WILTSE: Insane new Michigan laws

Jun 28, 2012


There are two laws passed recently that I think never should have been. One is the so-called self-defense law, which essentially legalizes the proliferation and use of side arms. The other is the recent legalization of fireworks, heretofore forbidden in the state.

They will create far more problems than they solve.

The former law is supposed to prevent anyone from endangerment from potentially dangerous intruders or from assault. If a person approaches you and clearly has murder on his mind, then either he is a madman, is somehow mistaken or perhaps you deserve it. It probably would be a man, for a woman wouldn’t be so desperate that she sees murder as the solution to her problems, despite anything Agatha Christie might have written.

Of course, a gun will protect you if you value your life above all others.

The first two reasons are very rare, despite the sensational headlines that occur in the papers from time to time. The fact that they are sensational alone makes is an extremely rare event.

The primary reason for breaking and entering is not murder but robbery. I’m not a very wealthy man, but if anyone is so desperate so as to enter my home that he needs to take my possessions, he is welcome to them — for he is much more destitute than I.

In short, I feel that there is no need for me to be armed.

As for the trouble that it might cause, the Zimmerman-Martin affair is a prime example. I’ll bet that both families wish that Mr. Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that fateful night. Not only will it cause both families a lot of money and grief, but it will cost the state of Florida millions of dollars to try the case.

I wonder if Mr. Zimmerman will ever carry a gun again.

The case is complicated from the fact that Mr. Zimmerman appears to be the aggressor and was looking for a person to "protect" himself from.

After all is said and done, this "stand our ground law" is a bad idea and should be repealed. Also, the disturbance this gun law causes simply by brandishing the guns by licensed individuals. The trouble caused by a man in Fruitport by brandishing his gun at a sporting event is a good example. Such bravado of people wearing their guns in public is just a nuisance and can lead to lawsuits.

As for the fireworks law, it appears to have been the wish of a few lobbyists for the fireworks industry, who have been very successful indeed. It appears to have been implemented for the primary reason of raising funds through sales taxes.

It will backfire, for it will cost the state much more from personal injuries and property losses due to fires. They have already been blamed for numerous grass fires and a few house fires in the state. I’m sure that firemen all over the state fear the additional expense and trouble due to the implementation of this inane and insane law.

I’m also sure that emergency-room denizens don’t look forward to the injuries that are bound to occur due to the mishandling of fireworks, especially because of the fact that the victims of such accidents will probably have very little medical insurance.

The cost of these disturbances will surely outweigh the benefits of any taxes gained. Such expenses were probably never mentioned by the lobbyists for the fireworks industry and were not considered by the legislators.

Besides, fireworks are, for the most part, just downright annoying.

— By Ralph Wiltse, Tribune community columnist



I agree with you Ralph. Add to your list the repeal of the motorcycle helmet law, and you have a brewing cocktail of higher medical, legal, regulatory and enforcement costs to the state of Michigan and it's citizens. They are all laws that have been passed in other states and, after all the negative fall-out are being scrutinized and in some cases reversed. Michigan GOP Congress - let's stop the juvenile nonsense and get to work on jobs and recovering the economy. You know - the campaign promises on which you were voted into office??


I think Mr. Wiltse should publish his address, were he keeps his spare to key to his house, if he has a dog, burglar alarm, etc. If he doesn't value his property thats fine, let him get robbed. I on the other hand work too hard and value my possessions. My city, State and Federal government already take too much away from me, I don't need some useless lowlife helping themselves also. I bet the homeless man in Florida who had most of his face chewed off wishes he would have had a gun. The girl in Oklahoma who defended her baby and her self, I'm sure she is happy to have had a gun. I wouldn't be suprised if the person who was assulted in the attempted robbery in East End Park wished they had had a gun. I have two small boys and they are my responsibilty and my priority, I really don't care if somebody didn't get hugged enough as a child or whatever else their problem might be. I REFUSE to be a victim. As far the part about "The former law is supposed to prevent anyone from endangerment from potentially dangerous intruders or from assault. If a person approaches you and clearly has murder on his mind, then either he is a madman, is somehow mistaken or perhaps you deserve it. The first two reasons are very rare, despite the sensational headlines that occur in the papers from time to time. The fact that they are sensational alone makes is an extremely rare event" These articles might be rare, but they are not remotely close to being as rare as as what happened in the Trayvon Martin case. And we have a legal system the Mr. Zimmerman is going thru who will decide if he is guilty or not. I don't think it should be up to a newspaper columnist to decide someones guilt. As more and more states are loosening their restrictive gun laws, crime is going down, except for places like Chicago which still denies people their Second Amendment Rights, it is going up. "Stand Your Ground Laws" have saved a lot more innocent peoples lives, than innocent people being killed because of them. If you do not want to own a gun, protect yourself or you like being a victimized thats fine, but just because a law enables us to protect ourselves and from being victimized, hardly makes it an insane law.


