And another one bites the dust

As the old theme song of the Detroit Lions back in the 80's goes. Another one bites the dust!

In honor of the 2nd Amendment movement, a third democrat senator who voted against freedom is now out of office.

From a Colorado news station. KDVR-Denver

DENVER — State Sen. Evie Hudak has decided to resign rather than risk facing a recall election that, should she lose, would flip control of the senate to Republicans, FOX31 Denver was first to report Wednesday.
Later Wednesday morning, Hudak made her resignation letter public.
“In the interest of preserving the progress made over the last year, I am resigning as State Senator for District 19, effective immediately,” Hudak wrote.
Hudak, D-Westminster, could have been the third Democratic lawmaker to face a recall over a package of gun control bills they helped pass earlier this year.
Sens. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, both decided to fight recall elections against them, but were ousted in September in favor of Republican replacements.
Knowing that Morse and Giron lost every legal challenge in the run-up to those elections, Hudak and Democrats generally appear to recognize the likelihood of the third recall’s success — as long as the group of gun rights activists behind the recall effort got enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

The lesson here is simple. Don't vote against freedom. Don't vote against the 2nd Amendment. It's cause for dismissal. She resigned instead of being fired.  The last two recalls weren't in Republican parts of Colorado. Pueblo is strongly democrat, and while Colorado Springs is republican, John Morse's district was 58% Obama (Pueblo's district about the same). For a Michigan partisan level comparison, think Muskegon County.

Hudak's district was much closer, along with a few others.

Don't vote against the 2nd Amendment if you want to keep your job. It's not a threat. It's a promise.

Anti-Freedom Colorado Senate President John Morse FIRED in recall election

The Colorado senate president John Morse has been fired due to being recalled. He was a leader in implementing California style gun grabs in Colorado. The price was his job and a message sent to other politicians.  Security, escort this clown out of the building.



From Denver Post

COLORADO SPRINGS — Colorado Senate President John Morse thanked and urged fellow lawmakers to continue fighting Tuesday as voters ousted him from office for his support for stricter Colorado gun laws.
"It has been an honor to represent the 11th Senate District," said Morse, who is the first Colorado lawmaker to be recalled and thrown out of office. "It's been hugely rewarding."
With about 86 percent of returns counted in the historic recall election of Democratic Senate President John Morse show 52 percent have voted "yes" and 48 percent "no."
Morse called the legislative session where he and Democratic colleagues passed stricter new gun laws a successful one.
"We as the Democratic party will continue to fight," Morse said.

 

Lesson for politicians. Take away our 2nd Amendment rights and we'll take your job away. This was a 58-59% Obama district that included Colorado College, so this wasn't exactly Livingston County here.

Updated - If the Morse firing isn't enough of a message, Angela Giron's firing is a bigger one. Giron represented a democrat district out of Pueblo. Pueblo is a union stronghold with a sizable Latin American population. This recall wasn't as expected.

Also from Denver Post:

PUEBLO — State Sen. Angela Giron has been recalled and retired Pueblo deputy police chief George Rivera voted in as her replacement.
With 100 percent of the votes counted, about 56 percent called for Giron to be unseated. About 44 percent voted for her retention, according to final results reported by the Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder.
A stunned Giron conceded just after 10:30 p.m. Tuesday.
"We couldn't have done any more," she told the crowd gathered at Pueblo Union Depot that had shrunk to about 50 from about 200 at the height of what began as a victory party.
"I'm a little perplexed. This is what I know: I know that I have not one iota of regret from what I voted on,"

And there's no regret from voters firing you and giving your buddy Michael Bloomberg the one finger salute.

UN Small Arms treaty passes

Oftentimes, the UN gun grab articles out are boys who cried wolf. The reality is that there is a potential wolf, but it wasn't an imminent threat. Three things now we need to look for is this. Will Obama sign it? (probable) Will the Senate ratify it? (unknown) Will it survive SCOTUS? (unknown)


From the Washington Times

The United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday signed off on a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty to regulate the international arms trade, brushing aside worries from U.S. gun rights advocates that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry and disrupt the American gun market.
The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons. It also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes, international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to a countries for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.

