Loosening gun restrictions

State lawmakers have approved legislation that would loosen gun restrictions in Michigan.
Krystle Wagner
Dec 15, 2012

Late Thursday, the state House and Senate passed legislation that would allow highly trained gun owners to carry concealed weapons in places such as schools, day cares and churches. But the pending new law would also allow schools and other private facilities to "opt out" of allowing concealed weapons on their property.

As of Friday, the legislation awaits Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature before it becomes law.

Brian Brookman, owner of West Michigan Pawn in Grand Haven, said the new law would allow him to send his daughter to school without worry. He said they would know teachers and principals could defend themselves in situations such as Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Brookman said his heart sank when he heard the news that almost 30 people died in Friday's shooting spree. If educators there had been able to carry guns, Brookman said the shooter might not have been able to kill as many people.

The pending new Michigan law, Brookman said, would make the world a safer place.

“It’s less likely these morons will go around killing people,” he said.

While Brookman looks forward to the governor's signature on the legislation, school officials expressed concerns.

Fruitport Community Schools Superintendent Bob Szymoniak said he respects the right to bear arms, but he doesn’t see the need for anyone to be able to carry a gun into a school because of the security measures already in place.

“I don’t think it’s in the best interest of schools that they can carry guns, unless they’re law enforcement,” he said.

To read more of this story, see Saturday’s print or e-edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

Comments

Lanivan

Once again this week, Michigan has made national news, as this bill sits on the Gov Snyder's desk to be signed. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/1...

Within hours of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a profoundly sorrowful event involving the deaths of 20 innocent children, people like Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America, and Jase Bolger, Speaker of the House in Michigan, in national interviews, were advocating for looser restrictions on guns in our schools and churches, blaming gun control advocates for the tragedy. According to them, if the teachers had guns, they could have stopped the gunman.

Studies have found this just doesn't happen. Most all gunman planning a massacre - there were 7 mass shootings in the US last year alone - , are armed with semi-automatic guns and/or assault rifles, are wearing protective gear, like bullet-proof vests, and have hundreds of rounds of ammunition to be able to kill lots of people within seconds.

People on the scene with protective guns usually are not able to or do not use their guns in these situations, as it is often in the dark, crowded, with people panicked and screaming, and people are in shock by the surprise attack.

The bottom line is that civilians have no need whatsoever for military-style guns - semi-automatic or assault rifles. A nation where the glorification of violence as entertainment permeates our society does not need to become a nation of vigilantes.

In Oklahoma, where a law similar to the bill sitting on Snyder's desk to be signed has been passed, a gun store owner was interviewed. He said with the new law, people were putting away their small pistols, and buying bigger, semi-automatic guns, with longer barrels, and the capacity to fire 30-50-100 rounds without having to pause to re-charge. These they can now legally carry into bars, restaurants, churches, and schools.

There is no greater crime than violence against children. How do we begin to address this problem in our country? Allowing more civilians easy access to military-style weapons which they can carry around in schools and churches is not the solution.

