware of current gun laws. I think it's also safe to say that many don't realize how often they are around armed individuals. This legislation is not cause for panic but I can understand the misconceptions. Under Michigan law, carrying a concealed pistol under a CPL constitutes implied permission for chemical testing for illegal drugs or alcohol; and it is strictly forbidden for someone with a concealed pistol license to carry a pistol while on drugs or alcohol. http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10961--,00.html An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a concealed pistol shall immediately disclose to the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle. People currently trust that stadium security is insuring that nobody enters with a pistol. If this legislation passes, they should then equally trust that security would know a CPL holder is carrying if they chose not to disclose the fact. The CPL holder's endorsements could then be verified and they could be tested for sobriety if suspected to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. As the law stands now, CPL holders can CONCEAL carry in many parking areas of these events and OPEN carry with a CPL in most "pistol-free" areas is arguably legal. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that ANY legal gun owner can have a pistol in the trunk of their car, with the ammo stored in a separate area of the same vehicle. A firearm can be loaded if inside a parked RV. In short, we are among many armed individuals at all times. This legislation would only minimally increase one's exposure to armed individuals inside the stadium. REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Michigan
grimmk
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 3:03 a.m.
That's great and all because everyone ALWAYS follows the law down to the letter... Oh wait. And I doubt security is going to do a field sobriety test on EVERYONE who has a CPL and I really doubt everyone who has a CPL will tell security. And NONE of them will get drunk though. Count on it.
clownfish
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
First, I own guns and have been shooting for over 35 years. The USA has more guns per capita than almost any other country, if I were to follow the logic of NRA then we should have low crime rates and few gun related homicides? Guess what? We have one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world. We fall behind only S. Africa, Thailand and Columbia. Homicide by firearm: (2002) # 1 South Africa: 31,918 # 2 Colombia: 21,898 # 3 Thailand: 20,032 # 4 United States: 9,369 # 5 Philippines: 7,708 # 6 Mexico: 2,606 # 7 Slovakia: 2,356 # 8 El Salvador: 1,441 # 9 Zimbabwe: 598 # 10 Peru: 442
DJBudSonic
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.
2002 is pretty old I would say you need to update your source, I cannot believe that Mexico is that far down the list. In any event, one statistic does not an argument make... There are dramatic cultural and economic differences, etc.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
False premise: your claim implies that the NRA has a false doctrine which you seem to knock down with figures. The primary doctrine of the NRA deals with the right to self defense, NOT crime reduction. Besides, if there are only 9,369 incidents of gun violence in a country with population of 310 million - that's about a good as you're going to get, given what the human species is. The other primary goal & purpose of the NRA is to increase the competence of the population using guns - that you "suspect" the opposite suggests you have little or no experience in the area of competence with guns. So why do think your opinion should be taken seriously?
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
What is the # of gun deaths when you remove gun related suicides?
LarryJ
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:55 p.m.
The idea that we behave well because the people might have guns and shoot us if we act up is abhorrent. How about a CULTURE OF PEACE? I envision a culture in which people behave in a civil manner because that's the nature of our society. And if the culture of peace breaks down, as it inevitably will given the occasional drunks and volatile idiots, the worst we have to fear is an obscenity or a fist, not a shootout.
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.
and I envision you waking up to the world around us...
15crown00
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:44 p.m.
This is scary.Imagine several drunk fans packing a gun at a college football game.things aren't going well for the team.things get out of control.shooting starts.People get injured and some die.Thanks crooked politicians beholden to the NRA.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.
Adding to what hail2thevictor and cinnabar7071 are saying: the penalties for carrying while having .02 BAC (vs .08 BAC for drivers) are significant and can include loss of license, gun confiscation, heavy fines, imprisonment (depending on specifics). Having a cpl, I can't even chance having one glass of wine if there's the possibility I might have to go out of my home for something. It's pretty restrictive and is based on knowing that having a cpl is MORE IMPORTANT than being stripped of that ability or having "just one" drink. Besides, there's a good chance that people go into Michigan Stadium while armed - the condition exists but has not produced the scenario you describe and find so "scary." I got my first cpl in 1967 - have gone through adulthood with a gun on my hip. Never once have I been tempted to "go crazy" and start shooting - and I've never SEEN that scenario develop during all of those years. I go through recertification every few years - never have I seen any but the most responsible people in those classes. Also: these changes you are so concerned about are not the result of crazies lobbying for the privilege of shooting up the town (or stadium). The Michigan laws concerning carrying concealed or openly are refined by attorneys specializing in this kind of law. BTW: crazies are weeded out of the NRA and organizations like the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO.org). We (members) are very picky about the kind of drunk fans you describe - we don't want THAT KIND to be carrying guns either! :-) Before you demean the NRA: remember that many in the NRA are certified instructors who teach the cops (federal, state and local) how to shoot (perform in armed confrontations). They also instruct social workers, paramedics, fire fighters AND those who work in prosecutors offices. It might help you to see the situation clearly if you went through the training yourself.
cinnabar7071
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
The bill does NOT allow drunk carry by anyone, anywhere! In fact it implicitly disallows it.
hail2thevict0r
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
You're not allowed to drink and carry - it's as simple as that.
A2Dave
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
Michigan: guns? Hell yes! Unions? Hell no! The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:37 p.m.
and they're doing it right! keep it up lansing!
grimmk
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 6:01 a.m.
What an oxymoron! Guns in gun free zones! What??
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.