The treaty itself is on the UN Website. Hopefully this Link goes directly to it

The danger is in the treaty itself. 

Ammunition/Munitions

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to

regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the

conventional arms covered under Article 2

(1), and shall apply the provisions of

Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such

ammunition/munitions.

Article 4

Parts and Components

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to

regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that

provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2

(1) and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the

export of such parts and components

 

National Control System. It's very broad. It's intended to be broad and cover most firearms.

Each State Party shall take measures necessary to implement the provisions of

this Treaty and shall designate competent

national authorities in order to have an

effective and transparent national control system regulating the transfer of

conventional arms covered under Article 2

(1) and of items covered under Article 3

and Article 4.

6. Each State Party shall designate one or more national points of contact to

exchange information on matters related to

the implementation of this Treaty. Each

State Party shall notify the Secretariat, established under Article 18, of its national

point(s) of contact and keep the information updated

 

That sounds like registration (and eventual confiscation) to me. 

These are the Export Provisions. Keep in mind that many of our firearms and ammo are imported. Glock. H&K. Wolf ammo (yeah, I know, don't recommend it).

Export and Export Assessment

1. If the export is not prohibited under Article 6, each exporting State Party, prior

to authorization of the export of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of

items covered under Article 3 or Article 4,under its jurisdiction and pursuant to its

national control system, shall, in an objective and non-discriminatory manner,

taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the

importing State in accordancewith Article 8 (1), assess the potential that theconventional arms or items:

(a) would contribute to or undermine peace and security;

(b) could be used to:

(i) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law;

(ii) commit or facilitate a serious violation of international human rights law;

A/CONF.217/2013/L.3

13-27217

6

(iii) commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international

conventions or protocols relating to terrorism to which the exporting State is a

Party; or

(iv) commit or facilitate an act constituting an offence under international

conventions or protocols relating to transnational organized crime to which the

exporting State is a Party.

What we need to remember is to not make a mistake many on the right did with the Bush admin regarding the so called Patriot Act. I opposed it from the start. I was wary of the DHS. I did not trust an Obama, Hillary, Kerry, or John Edwards controlled government with those powers. I didn't trust Bush with them either. When passing laws, think of the results if the worst president in the world with the worst appointees would be enforcing them. Then ask if you still support it. If the answer is no, then it's a bad law. 

More Registration here. 

Record keeping

1. Each State Party shall maintain national records, pursuant to its national laws

and regulations, of its issuance of export authorizations or its actual exports of the

conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1).

2. Each State Party is encouraged to maintain records of conventional arms

covered under Article 2 (1) that are transferred to its territory as the final destination

or that are authorized to transit or trans-ship territory u

nder its jurisdiction.

3. Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value,

model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under

Article 2 (1), conventional arms actuallytransferred, details of exporting State(s),

importing State(s), transit and trans-shipmentState(s), and end users, as appropriate.

4. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years

This needs to be blocked in the Senate.

Gun grabbers in Washington State want house to house searches for guns

The left says "Nobody wants to take your guns." That's a bald faced lie of course. I know. You know it. Everybody knows it. Those that say otherwise are lying. 

This new bill is scary. While this is supposedly a mistake, I'm skeptical of how much of a mistake it was. Words mean things. Language inserted into bills is often run by attorneys to double check matters. If this was a mistake, it got past a lot of people.

While Washington State is rather liberal, it like Oregon is not as liberal on guns as many other blue states. It's not like California, Illinois, or most of the Northeast (outside Pennsylvania, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire).

From Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. 

(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)

That's from a media editorial in the paper. As you'd guess, it's leftist, like most newspaper editorials.  Even they have a limit. Provisions like that could cause a lot of problems.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. I'm not surprised one bit. That's what the left does. That's what big government does. More laws. More regulations. More criminalization. Obamacare makes felons of those who don't comply. Five years in prison. Why wouldn't they support house to house searches? It wouldn't be the first time.