MR. WILLIAMS

Lanivan, how can you use so many words and yet say so little. If you’re going to cite “Studies” why don’t you let all of us in on this very important information by listing a reference, like a web address? *According to law enforcement officials two 9mm handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer were recovered inside the school. A .223-caliber rifle was found in the trunk of the car that Adam Lanza drove to the school.” Lanivan, you use some gun terminology as if you actually know what it means, take for instance when you say, “…Most all gunman planning a massacre are armed with semi-automatic guns and/or assault rifles, are wearing protective gear, like bullet-proof vests, and have hundreds of rounds of ammunition to be able to kill lots of people within seconds.” The facts are, that there was no mention of an “Assault” rifle in the law enforcement report, rather a, “.223 rifle found in the trunk of Lanza’s car in the parking lot.” This is for everyone’s benefit, “AR-15” stands for: AR - ArmaLite ( the company who designed and made the rifle) and 15, is the Model number of that specific rifle. Moving on, I don’t know where you came up with the conclusion that, “People on the scene with protective guns usually are not able to or do not use their guns in these situations, as it is often in the dark, crowded, with people panicked and screaming, and people are in shock by the surprise attack.” From all of the real life accounts from a publication called, “Guns Save Lives,” where you will find daily stories of law abiding citizens successfully using firearms to defend themselves, their families, and others. The defending gun owner’s seem to always get the upper hand on the criminals, even when they’re out numbered 3 to 1 and out gunned, the defender seems to be the one who wins all most all of the time. http://gunssavelives.net/
And, you go on to say, “…civilians have no need whatsoever for military-style guns - semi-automatic or assault rifles. A nation where the glorification of violence as entertainment permeates our society does not need to become a nation of vigilantes.” The “Assault” looking rifle is a design like any other gun design which is made so the gun owner can have complete control carrying, holding, aiming, and shooting the gun no matter what the make or model number. What exactly does an “Assault Rifle” look like anyhow? A Semi-automatic gun requires the shooter to pull the trigger to fire one round and in order to fire the next round the trigger must be pulled back again, one pull on shot, whereas with a “Fully automatic gun” (Machine Gun) when you pull back the trigger and hold it the gun will fire rounds non-stop until you let up on and release the trigger at which time the gun will cease firing. You also talk about “…a nation of vigilantes.” Out of ** 80 Million gun owners in the U.S. I have yet to hear of “Vigilantes” roaming the streets and neighborhoods looking for revenge and pay back. I have no idea where you come up with the description of “…civilians easy access to military-style weapons which they can carry around in schools and churches…” I think you may be watching too many war action movies and TV series, because what you are preaching about, just is not the case and is not happening. Your View, is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

*NBCNEWS.com: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...

** US Gun Statistics: http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm

Lanivan

You seem very knowledgeable about fire arms. A responsible gun owner would never downplay the immense power of assault weapons constructed for military and law enforcement use as you have here. Your argument about the semantics of "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" just lends credibility to a corrupt and immoral gun fixation and the glorification of gun violence in this country.

The Bushmaster M4 AR15 is one of the most popular rifles designed for military and law enforcement use out there. It was used to kill 20 children Friday, many slaughtered with up to 11 bullets, rendering it almost impossible to identify them. How you can claim this assault rifle is just like any other hunting rifle is beyond belief. The Bushmaster M4AR15 would do a find job of home protection were you ever to be invaded by an army. You might stand a chance.

I grew up in a family with a long history of farm/ranch traditions including rifles used for hunting, sport, and farm management. Rifles and pistols were kept polished and locked up in a gun cabinet. I have lived in 6 states, traveled extensively in the US and abroad, explored small and large cities, and never once did I or my family ever feel a need for anything other than a small pistol for safety. The need for anything more is perverse.

I'm still waiting for one LEGITIMATE reason why any citizen would ever need a military or law enforcement assault weapon in their home or to carry. The chances you will ever need a personal assault weapon to serve in a well-regulated militia is ZERO.

Wayne Justinen

Not that another's "need" is any of your concern, but many of your fellow citizens possess patrol rifles (evil assault weapons) for the same reason they are issued to police.

TO PROTECT LIFE.

They recognize that police have firearms to protect themselves. Responsible, intelligent individuals do not expect someone else to guarantee their safety, while refusing to accept their own responsibility.

Perhaps the greatest disservice to our law enforcement officers is the BIG LIE. "WE HAVE POLICE TO PROTECT US!"

Their job is difficult enough without raising unrealistic expectations.

Lanivan

Anyone reading who is interested in signing a petition to President Obama asking for action on common sense gun laws that protect the rights of citizens to public safety, go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov....

opinionscount

I'm not going to pretend to "know it all" regarding this topic. However, I'd like to share about an article I recently read from a retired FBI psychological profiler. He explained that the patterns of behavior made by the recent gunman in the Connecticut shooting indicate that part of his well-planned massacre was to select a vulnerable target where he would have the least amount of opposition, allowing him to create the blood-bath that he obviously achieved. He knew his target would not be able to stop him...unarmed women and children. This information leads me to conclude that having armed security guards in all schools would be a strong preventative measure. Security Guards are just part of the times. Malls, hospitals, major corporate office buildings...they all have them. It shouldn't be a big issue to hire security for each school. It would be insane not to at this point. Will security guards prevent an mentally sick person from finding a gun and attempting to achieve what, at one time, was the unthinkable? Likely not. However, in instances such as the one last weekend, these murderers will have opposition in their paths and a deterrence that they, otherwise, wouldn't have to be concerned about. Regarding stricter gun control...crooks and criminals will get the guns. They aren't law-abiding citizens and they could care less what the law says. For anyone to push for an abolishment of our second amendment...it's complete ignorance and insanity. Anyone who thinks that someone who wants to find a gun and commit murders won't be able to under stricter gun laws is playing the old "head in the sand" game. Wishful thinking at it's best. In retrospect, the best thing we can do is be ready when they are ready to strike. We may now save ALL lives, but it wouldn't result in a massacre such as the one last weekend that has brought our nation to it's knees.