Similarly, it's clear to at least me that criminals don't really car about taking a gun into a gun free zone.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 1:40 a.m.
Some would argue that making them gun free to begin with was unconstitutional.
grimmk
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 2:59 a.m.
Yes, but they are gun free zones now. Why change them?
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.
This law would make them gun zones...they would no longer be gun free zones. So there would be no oxymoron.
Krupper1
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 5:41 a.m.
Tough call. . I'm pro- individual rights and would rather err on the side of allowing freedom than restricting it (so, think of the wide variety of "rights" we claim that may take resources/ freedom from fellow citizens) . . . Not seeing a reason to go to the Big House armed. . .I am, however, convinced that there are guns in the stands at every game - carried by law-biding citizens. Sorry for the random musing. . . but, I think that rights enumerated in the Constitution deserve attention. . . "rights" we claim because of passion (but are not enumerated) can be added to the "rules" by amendment. . . OK, I'm done stumbling through my thoughts. . . people who can legally carry guns usually don't shoot others. . .people who illegally carry guns often do. . . I return to point one - tough call.
aggcarrier201
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:37 a.m.
So many uneducated statements in these posts. All though I personally don't believe open carry is a good idea it is allowed by Michigan law. Mcl. 750.234d2b allows a cpl holder open open carry in all pistol free zones with the exception of federal property. Also the University of Michigan and other university's in the state have the right to ban firearms on their property no matter what state law in effect so you won't have to worry about anybody LEGALLY possessing a firearm in any of the university stadiums in Michigan. Furthermore private property owner will still have the right ban firearms from their property. Briarwood mall is not pistol free zone however it is stated in the code of conduct at the mall entrances that weapons are not allowed so if a cpl holder is caught in briarwood they are guilty of trespassing. Most daycare centers are privately owned so I would believe most owners will communicate to their clients weapons are not permitted. Bars are privately owned so not much will change there either. This bill is also going to eliminate the open carry exemption for cpl holders in pistol free zones so the means unless you have the enhanced cpl you will no longer be able to carry in pfz's. Schools open a whole different discussion because federal law prohibits firearms from being within 1000 feet of school property but must be enforced and prosecuted on the federal level. As for churches I would believe they are considered private property since they are no way funded by the state. Entertainment facilities seating over 2500 people are almost always private property so I'm the no pistol signs will be placed at those entrances as well. As a cpl holder myself I don't see where this new enhanced license is going to allow a licensee to actually carry a firearm in many of the current pfz's.
LLoyd Christmas
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:10 a.m.
I call BS on this article. If this Bill were to become law, a CPL holder would still be forbidden to carry in the the Big House or anywhere else on UM property. The Regents already have a no guns on UM property policy.
katmando
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
state law trumps local laws
Honest Abe
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:55 a.m.
Remember, I have the right to bear arms. Hence the word "Right". It's not called the " 2nd privilege", it's my right. That's right class, say it with me......"It's our RIGHT to keep and bear arms". Why is it people think they can strip or limit our 2nd amendment rights? Anything shy of you fully supporting the 2nd amendment, you're supporting the revocation of my rights. That's a problem.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 1:39 a.m.
Jake, it all depends on what the courts, over the years, have determined to qualify under "arms" described in the constitution. I think it's clear that a Nuclear device is not something an individual should own. But the law does allow anyone, who's willing to get the right licensing, to possess or even own fully automatic AK47's as you suggest. The right to own is not limited unless you're a felon or have any mental stability issues. Anyone can go through this process to get one. Similarly, anyone willing to go through the process of getting a license to carry on "gun free" zones would be able to if they go through the proper channels.
hail2thevict0r
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 1:36 a.m.
A well regulated militia is interpreted incorrectly using today's English. It was never intended to mean that an individual must belong to a well regulated militia in order to legally own a firearm. The most common interpretation of the text reads the first portion as more of a statement. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". Meaning - that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The second part, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." reads as it's a direct right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is how almost every court has interpreted the wording.
Jake C
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.
Can you walk down to the corner store and buy a fully-auto AK47 or Surface-to-Air missile without a background check? Or a nuclear weapon? Do you believe that any person should be able to just walk out and get such weapons? If not, then your "Right" to keep and bear arms has already been limited, and as a society we're working to find a sensible balance between responsible gun ownership, and public safety risks.
oldguy
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:27 p.m.
The 2nd amendment says ".... a well regulated miltia...." I submit that the founding fathers didn`t mean to include in this every Tom, Dick, and crazy Harry.
Westfringe
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 8:36 a.m.
You also have the right to free speech, that doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Sometime we must use logic to preserve modern society.
grimmk
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 6:03 a.m.
I think it's technically the right to bare arms if you are in a militia. Granted, it's been changed. But originally, no. Not the individual.
JRW
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:06 a.m.
" but he said last week he believes the bill would provide better service and only well-trained permit holders who know how to use a gun and how to defend themselves would be able to carry in gun-free zones." What the heck is "better service?" How would anyone enforce this? Ask everyone entering the stadium if they a) have a gun, b) have a permit, c) know how to use it, d) know how to defend themselves, e) and are they well-trained? How much time did they spend on the shooting range? Good luck asking 110,000 people these questions at the entry gate. Mike Green needs to stop ducking the explanation and provide specifics.
Eep
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:10 a.m.
I think "better service" in this context was a reference to the new procedure of having the permits issued by the county sheriff instead of an appointed CPL board.