Washington DC was pushing this back in 2008

Bill Clinton and the Butcher of Waco Janet Reno pushed warrantless searches in public housing. Remember the infamous "radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights quote?" That was referring to this.

New York State's latest gun grab banned magazines with more than 7 bullets. That covers almost all semi-automatic pistols outside of some 1911's. That also covers the classic Ruger 10/.22 Those who currently own them and don't turn them in or sell them out of state face a misdemeanor charge. What's going to happen there - house to house searches? Andrew Cuomo was part of that same Clinton administration, so it wouldn't shock me a bit.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged in a long time, and parts I agree with and parts I don't, but one quote struck with me. It's as true as can be.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Floyd Ferris

But this hasn't been proposed federally, right?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime.
The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991.
A 6-month grace period would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun . After the grace period's expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed.
Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally licensed professional security guard services; and federally licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers.

The Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now.
         --- Hon. Major R. Owens (Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

While the 2nd Amendment in SCOTUS did rule against bans, keep in mind it was a 5-4 decision. Twice. If Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, or Alito retire under Obama's term, we are at major risk of the DC and Chicago bans being reversed.

Nobody wants to take the guns, right? We all know the answer to that. These gun grabs need to be stopped. Our checks and balances in our political system need to be respected, and the 2nd Amendment is a major part of that.

Heads up with Biden's gun control aka freedom control task force

Here's a lesson for politicians who lose their balls (to put it bluntly) when things get tough on an issue. We have LONG memories on 2nd Amendment issues. The reason there was no "president Gore" was due to him becoming a gun grabber. 1994 was partially in response to Clinton's gun bans. Bill Clinton himself blamed the NRA and had a personal agenda since.

Most of these excerpts are from The Hill

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) vetoed a concealed carry gun bill on Tuesday.

The bill would have let concealed gun owners with additional permits carry their weapons in places where it was previously illegal to carry them such as places of worship, bars, schools, and stadiums."

The last thing Snyder needs right now is to be double-flanked. The unions want revenge and now gun owners are mad. Many conservatives who finally were happy at something Snyder did are now irked. Again. Now I don't think the NRA would support Whitmer or Peters against Snyder, but John Cherry? They might stay out against a Mark Schauer now that their records on this issue are about equal (can't count on although not Joe Schwarz/Whitmer bad). This veto needs to be overridden or sent back to Snyder's desk. No CPL reform. No bridge.

Pragmatically, what would the independents rather have in these criminal empowerment zones - conceal carry, or open carry by CPL holders? The latter is probably legal under a technicality. Politicians also have to remember that the opinions of the public that matter are not now, but 19 months from now. In addition, criminal empowerment zones don't stop criminals from shooting people.

Now comes John Boehner who is showing Peter Principle tendencies of his own. He's already doing a piss poor job with the fiscal negotiations (No mention of spending?) and I'm concerned he's going to sell us down the river. I got one question for Boehner. "Do you want to lose the house?" I don't want to see him lose the house, but I wouldn't mind seeing him lose as speaker either in a caucus vote, or a primary challenge. Anyone in the Cincy or Dayton suburbs/exurbs/rural areas outside there want to take him on? It's a safe district in the general election.

"We need to have a discussion about guns," the lawmaker said, relaying Boehner's remarks, "and that doesn't mean that all of a sudden we abandon the Second Amendment or the NRA [National Rifle Association] or anything like that. But there needs to be a discussion and everybody needs to participate and we need to depoliticize it."

Boehner, you're talking about our constitutional rights here. Do you understand that? We don't need any federal discussion beyond "national reciprocity" of concealed carry. Don't sell us out, or there will be grave political consequences.  Democrats were taught that lesson twice. So were individual republicans at times. Lugar lost. Partly on this issue. Walt North and the guy before Mark Schauer (then state rep) lost over votes on either firearms or hunting. About the same comments on the level of Boehner came from dem Joe Manchin. When you two rush, you're wrong.