opinionscount

Correction: We may NOT save All lives, but it wouldn't result in a massacre such as the one last weekend that has brought out nation to it's knees.

dyankee

You could not be more ignorant with you comments....its alwasy a "study that shows," with you. Try using your common sense once in while to find your way through life instead of some study you quote to project your intellegnece. Your experience in life, all of God's creation, and your knowledge & respect of our Constitution, is pathetically weak....like shooting your mouth off with your accusation about what Larry and Jase have said hours after this tragedy to loosen gun restrictions, when you're doing the exact same thing to tighten them. Right now is a time you should be thinking and respecting the families in Conneticut with the heartwrenching loss at the hands of a soulless coward, instead of pushing your own agenda.

Lanivan

Your personal attack comments, written in unintelligent gibberish once again, highlights the scariest aspects of our gun laws in the US. Any idiot with hair-brained notions and incredibly off-the-wall attitudes and ideas about people, driven by fear, hate, and paranoia can go to Wal-Mart and plunk down $1,000+ and buy a Bushmaster M4 assault rifle.

You know nothing about my experience in life, my understanding of the Constitution, or faith. You show over and over again in your comments a lack of respect, kindness, or understanding. Your idea of expressing yourself is to attack and vilify. And to top it all off, you bring God into the equation. Maybe you should think about the Golden Rule one of these days.

May God bless you, dyankee.

Captain Obvious

Lanivan at least tries to use studies and some objectivity in looking at the issues Dyankee. Your use of "Common Sense" illustrates the fact that "Common Sense" is not all that common.

Lanivan

So predictable. Yes - I look into things. It's often surprising what you find out. There's an outpouring of cries for a common sense gun policy in this country, and this is the time for it. Seven mass shootings with assault weapons last year alone. I'm speaking out, as are many people, with respect for the families and the children who will live with this trauma for the rest of their lives.

Knowledge and respect for the Constitution? You bet - nobody is calling for taking away every hunting rifle, hand pistol, or antique fire arm here. Military-style, semi-automatic assault weapons, yes. Give me one good reason why any civilian would ever need them, let alone be free to carry them out in the streets.

Vladtheimp

Since you look into things and are often surprised at what you find out, let me light up your surprise gene a bit more.

England enacted a total ban on guns in 1997 after a school massacre in Dunblane. (That's a TOTAL BAN ON GUNS in case you missed it.) The result - a paradise unsullied by gun violence!

Or not - "The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...

So, the Brits lost their right to own guns and defend themselves, thanks to the Lanivans of the Left across the pond, and now find gun crimes have increased by EIGHTY-NINE PERCENT! I'm sure our Brit cousins are thanking you and yours as they are hiding in their houses which they are now unable to defend. If you really are interested in research, read up on totalitarian rulers and their treatment of private gun ownership. If England is too far removed, look at your neighbors across the Big Lake in Chicago - how are their strict gun control laws working for them, in addition to spending taxpayer dollars on losing lawsuits when they are sued for constitutional violations?

Somehow I think your curiosity will not lead you to make logical and rational connections in this instance. Curiosity, after all, killed the liberal "intellect".

Lanivan

So what? The UK has a gang/drug violence problem. This is a desperate stretch, comparing apples with oranges. Nobody is talking about a "TOTAL BAN ON GUNS" here in the US. Just tighten up on the civilian ownership of high capacity, 30+ round, military assault weapons.

If you are comparing countries, why didn't you choose Canada? Most people own guns in Canada, but the Bushmaster M4 AR15 - the one that slaughtered 20 6-7 year old innocents on Friday - is considered a highly restricted firearm, as are most other assault weapons. Very hard to buy. Your Tea Party far-right extremist political agenda argument is not only illogical, it is irrational and delusional. And you have the brass to bring up taxpayer money and the Constitution when these weapons cost $1,000 and up, and the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness has been stripped from the victims and families of the Sandy Hook massacre, not to mention the thousands of other victims of assault weapons.