In response to the helmet law comment... When the helmet law was repealed, I overheard two older women at a local restaurant discussing it (complaining).

One of them actually said she felt like running a cyclist off the road for not wearing a helmet. Really? Sounds like a good way to get yourself shot. It looks like a gun is the only way to defend yourself against little old ladies who want to use their vehicles to teach you a lesson.


These laws are great! Guns are awesome and fireworks are awesome. Both of them used together makes for an extremely fun time. Anybody that hates guns and fireworks are unpatriotic and anti-american. The governer is the best thing that happened to Michigan after that ugly lesbian Granholm screw the state. The moron with the gun in fruitport reflects all of fruitport because they are all braindead morons. Zimmerman was acting in self-defence because Martin came back and assaulted him. Guns are good, fireworks are good, liberals are pussies.


i love this guys comments! they make me laugh

Mr. Conservative

the moderators blocked my tednugent4pres account, haha

Tri-cities realist

I laugh (actually the ignorance breaks my heart) at those who are so concerned about the POSSIBLE increased costs to state or federal govt because of these laws, yet I'm guessing these same people applaud obamacare which will be the single biggest tax increase in history. Do they not see the hypocrisy in their beliefs? Apparently not, but ignorance is bliss, so long as the so called rich have to pay for everything. But what happens when all of their wealth is confiscated (taxed) from them. Oh wait these "progressives" must not think that far in advance. Whatever happened to liberty and personal responsibility? And by the way I am less than half mr. Wiltse's age but I've actually read the constitution and understand the sacrifices that were made to create and defend it, perhaps he should add it to his reading list (along with some of the other commenters here). Hopefully the Constitution still means something, because today it was trampled upon by SCOTUS (really? Roberts had to claim congress' authority to tax, to justify obamacare when the claim was that it was protected by interstate commerce). Because of this precedent, what limit does the federal govt now have to require us to buy any product, and simply claim it is a tax? The answer... Nothing, which is what happens when you give power to a tyrrant... Whether they have an 'R' or a 'D' next to their name.


The ignorance in this article is laughable, and almost not worth my time to comment on, but I just can't resist. I can't be too harsh though, because much of the ignorance is a result of where you live. I was born and raised in GH, and absolutely loved it. In fact, I wish I could still be there now, but unfortunately life has taken me to Detroit. After living in Detroit for awhile my eyes were opened to reality, a reality that can not be understood living in GH. First, while maybe you are right that the primary reason for breaking and entering is for valuable possessions, it certainly does not mean that that person is not going to harm or shoot you when he is surprised by your presence in the house. Good luck Ralph, with begging the robber to just take your things and leave! First, I hope he doesn't hurt you, second, you just let the fool get away. I was taught to stand up for myself and the things I put value on, and that includes my family and my home! Did you read about the 14 year old in Phoenix this last week that was home babysitting his two younger siblings when two intruders broke in? Let me tell you about it, the young boy was home babysitting when a WOMAN came to the door and knocked. The boy did not recognize her so he did not open the door, thank goodness his parents taught him well. A short time later he heard a loud bang on the door so he rushed his siblings upstairs and ran to his parents room to get a handgun. As he got back to the top of the stairs there was a man standing in the doorway with a GUN! Yes, the intruder was armed and ready to kill. The boy shot the intruder and then called 911. If that gun had not been in the house and the boy educated on what to do and how to handle the gun, the story would have been much different! This is not a story that is few and far between...read the news, they are all over. Heck, read the Detroit News sometime.

Ralph, if you don't want to own or carry a gun then that is your right and freedom, but it is also the right and freedom of others to own and carry a gun, as well as use it if they feel their life is in danger. I choose to take advantage of that freedom. I am a young female living in Detroit, have my Concealed Pistol License, and conceal carry wherever I legally am allowed to. I am not about to let some low-life try and take advantage of me. Would you put your daughter, granddaughter or wife alone in the dangerous streets of Detroit unprotected? That is what the law is for, not small towns like GH.