Obama loves his commissions and the noise they all make. Nothing like appointing a guy that voted to ban .30-30 ammunition (your grandfather's hunting round) as the head of that "task force." Joe Biden. From The Hill:

Earlier in the week, Obama conferred with Biden and other top Cabinet officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

"Their participation underscores the comprehensive way in which the president views this problem," Carney said.

The White House has indicated that in addition to supporting an assault-weapons ban, the president will call for restrictions on high-capacity ammunition clips and legislation that will close the gun-show exception for background checks. But Obama is also expected to examine mental-health programs and depictions of violence in entertainment, including movies and video games.

Of course these bans NEVER apply to the police.... Eric Holder supports even a handgun ban except to police, military, political buddies, and Mexican drug cartels with Fast and Furious. Also, anyone who doesn't know the difference between a clip and a magazine needs to shut the Hell up about that issue due to ignorance. As for gun show exceptions for background checks, they don't exist. I bought a shotgun from a gun show. I went through the Federal NICS check. ALL dealers are required to perform NICS checks or similar/stricter checks on the state level.

This is the same old schiesse that the democrats pushed in 1994 and 1999. It would have done nothing to stop theses. As for so called "assault weapons", Connecticut banned them. Yes. Banned them. The motive here isn't to save lives, but for politicians to take our freedoms and gain more power, or for politicians to pat themselves on the back and say that they did something (while doing nothing that solves a problem).

As far as blaming movies and games, that's just as stupid as blaming the guns. How long have we had violence in entertainment? There's actually less school shootings today than there was. The difference today is the 24 hour news networks and the internet. Not just CNN, but also Fox and MSNBC. Violent movies. Go back to the old gangster films. Westerns. John Wayne. Clint Eastwood. Godfather in the 70's. Scarface and Arnold/Stallone/Die Hard movies in the 80's. Goodfellas in the 90's. This ain't new. Video Games. They've been violent at times since the early 90's. Mortal Kombat is over 20 years old. So is Wolfenstein. Doom isn't far beyond that. People who grew up on those games are now in their mid 30's or older. 

What's the government going to push here, censorship? That's also freedom control. While I'd agree that either the movie or the game Scarface shouldn't be for kids, that's not the government's responsibility. That's a parent's responsibility. I'd trust parents more than government officials (including public school officials).

Right now we're on defense. The leftist media wants to blame us for all the bad people out there that shoot up schools. We need to be vigilant and think long term. We need to make sure politicians think long term - to election day. Those with us we need to thank and encourage to stay with us. Those against us need to be fired. When it comes to our constitutional rights, there is nothing to discuss. We do not need to give up our constitutional rights. Freedom control is unacceptable and those that partake in it need to pay with their jobs.

For the rest of us, buy magazines, scary looking firearms, .223 (which is really fairly low powered despite the media lies/ignorance), and .308 ammo today.  Magazines especially, since I think if anything gets banned, it will be that. Buy a lot of them, and you might even make a profit on the black market if it goes. Remember how much "pre-bans" went for in 2003?

Stay cool, and stay vigilant.

CPL changes passed Michigan Senate (SB59)

There was a lot of talk about reforming some of Michigan's gun laws. Snyder (and Michigan State Police) was behind the scenes pushing back against a lot of it. He's not a real friend of gun owners, although he's not Gretchen Whitmer or Joe Schwarz on this issue either from what I hear.  Probably similar to Granholm or Engler who won't oppose it if it is politically expedient. Granholm was awful as AG on this issue (tied too much with Duggan), not bad on this issue as governor (thanks to Cherry), and now back to her AG views with her talk show (ie Stand your ground comments after she signed a similar bill in MI). I was hoping to get rid of registration/licensing completely. That didn't happen.

I was hoping this would go further than it did. It's still much more good than bad. The two bads are the OC loophole in CEZ's by CPL holders is officially closed, and hearing notices are now first class mail instead of certified. The rest are improvements, including exemptions for "special" CPLS (rather repeal completely), and sheriffs doing all the gun board work (rather be gone completely, but it's better). This reminds me a bit of the original CPL bill. Some good steps, but it isn't perfect.