GoNavy
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
So, I'm authorized to carry a pistol, and I often do. This makes absolutely no sense to me. When was the last shooting at Michigan Stadium? When was the last stabbing, fatal beating, etc.? Anybody? I'll say this though - if this law passes, and it comes to be that people start carrying their guns into the game, well - I'm not going to be left carrying a seat cushion to a gun fight.
greg, too
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 5:43 a.m.
So what was the push to carry in schools? It wasn't from the teachers or administrators and, at least in everything other than college, the students aren't old enough to get a gun and really lack an effective lobbying schema. So who wants this?
2WheelsGood
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
You say it as if the push to eliminate gun-free zones was so that people could carry at Michigan Stadium. I'm quite sure that's not the case. It's a side effect.
Gill
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
I hope the ID requires more than a printer and lamination to make a fake one...
Hemenway
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:39 a.m.
@Gill, The Michigan CPL is much like a Driver License. That said, all a CPL does is allow a citizen, if stopped, to provide law enforcement evidence to authorize carry. A criminal does not care about following rules, why bother making a fake permit? Much like DUI offenders that still drive after their license is revoked.
Tesla
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:56 p.m.
As a CPL holder and someone who is always carrying I like to say... A handgun is like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Honest Abe
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.
Tesla- Well said.
katmando
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:26 a.m.
You are not a true teapublican they are against contraception.
Tesla
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.
Or I could do the right thing and actually help the mother raise the child? lol Why do you assume it's a hit and run? Besides that I am in a committed relationship, not even sure the thing works all that well anymore....Doh! And I haven't killed anyone with a gun. Yet.
johnnya2
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
Well i could say that mistakes with that philosophy are the condoms break and despite best efforts you could be on the hook for 18 years of child support. The mistake with your handgun could lead to KILLING somebody. So maybe you should try your brain more orften or SELF CONTROL
Dirtgrain
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.
There is a teacher where I work who loses her keys at least once a month.
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.
Does this mean player on the field get to carry as well?
alan
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:40 p.m.
Michissippi. Let's bring back lynchin's too.
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.
Everyone who owns a gun should have to get insurance as well Let the insurance companies regulate it and see how many people are fit to own guns.
Westfringe
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:30 p.m.
Another piece of legislation from the party determined to bring back the good old days of the 1800s. What an absolute joke, how did these morons become out leaders...
jusayin
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
anybody else out their scared bleep less?
cinnabar7071
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.
Nope
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:33 p.m.
I gave up living in fear a long time ago.
Classof2014
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:20 p.m.
This is so stupid...purses, umbrellas etc are not allowed but guns are?!?!? how does that make sense?
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:16 p.m.
Insane! So instead of 1 person firing a gun you have a few thousand! Try and sort that out afterwards!
Jeffersonian Liberal
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:04 p.m.
You should be more concerned about the miss- wired nut jobs out there seeking attention then your neighbor legally packing. These twisted social rejects don't pay attention to your laws, gun free zones are just becoming hunting zones. This freaks are mentally ill, but not stupid. We are seeing an increase of attacks in schools, religious centers and theaters. I'll be judged by 12 before I'm carried by 8.
greg, too
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 5:39 a.m.
Based on Department of Education stats, we have roughly 98k public schools in the US that have roughly 5.9 million students in them. We have had 44 total gun violence events in schools since 2000, which includes colleges and universities, totaling 146 fatalities. That also includes 1 person killed with a bow and arrow. Almost all of those incidents involved legally purchased weapons, either by the shooter or they took them from their parents. Based on the stats from the Nation Association of Theatre Owners, we have roughly 5500 cinemas in the US. We have had 1 incident of cinema gun violence that I know of. Any senseless deaths are tragic and should be mourned and learned from. But you are more likely to get hit by lightning (1 in 280,000) than get shot in a "gun free zones.. just becoming hunting zones," so is adding weapons into schools really the right solution?
johnnya2
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:29 a.m.
Ok lets add up ALL the school shootings, theater shootings and church shooting over the last 10 years. Now lets check the number of firearm killings in Michigan in 2010. There were 413 firearm killings, You supply the data on the rest since they are "hunting grounds"
alan
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:38 p.m.
I doubt that there is any truth to your claim that "gun free zones are just becoming hunting zones". I imagine that you have evidence of that?
Westfringe
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.
Almost everyone I have met with a CPL is a "miss- wired nut job."
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:12 p.m.
Dude, how much do you weigh? Isn't it usually "carried by 6"?
Jaelle
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:02 p.m.
If they pass this law to allow guns in these places, they better expand them to courtrooms, state buildings/offices and, yes, even to people visiting their legislative sessions. See how good of an idea they think it is then.
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.
How about during that so called "right" to "work" debate!
Mitch
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.
Well, Dave Maluchnik follow the good book in Luke 22:36. Should I only follow the bible where you say to??? Shootings have happened in Church, by bad people, I know of one that was stopped cold by the armed parishioners. In this country you are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. Not so, to get a CPL, you get to be a certified good personby the FBI and the state AFTER several hours of training.
Mitch
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 11:42 p.m.
Well the good lord did say to 'sell your cloak and buy a sword' Not to be violent, but protect encourage yourself from violence. Even Dr King tried to get a CPL.
greg, too
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 5:20 a.m.
Hemenway, most of that is going away under the new law. Outside of the testing, which I have not read anything about new rules on that, everything will go through the overworked, understaffed sheriffs department. No gun board, just the sheriffs department.
Hemenway
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:32 a.m.