P.S. You should research the self defense law a little more. It states that the "victim" must feel as if their life is in danger and there is no other solution other than to shoot. You can not just shoot an unarmed intruder who enters your house. The Zimmerman case is not a good defense against this law because the young boy was not armed!

Tri-cities realist

Insane community columnists... Enough said

And thank you backwhereicomefrom for protecting yourself, more young women should follow your lead.


Wiltse, you are insane. What you refer to as the "new" Michigan Self Defense Act was passed in 2006 and took effect January 1, 2007. Where have you been? It did very little to change the existinig law, other than to codify it. In fact it established the more strict requirement of "great bodily harm" in the place of "serious injury" when using deadly force in lawful self-defense (which actually makes the standard more restrictive). Keep beating the liberal mantra drum, keep lying, keep your head in the sand. If Trayvon hadn't attacked George, this would be a non-issue.

Edit: How does the Grand Haven Tribune even print this crap?!


There is a law in the city of Kennesaw Georgia that was put on the books in 1982, that every head of the household must own a gun.

The city violent crime rate for Kennesaw in 2009 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 78.87% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the national property crime rate average by 39.33%.

In 2009 the city violent crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the violent crime rate in Georgia by 78.7% and the city property crime rate in Kennesaw was lower than the property crime rate in Georgia by 49.76%.

The numbers speak for themselves... fyi zero murder/manslaughter crimes have occur in this city since this law went into effect. If everyone is armed.. the thugs think twice about entering your home.

Source: http://www.cityrating.com/crime-...


i like carrying my pistol in plain open sight, to see wessels like this sqwirm! Take your green tree, hippie lovin' crap some where else. Now that everyone knows you're unarmed and will crawl into a ball cry and beg for mercy at the hands of an intruder.... I hope you posted a fake name.


I'm left speechless. Mr. Wiltse - it's going to cost either way. If we don't protect ourselves, and get robbed - isn't the state going to pay for the investigation, pursuit, apprehension, jailing, court, and ultimate prison time for the felon? I happen to think that if some low-life thug knows that he'll be staring at the end of my barrel, instead of me staring at the end of his - he won't show up - and it won't cost the state a dime. A savings! geesh.


If you don't like guns then don't own a gun!!!!! If you don't like fireworks then don't buy them!!!! I am so tired of people finding something annoying or they don't approve of something then it should be illegal. You do not have the right to not be annoyed especially if it takes away the rights of others. What makes you more important than the next person? The last time I checked this is a free country. Lets keep it that way...


It has to be a joke! How can a mathematician like Wiltse who knows numbers and statistics come up with an article like that unless he is joking. Or maybe to get kicks out of who writes back. After reading his article I think he would be a great public school or college administrator or even a Herman Miller vice president. The article reminds me of those 50 year old or older men at the YMCA locker room who stand there naked as a J-Bird for 20 minutes just gabbing talking as it all hangs out. It just grosses out other members! as does that article Whitlse wrote. Those men think they own the Y and are called a code word by young people "The Vice Presidents" They say in the gyms - don't go downstairs "Vice Presidents" in the locker room. He must live in LA LA land and mentally out too lunch. He must be a closet millionaire to have a Ceaser Milk Toast view like that about "Stand your ground law" He needs to be a public school administrator or ISD superintendent! Thats the kind of people that get those jobs.


I am not in favor of the said law. I understand that we need to defend ourselves in times of trouble, but we don't need to add another trouble through the use of these side arms. And can you imagine what kind of place to live we will have if all of us are having a gun? What will be the police job?


When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...


For me it is not necessary that you are wealthy you need to be armed. This is really applied to all. Everyone needs security and safety. - Mercy Ministries


Removed and reposted below


I just re-read this. You use the word "brandishing" incorrectly. To wear a firearm openly is NOT cosidered brandishing. In order to brandish, you must remove it from the holster and "point or wave it about in a menacing manner." In that case, you should be arrested. People like you add to the ignorance and lynch mob mentality of the general public. If you are truly concerned about the impact on law enforcement resources, maybe you should try getting your facts straight and be a part of the solution - educating the public.


It was nice time to read the above article about the two laws passed recently. I completely agree with Mr. Ralph Wiltse that the laws will create problems rather than it helps to solve any case. Excellent affordable or efficient attorney is now unusual around us. By the help of a injuries attorney you can resist with your unfortunate situation that comes suddenly. Tacoma injury attorney has been a popular name in the Tacoma, WA who has been looking after the injuries claims and smiles of many individuals in the matter.


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.