A compromise bill, SB 59, passed the Michigan Senate that did I think more good than bad. Mlive gives a brief run down. 

LANSING, MI - County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated and sheriffs would take over their duties under a bill approved Thursday by the Michigan Senate.
The legislation – passed 27-11 in the Republican-led chamber – next goes to the Republican-led House for its consideration in the final weeks of the 2011-12 legislative session.
Some of the changes contained in the proposal, according to an analysis provided by Republicans:
• Concealed carry permit holders who get additional, enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend more time at the gun range would be allowed to carry concealed in so-called “gun free” zones such as schools and churches. The pistol-free zones would remain in effect for others. “Open carry” in those zones would be prohibited.
• County concealed weapons licensing boards would be eliminated, and county sheriffs would assume their duties. County clerks and state police would continue to have roles in the process. Sheriffs would continue to consult with prosecutors and police on applicants.
• A license decision would have to be made within 45 days of application – one of the provisions aimed at streamlining the permit process.

Some of it I like. Some of it I wish goes further. I like the boards being eliminated period with the police out out of the equation completely (sorry Murph), but I'd much rather have the sheriffs there than the prosecutors and especially MSP. MSP out of the equation is a huge win and reduces gamesmanship. They are no friends of freedom.

One of the best aspects of this bill is that an applicant may no longer be required to meet with the sheriff's rep (formerly board) unless the sheriff's dept believes the applicant may not be qualified for a CPL. That's eliminates a major inconvenience in some counties. 

The bill prohibited licensing authorities from requiring other documents (Doctor's notes were a problem in Kent County) and extra fees outside what is legislated.

Stalling by counties on fingerprints does not affect the 45 day window for temporary licenses.

An exemption is required allowing CPL holders to carry in some CEZ's (criminal empowerment zones). Exemption requests that are denied can be appealed.

The training now requires firing at least 98 rounds of ammo, not 30.

The new exemption covers this:

k) An individual who applies for and is granted an exemption

from this section by the licensing authority. An individual is

eligible for an exemption from this section only if the individual

requests an exemption on his or her license application and 1 or

more of the following apply:

     (i) The individual is a licensee or is applying for an initial

or renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision who

provides a certificate indicating on its face that the individual

has completed not less than 8 hours of training in addition to the

training required under sections 5b(7)(c) and 5j that satisfies all

of the following conditions:

     (A) It includes both classroom and range time.

     (B) It includes the firing of not fewer than an additional 94

rounds.

     (C) It focuses on the training principles described in section

5b(7)(c) as they apply to public places and premises listed in

subsection (1) as limited under subsection (5).

     (D) It is provided by an agency of this state or by a national

or state firearms training organization.

     (E) The training instructor is certified as a firearms

instructor by this state or by a national or state firearms

training organization and is eligible under section 5j to provide

training under section 5b(7)(c).

     (F) The training is completed not more than 5 years

immediately preceding the date of application for an original or

renewal license or an exemption under this subdivision.

     (ii) The individual is certified as a firearms instructor by

this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization, and is eligible under section 5j to provide training

under section 5b(7)(c). It is prima facie evidence that the

individual is eligible for an exemption under this subparagraph if

the individual possesses a certificate as a firearms instructor

issued by this state or by a national or state firearms training

organization that meets the requirements of section 5j.

     (6) The licensing authority may delegate the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under subsection

(5)(k) to the clerk of the licensing authority for current

licensees only.

     (7) The licensing authority or the clerk under subsection (6),

as applicable, shall within 10 days after receiving an application

for an exemption, either issue or deny issuance of the exemption

and send by first-class mail in a sealed envelope a replacement

license to the applicant with the exemption indorsement or, if the

exemption is denied, a notice of denial. If the exemption is

denied, the notice of denial shall specifically state the statutory

authority for the denial. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the

licensing authority or the clerk, as applicable, from making a

determination regarding the exemption at the time the application

is submitted and immediately either issuing a replacement license

to the applicant that contains the exemption indorsement or denying

the exemption and immediately providing the written notice of the

denial, including the statement of the statutory authority for the

denial, to the applicant.