@Mitch, Correction, To get a CPL in Washtenaw County one needs to take an NRA certified CPL class, (12 hours) have finger prints taken by the County Sheriff, and following that apply for a CPL permit at the county clerk in Ann Arbor. The Gun Board will do a background check and may follow up on the required references given in your application. The process takes, from start to finish, about four months. Every five years CPL holder is required to renew their certification.
Westfringe
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.
Jesus would have had a CPL? How about acting more like a Christian and less like a violent fascist.
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:21 p.m.
Wrong in most place it is the person selling you weapon that is deciding wether or not the buyer is fit to own a gun ak VT.
Rick Stevens
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
Guns and 110,000 rabid football fans. What possibly could go wrong?
Mitch
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 12:20 a.m.
How did that work out a Virginia Tech & at the theater in Colorado? Both are gun free zones. The theater by the way was the only 'Gun Free Zone' theater in the town.
katmando
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:24 p.m.
just waiting to read about the hugh body afterwards. Can you just imagine trying recreate the shoot out?
Blue Marker
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.
Jason Whitlock, who used to write for the old Ann Arbor News what seems like a thousand years ago did a piece after the murder/suicide by the Kansas City Chiefs football player. That same piece that Bob Costas quoted on NBC and got in a little hot water over. I'm going to post it here because as much as I didn't care for Whitlock most of the time he sums up my feelings on the continued arming of America pretty well. 'Our current gun culture,' Whitlock wrote, '... ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenaged boys bloody and dead. ... 'Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.'
Mitch
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 12:07 a.m.
Sorry, a gun makes me equal to a couple large thugs. A gun gives my daughter the power to stop a rapist. Gun control + bigotry has accounted for genocide.
Area Man
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.
I find it interesting how people always fixate on the "concealed" aspect of gun laws. If they were open carrying, would that be easier to digest? No, probably not. So you just oppose guns in general, not for people to be able to conceal them. I'll agree that the second amendment doesn't specifically protect the right for concealed carry, but... that's like saying the first amendment doesn't protect free speech in schools. No, its not explicitly stated, but I think we can all agree that would fall under the original intent. Maybe we need another amendment if people are so upset by the 2nd.
johnnya2
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:34 a.m.
So based on that flawed reasoning there is NO LIMIT to free speech. Meaning I can yell fire in a crowded theater? I can produce child porn? I can threaten to kill somebody who takes my parking space because afterall IT IS FREE SPEECH. We also can go to Amendment number 2. It NEVER says anything about guns in that entire amendment. It says ARMS. A nuclear bomb is considered an arm. A rocket launcher is considered an arm. I guess the libertarain Ron Paul kool aid drinkers should be consistent and tell us that all of the above are acceptable in their views. It will show why they are misguided and foolish followers of a cult
Area Man
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
And we jump right to the nuclear weapon analogy. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To me that means: 1.) They saw militias as important to ensure the government didn't get too out of hand. ...therefore 2.) Everyone has the right to possess arms. Of course there's a lot to be left to the imagination when the whole amendment is a single sentence. There is no correct answer to the question. I would say that they probably didn't intend for people to be walking around with nukes... But if you can tell me they for sure didn't intend for civilians to be able to conceal handguns, I would call BS. We can't know what they intended, which is why if we're so passionate about changing the laws, then let's change them. In the end, though, I think the second amendment (at its core) is important. Allowing the right to bear arms in some form. When they start passing legislation negating it entirely, I'll be more than a little leery.
Rick Stevens
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.
Second Amendment: 'a well regulated militia'... I think that's what it reads. I don't think it said 'individual citizens free of any and all regulations'. Of course, to the NRA that means individuals with automatic weapons, small tactical nuclear weapons, etc. You can't infringe on individual freedom, can you? A small nuclear weapon in a purse, perhaps?
Area Man
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:06 p.m.
Agreed. I'm exaggerating to make the point. I realize there has to be regulation, and that concealment isn't fundamental. I'm simply pointing out that the opposition should consider the other side of the coin--that the 2nd amendment doesn't expressly prohibit such a thing.
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:49 p.m.
As far as it goes, you're right. But think of it this way: no right, no matter how fundamental, is absolute. The first amendment protects the right of free speech everywhere, but that doesn't mean you can go anywhere and say anything without consequences. You can still be prosecuted for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or telling lies when under oath. Likewise, while the second amendment clearly establishes the right to keep and bear arms, the right isn't absolute. Under some circumstances the government can still regulate when and where you can keep and bear arms. So far, the Supreme Court has only found that the right to keep a gun inside your home is fundamental - everything else appears open to some level of regulation. This is an area of law that is still developing, and I don't think any of us know where the courts will ultimately draw the line.
MRunner73
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
State Senator MIke Green (R) is from the Thumb area where the survivalists live. While it is free country, concealed weapons at a venue that will have it's share of drama, excitement and higher emotions is not conducive for concealed weapons. All it will tkae is one incident say, Mich vs MSU or Mich vs OSU at the Big House for a shooting incident which would be very tragic, you'll see the insanity of all of this. Let's hope it not ever come to this. Amazing this insane bill has made it this far.
Ghost of Tom Joad
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.
I love how everyone who argues for carrying in public assumes that everyone who has a pistol is actually going to be an effective deterrent to crime. Just because you go to a few classes and spend a couple hours at the range does not make you a cool head in a heated situation, let alone a good shot in a firefight. You are not John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Roy Rodgers. Give up the childhood cowboy dreams.