Going back to comparing countries, something I looked into and was more than surprised - dismayed even - is that the US is #1 in the WORLD in assault weapon deaths. #2 is YEMEN. Isn't it wonderful that although the US has lost it's number #1 status in so many things we're still #1 in the number of civilian deaths by military weapons? I'm quite sure you would agree with that!

While signing off from these pages, I can only hope that someday you will replace the corrupt political culture you advocate for with positive, meaningful, and life-affirming issues.

God Bless!

Vladtheimp

Sorry, not going to play your simple games. The UK has a gang/drug violence problem? What about here in the U.S.? The point is, if a total ban on guns (Great Britain) or incredibly harsh gun laws (D.C./Chicago) have not only not stopped gun violence, but have caused it to increase, how is a law tightening ownership of some guns going to stop gun violence?

Where is your source for all of these liberal talking points? What is your definition of an "assault weapon?"

Right to Life? Didn't realize you against abortions - I congratulate you!

Let's consider who gets their hands on guns - North Dakota has one of the highest gun ownership rates by population in the nation, but only a few (less than 10) homicides by gun. Not quite Detroit, Chicago, L.A., Baltimore, New York). Let's also consider that liberals have made it virtually impossible to institutionalize people who are mentally unstable (walk down the streets of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, D.C. and tell me I'm wrong). In fact,

Months before the Newtown massacre far left groups defeated a Connecticut mental health protections law.
Counter Contempt reported:

Here’s a fact you might not know – Connecticut is one of only SIX states in the U.S. that doesn’t have a type of “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law (sometimes referred to as “involuntary outpatient treatment”). There’s no one standard for these types of laws, but (roughly speaking) these are laws that allow for people with mental illness to be forcibly treated BEFORE they commit a serious crime. Whereas previous legal standards held that the mentally ill cannot be institutionalized or medicated until they harm someone or themselves, or until they express an immediate intent to do so, AOT laws (again, roughly speaking) allow for preventativeinstitutionalization or forced medication (I highly recommend reading the data cited in the link I provided in this paragraph, especially regarding what is known as “first episode psychosis”).

AOT laws vary state-by-state, and often bear the name of a person murdered by an untreated mentally ill person (“Kendra’s Law” in New York, “Laura’s Law” in California, etc.).

Earlier this year, Connecticut considered passing an AOT law (and a weak one, at that), and it failed, due to protests from “civil liberties” groups.

Another victory for the far left - and this one has been filling our streets with poor souls with serious mental problems since the 60's.

Lanivan

I wasn't going to comment any more on these pages, but I will reply on this. You bring up a very important point. A better method of identifying, treating, and helping heal people with mental illness should be a part of the steps needed to address our culture of violence and the ease these people have in getting weapons of mass destruction. The genie is out of the bottle. Nothing will wipe away all violence, but we have to change this issue from a political to a moral one. We really have no choice. Common sense gun policy is the first step, but not the only step. Every mass killer using assault weapons has been seriously mentally ill. It's a shame you have to put even this sad human condition in terms of "left" and "liberal".

I know the Plain states like N/S Dakota have high gun ownership rates. What kind of guns? Hunting and sport rifles? Or assault weapons? They are sparsely populated states with farming a big % of the population. Comparisons can't be made between Chicago and Missoula. Doesn't fly.

All of life is precious. I am a pro-choice person who would not choose or advise loved ones to choose abortion. Government has no business getting involved in restricting the personal issues of and choices for women. What it should be doing is everything it can to create an economic and educational environment that encourages and helps women in making choices. I want all the same rights for my daughter that my son has.

Vladtheimp

Lanivan:

1. I apologize for the comment on pro-life - I made an assumption based on your other comments that was unwarranted - my bad.

2. "It's a shame you have to put even this sad human condition in terms of "left" and "liberal"." It's a shame that right thinking people can't agree that some of our citizens are mentally challenged, but liberals can't understand that it is in the best interest of these individuals and society that they be confined.

Thank your for this opportunity,with which I believe most people will agree: "Government has no business getting involved in restricting the personal issues of and choices for women." Substitute "citizens" for "women" or, for that matter "men" for "women" and we will be in complete agreement!