     (8) If the licensing authority delegates the responsibility

for issuing or denying issuance of an exemption under section 5o to

the clerk of the licensing authority, the entire fee paid for the

exemption and the replacement license shall be deposited in the

concealed pistol licensing fund and credited to the account

established for the clerk of the licensing authority.

     (9) If the applicant is licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol at the time he or she is granted an exemption

under section 5o, the applicant shall surrender his or her license

to the licensing authority by mail or in person immediately upon

receiving his or her replacement license containing the exemption

indorsement.

     (10) An individual licensed under this act to carry a

concealed pistol, or who is exempt from licensure under section

12a(1)(h), shall not intentionally display or openly carry a pistol

on the premises listed in subsection (1)(a) to (h) unless the

individual owns the premises described in subsection (1) or is

employed or contracted by the owner or other person with control

over the premises described in subsection (1), if the possession of

the firearm is to provide security services for the premises or is

otherwise in the scope of the individual's official duties, or the

individual is acting with the express written consent of the ownerof the premises or an agent of the owner of the premis

Why does this always have to be so convoluted? I need to give Mike Green's office a call and see what is defined as a "state or national firearms training organization." At first glance, my gut tells me likely NRA, as they are the usual standard, but I'd like to rely on more than that. What is going to piss off some people is the subtle open carry ban by cpl holders in those CEZ's. Depending on some technicalities, one is possibly allowed to open carry in some cez's if that individual is a cpl holder. This is no longer the case without the exemption. Violations of carrying in criminal empowerment zones are the same. Civil infraction and CPL suspension for 1st offense. Misdeamenor and revoke for 2nd offense. Felony for 3rd offense and CPL revoked.

I don't like at all the certified mail being replaced by first class mail for hearing notices. I don't trust first class mail very much unless it's certified.

There's added projection for the "village idiot" clause. If there is "clear and present" danger, an applicant or CPL holder is a danger to the public, the applicant is entitled to legal council at the hearing to help make sure this actually is the case and not gamesmanship.

Interestingly, the Michigan Senate on guns is probably more partisan now than ever. Part of that is probably 2010 election results by location.

Roll Call No. 791 Yeas—27

Booher Green Kowall Proos
Brandenburg Hansen Marleau Richardville
Casperson Hildenbrand Meekhof Robertson
Caswell Hune Moolenaar Rocca
Colbeck Jansen Nofs Schuitmaker
Emmons Jones Pappageorge Walker
Gleason Kahn Pavlov

Nays—11

Anderson Hood Johnson Whitmer
Bieda Hopgood Smith Young
Gregory Hunter Warren

Excused—0

Not Voting—0

In The Chair: Hansen

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

Anderson's vote surprised me a little. The rest did not. Gleason's the lone dem voting for this bill. Back in the original CPL days, about 1/3 of the dems supported it and 1/4 of the republicans opposed. Now no republicans opposed it, and only one dem supported it. It'll be interesting to see what the house does.  

 

The UN Arms Trade Treaty - Boy who cried wolf or actual wolf?

My opinion of the UN is that the US should get out of the UN. I have a real problem with Americans ceding sovereignty to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.  That's not going to happen, so we need to stay alert.

There's a lot of hype over the last 15 years or so about global gun control and the UN Small Arms Treaty (now Arms Trade Treaty). A lot of the hype is dismissed in mainstream thought partly due to a lot of boy who cry wolf claims. Some of the facts to consider are this.

1. The US Constitution supercedes any treaty.
2. All treaties do not take effect until POTUS signs it and Senate ratifies it.
3. There currently is no signed agreement.
4. There ARE global gun control advocates who target "civilian" owners of firearms here in the US. Rebecca Peters is the most notable, and supports global gun control over the US "who needs to join the rest of the world."
5. There was a push for a very restrictive treaty opposed by the Bush administration which rejected it.
6. There was another treaty on the table in 2012. There was no vote, but discussion about more talks in 2013.
7. There's draft language from the last conference.