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
So how do you feel about police? "Expert" police shooters only hit their targets 18% of the time... hmmm... what about the people that spend many, many hours at the range per year and take multiday classes? And when did the bad guys become better shots and have more training? LOL, they hold their guns sideways...
hail2thevict0r
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:02 p.m.
clownfish, and what you're not posting is that the majority of the deaths are the result of illegal firearms.
clownfish
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S
Hemenway
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:21 a.m.
The Patrick Tilman example is an inaccurate choice to portray a close quarters handgun battle. The Tilman situation involved the use automatic weapons and long distances, not a crowded sports arena at short distances. Although I agree with Ghost about a cool head in a heated situation I do not agree with his assertion that CPL holders are wishing to emulate Hollywood screen stars. CPL holders I know take the time to practice at an authorized shooting range so if the need arises they will be prepared. In the CPL class I attended, the students, like myself, were everyday law abiding folks wishing to provide themselves a means for self defense and an opportunity to get professional training in this practice, much like martial arts training. A large portion of CPL training involves presentation of the laws surrounding when and when NOT to use deadly force. The first guideline we were given is to recognize and avoid dangerous places and two, if you have a choice, leave the situation and call police. Drawing your weapon was given as the LAST choice.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.
Alright, so how often do you hear about someone accidentally shooting someone in a self defense situation vs. how many times you hear about a CPL holder saving everyone? The risk is worth the reward. As I said, I'd rather have a chance vs. being a target with no chance.
Rick Stevens
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
Hail: Or shooting the wrong person when there are 10-20 people shooting thinking they are all shooting the bad person? Ask Pat Tilman - shot by his own team. It's called 'friendly fire' and it happens with trained professionals. Imagine a large group of amateurs. A recipe for disaster.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:30 p.m.
What's better - having a chance or having no chance?
Bpf
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
This is lunacy. Take note of those sponsering this and the other fringe-element appeasing bills and vote them out. Unreal.
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:14 p.m.
The problem with term limits is that you can't vote them out - their terms are ending regardless of what they do, so there are no consequences for their votes. One of the unintended consequences of the term limit law.
2WheelsGood
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:07 p.m.
Do a google search for: kennesaw georgia gun law
outdoor6709
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.
Sorry that would require we argue facts instead of emotion.
tdw
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.
I think it's funny how some people who are paranoid about law abiding, licensed Cpl holders call them paranoid
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
This change in the CPP law won't alter anything with regard to the university. Like it or not, Article 8 of the Michigan Constitution gives the Board of Regents control over property owned by the university, and they can ban guns on the property if they want to, regardless of any law passed by the state legislature. Here is a quote (with citations omitted) explaining this concept from a recent court decision: "The Michigan Constitution confers a unique constitutional status on [its] public universities and their governing boards." The status of these boards has been described by the Michigan Supreme Court as "the highest form of juristic person known to the law, a constitutional corporation of independent authority, which, within the scope of its functions, is coordinate with and equal to that of the legislature." Each governing board is vested with the power of "general supervision of its institutions and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds." With this power comes significant independence, as the state constitution "limit[s] the Legislature's power" over the universities such that it "may not interfere with the management and control of" the universities.
hail2thevict0r
Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.
Again, I'm just going to have to disagree that it's as simple as you're trying to make it. If you have a license to carry on a gun free zone then you can carry on a public gun free zone. If every institution just individually bans guns on gun free zones, then again, what's the point of this extra legislation?
15crown00
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:48 p.m.
SO at best there is a conflict between Article 8 and the new law ,should it take effect.Which prevails?I'l bet lawsuits happen and the new law wins thanks to the NRA and the crooks in Lansing.
Mitch
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:02 p.m.
Thank you, I have been looking how the UofM becomes exempt from State law.
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:08 p.m.
I'd also point you to the following statement from an extremely pro-gun website: Link here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/michigan.pdf "MSU, UM and WSU have special status in the MI Constitution and elect their Board of Regents. Since they are elected the state preemption law does not apply to Michigan State University, University of Michigan and Wayne State University. They can pass Ordinances that ban the carry of firearms anywhere on their campus. Ordinances are below You can not carry on any property of the University of Michigan or Wayne State University even with a valid permit/license to carry in the state of Michigan. Michigan State University follows state law and you can have a firearm on you and in your vehicle as long as you do not go into any building on campus if you have a valid permit/license to carry in Michigan. If Major Streets or Roads travel through the Univ. of MI or Wayne State Univ. you can drive using these streets roads in your travels if you do not stop on Campus. That is the understanding I have received. Do use caution when traveling through Univ. of MI and Wayne State Univ. Property. They have the legal authority to pass ordinances that ban the carrying of firearms on their property."
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:02 p.m.
You are correct that public property and private property are different, but they aren't 100% different - only about 95% different. Here is the Michigan law that prohibits local units of government (cities, villages and townships) from passing guns laws that are more restrictive than state laws like the CPL law: "A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state." You will note that this applies only to "local units of government." It does NOT apply to the state government itself. The university's board of regents is not a "local unit of government." It is part of the state government; this is the point I was trying to make (admittedly imperfectly) in my original post.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.
Yes, I'm fully aware of the CPL laws but private property is 100% different than publicly owned property (including University grounds). As I said, there's a reason that in the current form of the law they specifically site these "gun free zones". I don't know for sure, but my guess is still that they did this because, unlike private property, universities don't have the power to limit it without it being stated in the law. Furthermore, since this CPL + Gun Free Zone CPL law is being pushed through, it seems that this license grants you the legal ability to carry on these zones despite whatever the University, or whomever controls the public land, thinks for the reason I stated above.