Talking points and studies will not be responsive to this comment, in case you're considering it.

ghresident

Lan, the AR 15 is NOT an assualt weapon like the M16 used in the military. So many people have this thing that its an assault weapon, its NOT!

AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle, as is commonly believed. AR stands for the original company that manufactured it, ArmaLite. ArmaLite sold their rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 designs in 1959 to Colt. Just a semi auto rifle with a glorified stock and forearm.

Captain Obvious

Boy it says on Wiki that the AR15 was the father of the M16...see the last line below. It is not fully automatic like the M16 but it sure as shooting is an ASSAULT RIFLE and pretty darn lethal enough.

ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaysia on September 30, 1959, with Colt's manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[10] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. The AR-15 was eventually adopted by the United States military under the designation M16.

Wingmaster

This is exactly were the left wants to take this country. They are using every single occurrence to move this agenda forward. A total ban is what they want. There are people protecting themselves and property thousands of times across this country but the press will not pick it up because it cannot be sensationalized like death and destruction.

Captain Obvious

One of our country's great "leftists" (Wingmaster must think so) said and I quote:

"You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill,
and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

“The NRA believes America’s laws were made to be obeyed and that our
constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And
by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the
right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

“Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community
and support a ban on the further manufacture of [assault] weapons.”

Ronald Reagan 1911-2004

Wingmaster

Hey Captain lib Obvious he also said: As long as there are guns, the individual that wants a gun for a crime is going to have one and going to get it. The only person who’s going to be penalized and have difficulty is the law-abiding citizen, who then cannot have [it] if he wants protection -- the protection of a weapon in his home.

RONALD REAGAN, interview, Mar. 22, 1986

and

When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up from the Democrats, well ladies and gentleman, I'd follow the example of their nominee; don't inhale.

RONALD REAGAN, speech, Aug. 17, 1992

Reagan was not a strong advocate on guns and made the statement you reference as a reaction and to support a friend who took a bullet to his head.

The focus right now should be on the failure of our mental health in this country. Again, the gun didn't kill, the person holding the gun did the killing. Why is that so hard to get thru your thick collective heads! So don't get to far off on yourself for thinking you discovered some earth shaking revelation about Reagan.

Captain Obvious

Vlad...your ignorance and lack of knowledge or willfull misinterpretation of statistics is astounding. I suggest you take a course in logic or scientific method or structure of experiments, anything would help. You say England enacted a total ban on guns and firearm offences increased 89%. That is true. BUT SO WHAT! What is your point? Once again it looks like you have made your case. But you have not proved anything. Your argument is total BS. Where is your control group. Maybe firearm offences would have gone up 300 percent without the total ban. What other factors are involved. We have no way of knowing what caused the offences to grow. And buy the way, is the growth caused by increased attention and scrutiny. And what is a firearms offence? I looked at the stats for England. Gun Homicides have declined from 97 a year in 2001/2002 to 58 in 2010/11. Get your facts straight, rather the relaying some pap that somebody has stuffed into your wooly head. http://www.gun-control-network.o...

brkm7

The 2nd amendment has nothing AT ALL to do with hunting or self defense. It was intended to insure that Americans are capable of defending themselves from a tyrannical government. Think Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, etc. Assault rifles are not "Military weapons". Not in the 21st century. Cruise missiles that can target your bedroom window from 1000 miles away or unmanned drones that can see you hiding at night, behind a wall and obliterate you without hurting the guy sitting next to you are "Military Weapons". As tragic as these incidents are, they are nothing new! The first school massacre happened in 1764. The worst one in history happened right here in Michigan in 1927 when 38 people (mostly children) were killed by an assassins BOMB, not his gun! In fact, here is a link to the unbelievable history of school massacres in US history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch....
No one with ANY common sense can stand by the notion that somehow this is all the fault of so called assault rifles. Lanivan, I'm sorry but your "study" is useless! Neither you nor the people who wrote it were there! You have no idea what you are talking about. One thing I do know is that if I or someone like me had been there (or better yet, 10 of us) that psychopath would have gotten off a LOT less rounds and a LOT less families would be devastated right now. The gun-control fanatics have got to come to terms with the fact that our times are changing! People are changing! Outlaw guns and ONLY outlaws will have guns!