In short, right now there is a wolf pup. It's a potential threat, but not the same as a full grown timberwolf. We need to be wary and watch this, and make sure that there is no full grown wolf out there, but at the same time not to panic until it is there.

The draft language is on the UN website along with an assortment of views about what they think should happen. 

Some things from the draft language stand out.

"This treaty covers......."small arms and light weapons." 

Small arms for those who don't know cover almost all firearms outside of possibly black powder or some shotguns. It includes pistols, revolvers, and deer rifles. Keep in mind that hunting guns are or once were military guns, at least in style. The calibers are similar, or even more powerful. If you don't believe me, compare a .223 AR-15 round to a .30-06. Speaking of .30-06, that's the same caliber as the classic M1-Garand. Anyone who thinks that these don't target hunting firearms needs to "wake the bleep up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch." 

"Each state party shall establish...a national control list" 

That references small arms. 

"Each state party shall take all appropiate legislative and administrative measures necessary to impliment the provisions of this treaty and shall designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective and transparent national control system regulating the international transfer of conventional arms."

I read that as registration. "But it's international." Firearms owners reading this should look where their guns are made. While many are American, a lot of them are not. A lot of the firearms companies are not American, including some of the biggest here. Glock is an Austrian company. Beretta and Benelli are Italian. Walther, Sig Sauer, Lugar, and H&K are German. FN is Belgian. Makarov is Russian. Uzi is Israeli. Lee-Enfield is British. A lot of the American arms go overseas....or to Mexico through the Obama Administration's Fast and Furious plan.

Each state party shall designate one or more national points of contact to exchange information on matters related to implementation of this treaty. 

Sounds like registration to me.

"Each state party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition for conventional arms...."

Great. Ammo control. This should cause .223 and .308 sales to skyrocket. .45ACP as well. There's an identical measure for parts and components too.

There's also recordkeeping provisions as well. There's several references to "unauthorized end use" as well.

That's the draft language. It could be more or less restrictive. You have Amnesty Intl, Oxfam, and Iansa pushing hard for global gun grabs in addition to the unacceptable registration requirements in this draft language treaty.

Unfortunately, registration may very well make it past SCOTUS. It's not (yet) confiscation.  Be prepared for the wolf and keep an eye out on this come March.

Birmingham Open Carry Case - NOT GUILTY!

There was no crime committed here at all. Frankly, this shouldn't even have gone to trial, and I hope Sean and his attorneys look at appropiate legal measures in response to overzealous law enforcement and an overzealous city attorney. This was a travesty, and a firearm carried over the shoulder is not brandishing.

From the Detroit News

A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle in downtown Birmingham.
A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.
Judge Marc Barron on Wednesday had issued a directed verdict dismissing a charge of resisting and obstructing a police officer after Combs' attorney, James Makowski, argued that city attorney Mary Kucharek had not proven that offense.
"I think they came up with the right verdict," Combs said after his acquittal. "It took them a while, but at the end of the day, I think it was the right decision."
Outside the courtroom, Combs was all smiles as he hugged his mother, Pam Mytnik. His older brothers, Chris and Patrick Combs, and girlfriend, Lia Grabowski, also were present.
Mytnik said she hopes the case encourages people to learn the law. "I just think everyone needs to know the laws before we make arrests, and I would like to see that in the future," she said.
Combs' attorney said he was pleased with the verdict.
"I've said from the beginning this is not a gun rights case, this is a civil rights case," Makowski said. Kucharek declined to comment on the verdict.

Throwing in the catch-all bullshit made it worse. I second this quote 100%. 

Certainly his choice to open carry and his understanding of the law and the validity of the law have all been vindicated," said John Pierce, co-founder and spokesman for OpenCarry.org. "But what this was really a victory for is the fact that you can't use these nebulous provisions such as disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct as a way of chilling behavior that is otherwise legal."