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
@hail, Have you actually read the old law, the new proposed law, or any of the court cases? Michigan law makes it illegal to carry a concealed pistol unless you have a license. Once you have the license, you can carry the pistol even though it would otherwise be illegal. Private property owners can still make the rules regarding who can come onto their property and what they can bring onto their property - and the state universities can still make rules about what can be brought onto their property - just like the state itself will still be able to make rules about what can be brought into state courts or the state capitol building. You are perfectly correct in concluding that this makes the CPL less valuable than it initially seems.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.
I still read it differently. If you get the license - then you are licensed to carry on these "banned" areas. It's not just something being "not illegal"...it's literally a license to carry on these areas. If all of these areas ban them separately, what good is the license to begin with?
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:25 p.m.
@hail, think of it this way: there is no law that prevents me from dancing an Irish jig, but if you don't want me dancing an Irish jig in your living room, you are within your rights not to invite me in and to have me arrested for trespassing if I come in without your permission. The old law made it a crime to dance an Irish jig in certain zones. The new law says that it is no longer a crime - but that doesn't mean every private property owner (or government property owner exercising control over government property) needs to allow people to dance the jig on their property.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:21 p.m.
All I'm saying is that there are "gun free" zones for a reason. If it were as easy as a University just banning guns, there would be no reason for that in the law to begin with.
Eep
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.
@hail: AA.com got a quote from a university spokesperson on the same day that this became an issue - the spokesperson probably hasn't had a chance to even ask the university's lawyers about what this bill means. Also, even if the university can continue to ban guns from the stadium, they are probably concerned that people will misinterpret the law and start bringing guns into the stadium, thinking that its allowed. You are correct that the University can't entirely ignore state laws. The same court decisions that I quoted make it clear that the University has to follow the state's general health and safety laws - things like health codes, workplace safety regulations, etc. However, the requirement to follow general laws is very different from a requirement to allow guns - especially since this law doesn't actually require the operators of stadiums to allow guns - it just makes it not-a-crime for a CPL holder to carry their gun.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:09 p.m.
I'm not entirely sure that's true. There are certainly laws that exist on a state level that the public universities cannot break. Clearly UM is concerned given their official statement: "We have serious concerns about the legislation, oppose it in its current form, and will continue to work with the legislature and other universities on this issue." If they were able to control it, they wouldn't have issue.
2WheelsGood
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:43 p.m.
While I certainly understand people's concerns, once the emotions are put aside, the reality is it's a non-issue. CPL holders are allowed to carry in Utah Universities, yet when was the last time you heard about a shooting in one of their schools? These laws did nothing to stop what happened at Virginia Tech. But a CPL holder sure could have. "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun" Dalai Lama
2WheelsGood
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.
I don't know, but really? That's your argument? My point was simply that they're allowed in Utah universities, and not a single person has been shot because of it. I can, however, give MANY examples of school shootings where the law did nothing to prevent them. All of them, in fact.
Tom Whitaker
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
How many shootings happened at Utah universities BEFORE they allowed concealed-carry?
2WheelsGood
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:31 p.m.
First, how would you know they're carrying? Second, since they're obviously SO dangerous, aren't you scared to throw them out?
greg, too
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:26 p.m.
I am interested to see the lawsuits that will spring up when professors start kicking students out of class for having weapons. As a professor myself, I would boot them immediately and let the courts work it out. And was there an outcry for people to be able to carry weapons in schools and churches? Did I just miss that because it never made the news until after the lame duck GOP rammed this through.
Ghost of Tom Joad
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:42 p.m.
Considering the fact that we're not allowed to carry water bottles into the stadium, I can't imagine a logical reason to allow guns.
Boo Radley
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
If the U-M were selling overpriced handguns inside the stadium, I'm sure they would put forth much more effort to keep people from bringing them in.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.
The reason you're not allowed to bring water in is so Dave Brandon can charge you $5 for one on the inside.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:25 p.m.
I'm not sure what everyone is so afraid about. Someone isn't going to go through 17 hours of training, almost 200 rounds at the range and somewhere around $600 in licensing fees to shoot up someone in a church, stadium or other currently "gun free zone". If someone intended on doing that, they wouldn't get the license in the first place. If they're already willing to commit the crime of presumed attempted murder, they aren't going to care much about carrying a weapon illegally into a "gun free zone".
Frank Lee
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.
@jaelle A CPL holder cannot consume alcohol while carrying. http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10961--,00.html Alcohol is not served in the stadium. You currently trust that stadium security is insuring that nobody enters with a pistol. If this legislation passes, you should then equally trust that security would know a CPL holder is carrying (if they chose not to disclose the fact) and test them for sobriety. As the law stands now, CPL holders can CONCEAL carry in many parking areas of these events and OPEN carry with a CPL in most "pistol-free" areas is arguably legal. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that ANY legal gun owner can have a pistol in the trunk of their car, with the ammo stored in a separate area of the same vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Michigan I would say that your thoughts of armed fans from tailgate through game time are terribly flawed. Otherwise, they would have already been a reality.
jcj
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:42 a.m.
Jaelle Time to come back to reality! I do not think there is a need for this proposed bill. I would not support it. BUT it will not lead to the apocalypse if it is passed.
Jaelle
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:09 p.m.