Lanivan

You are right. The fact that the US is #1 in the world in assault weapon deaths (Yemen is #2) indicates a culture of gun and violence glorification, lack of mental health care and screening, and a host of other problems. Restricting citizen use of military assault weapons is just one way to start to reverse or at least slow down the carnage.

People who were interviewed that were in the supermarket parking lot with guns the day Gabrielle Giffords and others were shot, said that it happened so fast, and there was so much mayhem, they couldn't get their bearings quick enough to locate and fire on the killer. This is often the case.

The argument that more guns will save people is nuts. If more people die when speeding in cars, you don't increase the speed limit.

And no one is outlawing guns. Only the military assault weapons that fire 30-50-100 rounds in less than a minute. I am deeply sorry you worry about getting hit by drones while sleeping here in Grand Haven. Maybe you should try to work on that paranoia - not good for your health.

MR. WILLIAMS

I would like start out by saying that I support to change the section called, “Pistol Free Areas,” of the Michigan “Carry Concealed Pistol law” which prohibits the carrying of a concealed pistol or portable device that uses electo-muscular disruption technology on the following premises: 1. Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian. 2. Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency. 3. Sports arena or stadium. 4. A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises. 5. A hospital. 6. Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official or officials allow concealed weapons. 7. An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more. 8. A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university. 9. A Casino 10. Federal Buildings. Note: * "Premises" does not include the parking areas of the places listed above. Please refer to MCL 28.425o for the complete statutory text.

Most of the mass shootings of people in the United States have occurred in “Pistol Free Areas” especially on College Campuses and Public School Properties two of the many places where currently Michigan Law Prohibits the legal carrying of a concealed pistol. As it stands, for a person to obtain a Michigan Concealed Pistol License they must be at least 21 years of age, be a citizen of the United States or an immigrant alien lawfully admitted into the United States, be a resident of the State of Michigan for at least 6 months prior to application, and successfully complete a “Pistol Safety Training Course,” along with passing an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) finger print and background check. Also be felony free or being convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than 2 years and, the applicant must pass additional extensive Federal and State background checks which is too much to list at this time, however for the Complete Concealed Pistol License Requirements please go to the following website: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,46...

Because I know that the majority of people who are not gun owners are not familiar with all of the different check systems in place to help assure that the persons who apply for and receive their Concealed Pistol License are thoroughly vetted before being issued their license to carry a concealed pistol. This is why I took the time to list the main requirements an applicant must pass before they can receive their license. I also feel that by making people aware of how much thought and consideration has been taken by law makers to help assure that only responsible, law abiding, citizen’s end up receiving a CPL. I think it’s important to recognize that Michigan has now passed the 10 year mark and today, nearly 276,000 – or about four out of every 100 eligible adult Michiganders are licensed and the preconceived notions of “blood filled streets” and “out of control guns firing 24/7” was just a notion, that never materialized. I see no reason why the well disciplined, responsible, legal, law abiding Concealed Pistol License bearer’s can’t continue to enter the “Pistol Free Zones” only this time armed. The public wouldn’t know the difference except if an incident did arise and the CPL citizen could take action and possibly save lives.

Justsaying

Let me get this straight: According to the current way of thinking I have the "right to": Kill an unborn child in my womb; marry a person of the same gender; enjoy free government health care paid by other tax-payers; and, the right to forbid my neighbor from working unless he pays my union boss a portion of his check each week. But, I do not have the right to defend myself against someone who wants to kill me or my children. Did I get that right? It should be noted that when someone shows up with a gun to kill us, the first thing we do is call someone with a gun. I simply prefer to avoid the phone call.

Vladtheimp

Exactly!

Just-me

Very well said i agree 110%

Lanivan

Are you serious, or is this comment a joke? What a waste of time, energy, and gray cells. Answer to your question - He!! NO. NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO A GUN TO PROTECT YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY, ONLY TO RESTRICT THE CITIZEN USE OF MILITARY/LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSAULT WEAPONS WHOSE ONLY USE IS TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE IN SECONDS.

And if you are against the right to kill an unborn child, why would you support the right to have access to weapons that kill children who are born?

brkm7

Lanivan, I feel sorry for you sir. I really do. You just don't get it. There is a much bigger picture here that liberals are oblivious to.

Pages

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.