That may be true, but perspective and training kind of fly out of the window after one has been liquored up after hours of tailgaiting and are faced with a pushy, loud mouth opponent in a similar state. I can see it now in the headline news, shootings at The Big House! X amount of innocent fans injured or worse, dead! Hope saner minds think this through.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:23 p.m.
I am a gun owner but I do not own a pistol. I do have friends and family who own pistols and some have permits to carry concealed. That is my full disclosure. 10 years ago when the law changed to make it easier for folks to carry concealed weapons many of those opposed predicted dire results. Some predicted we would become the "wild west" with shoot outs in the supermarket check out line. The truth is those those dire predictions never came to pass. If they haven't happened in 10 years i think its a system that works. Expanding it won't make those 10 year old wrong predictions suddenly right predictions.
jcj
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.
Well put Craig! I am ALSO a gun owner but I do not own a pistol. I do have friends and family who own pistols and some have permits to carry concealed. That is my full disclosure.
Boo Radley
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 11:23 p.m.
Very well said, and a very good observation.
djm12652
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:11 p.m.
There is only a problem when someone is carrying a weapon concealed with mal-intent, and dime will get ya a dollar they aren't carrying legally. When I had my carry permit, I, along with thousands of others that went through rigorous training and background checks, never ever considered commiting a crime, only to prevent one against me...why do people think that law abiding citizens want to hurt people, just because they are carrying? Why not look at the massive laws already in place then all of the bleeding hearts cry out for the judges and prosecutors to actively enforce them.
clownfish
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
"rigorous training"? Hilarious! I shoot more rounds in a night than is required in the whole program!
cinnabar7071
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:56 p.m.
Hepcat carrying a gun is no more unstable then wearing a seat beat in a car. I'm 50, never been in a accident and I wear my seat belt every time, now how crazy is that?
motorcycleminer
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
Hepcat has obviously never gone through all the hoops and loops, not to mention cost, law abiding citizens have to go through to get a CPL...criminals buy their stolen guns out of a car trunk....
hepcat
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:04 p.m.
I know a number of people with CCW permits. Some are too paranoid to leave their lhose without heat. That's mentally unstable. All one has to do is lie about their mental health to get a permit. One recently shot his wife and himself to death. Having a permit does not mean the holder is " law abiding .." It is too easy to get a permit.
p-sowers
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.
I'd rather have some CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holders in the stands if someone did start shooting (God forbid). "Make guns illegal and only criminals will have them." Same thing kind of applies in this situation. The other side of the coin: I think CPL licensing should include more tactical shooting training.
2WheelsGood
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.
Greg, I believe the answer about Tasers would be yes. I assume that because currently a CPL holder can carry a Taser anywhere they can carry a firearm.
greg, too
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:32 p.m.
How many gun fights have occurred in the Big House, or amongst the 12 people a game at Rynearson, in past years? Was their a need for this law? And I agree. CPL owners, if they can now carry in schools and stadiums, need to have a lot more training by professionals, not an overworked sheriff department. And since they get to have guns, do non gun owners get to bring bats and tasers?
treetowncartel
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8 p.m.
Love me some term limits.
Tom Smith
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.
Let's call this what it is: insanity. Why, why, why do we need more guns, more concealed guns? Is this long-term, low-cost police privatization? "Hey, we can't afford to actually hire police protection anymore, but you can bring guns to church now, so, hey!" If you feel you need to bring a loaded gun to a church or a school or a football game, maybe you should sit down, not go, and ask yourself why you could possibly feel that way.
motorcycleminer
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:44 p.m.
Sorry tom.. to the best of my knowledge , with the exception of in some peoples heads, there are no " Crime Free Zones " criminals have a habit of ignoring any law....
katmando
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.
Dear hail2 : everyone response to a crime after it happens.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:16 p.m.
The short answer? Police respond to crimes that have already happened.
p-sowers
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.
Tom, I work private security and have been stabbed while off-duty twice. The last time the gun saved my life. So it's not because some "feel" that way. It's because not everyone is so "concerned" with your (or my)well-being. Not everywhere is as "safe" as Ann Arbor.
a2cents
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:31 p.m.
I can't wait to see the affect of mixing firearms with 115000 crazed fans in various states of inebriation. It all makes sense, I guess... a new level of excitement.
aggcarrier201
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 3:31 a.m.
@ johnnya2 The rights of private property owners will not be infringed upon with this bill. The owner of bar will still have the right to not allow a person in their establishment just like Briarwood mall which is a no carry zone because the owners have posted at the entrances in the code of conduct signs. This goes for open or concealed carry. However as the law stands now a person with a cpl can open carry in ALL pistol free zones, other than federal property, unless reasonably communicated by a private property own.
johnnya2
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:22 a.m.
@ Hail, The bar OWNER can throw the person out and call police BEFORE there is an issue because he has a gun and that is enough. The bar owner could NOT do anything to evict a person carrying just because. He is now at the whim of a guy who may or may not be drunk, who may or may not be carrying a gun.
hail2thevict0r
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
arborani, how do they stop it now with current CPL holders? How often do you hear about someone being drunk at a bar while illegally carrying and shooting someone as a legal CPL carrier?
arborani
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.
"you cannot legally carry if you are drinking" Fine. Now tell us how this can be spotted *before* something bad happens.
greg, too
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:53 p.m.
p-sowers, if you posit that people do not follow the driving while intoxicated laws, why should we believe that they will follow the laws not allowing a CCW while intoxicated? It runs both ways. No one has given a good reason why people need a firearm in a stadium. If you don't feel safe somewhere, stay home and watch the game on tv.
djm12652
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:15 p.m.
and how many of those inebriated fans will feel more comfortable getting into a vehicle and driving?...um a whole bunch...but as p-sowers said...you cannot legally carry if you are drinking...
p-sowers
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8 p.m.
If you are drinking you may not carry a firearm.
Hmm
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8 p.m.
Instead of jingling keys on fourth downs fans can now start shooting in the air. Or Instead of doing the wave fans can play a new game "guess who's packing heat"
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:28 p.m.
Just got a formal statement of U of M: "We have serious concerns about the legislation, oppose it in its current form, and will continue to work with the legislature and other universities on this issue."
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
Well, UM can KMA, hopefully they will not longer be able to deny my wife the RIGHT to DEFEND herself.
greg, too
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:26 p.m.
Once again, in the midst of people stating they don't want something, this legislature passes another ignorant bill. The AATA doesn't want to be a part of the regional transit authority, the schools don't want the EAA, and now stadiums and school are forced to deal with CCW's just because the GOP wants to ram through bills during the lame duck session.
Dog Guy
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:21 p.m.
Dave Maluchnik, spokesman for the Michigan Catholic Conference, seems unconcerned about Knights of Columbus packing swords in church.
SemperFi
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Mike Green, makes log furniture and attended Flint Jr. College for a year. Nice to see that the republican party is putting it's best and brightest in charge.
Tru2Blu76
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 6:27 p.m.
Even better: based on my actual experience, I'd say that individuals (including attorneys specializing in gun laws / gun rights & self defense) have been active in influencing gun legislation since the early days (the 1960s). They "aim" at legislators - the Republican ones just happen to be more open to our side of the argument. Also in my experience: neither party is deserving of our admiration or loyalty. They are, bottom line, just organizations promoting competing ideologies (or is that "competing idiocies"?). I credit citizens and citizen organizations like the NRA and MCRGO more than I do the Republican or any political party for restoring our gun and self defense rights.
2WheelsGood
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
Yeah, that wasn't republicans who started the whole "approaching a crosswalk" debacle.
jcj
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:35 a.m.
Semper I do not think this is a good bill. BUT you might try forming a argument that sounds like it came from someone WITH an education instead of name calling. Do you know how many lame brain ideas and proposals the "educated" Ann Arbor government has come up with? Stupid ideas do not only come from those educated somewhere other than the U of M!
ArthGuinness
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 10:18 p.m.
There's nothing wrong with making log furniture. However, the dedication and time spent by Republicans on making sure there are guns on everybody everywhere at all times is concerning. Don't we have an unemployment problem?
Ron Granger
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
Log furniture? Does the bill say anything about allowing muskets in the stadium?
David Briegel
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 6:57 p.m.
Hey, maybe NOW we can beat the Buckeyes!
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.
"You can't take a purse into our stadiums, but we're going to allow guns?" The different is the possession of a purse isn't protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Bcar
Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.
Susie Q, do you realize that many private gun owners have MORE training than the police? And that some departments don't require their officers to shoot more than once a year? Do you also know that the hit percentage for police who are "Expert qualified" is only 18%?? Does that make you feel better that only the "police" have guns? Also, the 0.02BAC level still applies so one cannot drink and carry.
Susie Q
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.
Please say this is insanity. Guns do not belong in the UM stadium unless the police have them.
greg, too
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.
CCW in most every place is fine. Churches, fine by me, celebrate a great homily or song by firing a couple up to god. Works for me. But guns + alcohol (you're nuts if you think most of the people in the big house are sober on game days) + crazed fans in a place where fights break out often? Someone thinks that this is a good idea? If you are that terrified of getting accosted at a game, then don't go.
CLX
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:05 p.m.
Either is the right to carry a concealed.
justcurious
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.
Maybe try to get the other side's view on this also?
Veracity
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 4:59 a.m.
So why don't those of you who favor carrying arms everywhere state the case for having weapons everywhere.
jcj
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:29 a.m.
ja2 "there is no reason to discuss the issue with the wrong side of the argument.' What an ignorant position! I have seen many cases where you were on the wrong side of the argument.
johnnya2
Sat, Dec 8, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.
Because the other side are not sane people. There are not two sides to every story. This is the fallacy that the right wing wants presented. If somebody says women should not be allowed to work and stay at home and are property of their husbands and somebody presented a bill that said that is NOT the case, there is no reason to discuss the issue with the wrong side of the argument. It is why I would never allow people like Fred Phelps or any of his spawn on tv.
Area Man
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 9:29 p.m.
Yes, the author's stance is obvious. The whole article is one-sided. Surely those in favor of the legislation are the minority, but c'mon... you couldn't get anyone to comment? I find it hard to believe that they were too "busy" to get some publicity.
denniso800
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:22 p.m.
Neither Jerry Clayton nor Dave Maluchnik are sponsors of the bill either. but you got their opinions.
p-sowers
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
Ryan J. Stanton, The bill's sponsor is not the only supporter of this bill. There are many who support this bill. It seems you went out of your way to get the con side of the story and barely went out of your way to collect the pro side. I may be wrong but that is how the article reads.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Dec 7, 2012 : 7:25 p.m.
The story notes we tried to contact the bill's sponsor and didn't hear back, which is why I included some perspective from a previous story. I tried multiple times over the past couple days to contact him and other pro-gun folks. I was told they're busy with the chaotic lame duck session in full swing. I'm still hoping to hear back from the governor's office.