Notice who didn't prosecute this case. It wasn't the county prosecutor. This was a city attorney who prosecuted this case. County didn't touch it.

I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist when it comes to rights and laws against it although I personally choose not to open carry. Open carry is however legal, and should continue to be legal. Period. However, I personally believe in using appropriate discretion. Sometimes, things that are legal are bad tactics. While open carry of a long gun is legal and should be legal, I question the judgment of long gun open carry in an urban or suburban setting. I've seen open carry of long guns quite often and have open carried them myself during hunting season. I would not open carry my shotgun in downtown Brighton. In parts of the Brighton Rec Area nearby, it'd hardly raise an eyebrow. Most people would assume that it was a hunter. 

I think someone who open carries should get a belt holster, get a pistol, and carry it on the side. It's not going to draw the same attention as long-gun carry does. I've seen that much more often, and I haven't seen anyone comment about it.

Whether you agree or disagree though with the judgment that Combs used, the bottom line here that there was a shady prosecution for a legal behavior that violates a social norm in Birmingham, long known as a very anti-gun area. Just because you may not like the behavior, doesn't mean it's okay to try and toss someone into jail and give a record over it. Using catchall and creative technicalities is an evil technique that needs to be slapped down hard. Certain law enforcement agencies and city attorneys need to be held accountable for this and face consequences. This prosecution is ten times more criminal than anything Sean Combs did. 

HB5225 - State House votes to end the pistol permit system!

This took over 80 years to fix. The state house, led by Paul Opsommer, Ray Franz, and Richard LeBlanc all came through for the 2nd Amendment by repealing the worst of Michigan's gun control laws. This puts the pistol system in line with federal law. The NICS checks would still be in effect if it passes the state senate.This would eliminate the pistol purchase permit requirements. There's still some registration, but this also requires MSP to destroy records within 6 months of passage.

This was a somewhat bipartisan effort. All republicans voted correctly on this, along with 11 democrats. I'm a little surprised at some of the dem votes both for and against.  I expected better from Hammel, Constan, Kandrevas, and Clemente. Downriver and Flint burbs have usually been favorable to 2a. Interestingly, this August will have a primary race between Liss and Switalski. If you are a 2a supporter of any party in parts of Warren, then remember that election time. I'm slightly surprised in a good way with Oakes (in Mike Hanley's old district?), Slavens, Schmidt, and Dillon (Man oh man have things changed in Kent County the last 15 years on this issue - in a good way), but that's largely due to the districts more than anything else.

There's three Republican votes that surprised me. I won't mention who because they did the right thing. I don't want to put doubt in minds of readers when reps vote correctly. Heise is a big improvement over the last two republicans in that district.

From Michigan Votes:

IN FAVOR

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Brunner (D)	Byrum (D)	Dillon (D)	Lane (D)	LeBlanc (D)
Liss (D)	Oakes (D)	Schmidt, R. (D)	Segal (D)	Slavens (D)
Smiley (D)

HOUSE REPUBLICANS

Agema (R)	Bolger (R)	Bumstead (R)	Callton (R)	Cotter (R)
Crawford (R)	Daley (R)	Damrow (R)	Denby (R)	Farrington (R)
Forlini (R)	Foster (R)	Franz (R)	Genetski (R)	Gilbert (R)
Glardon (R)	Goike (R)	Graves (R)	Haines (R)	Haveman (R)
Heise (R)	Hooker (R)	Horn (R)	Hughes (R)	Huuki (R)
Jacobsen (R)	Jenkins (R)	Johnson (R)	Knollenberg (R)	Kowall (R)
Kurtz (R)	LaFontaine (R)	Lori (R)	Lund (R)	Lyons (R)
MacGregor (R)	MacMaster (R)	McBroom (R)	McMillin (R)	Moss (R)
Muxlow (R)	Nesbitt (R)	O'Brien (R)	Olson (R)	Opsommer (R)
Ouimet (R)	Outman (R)	Pettalia (R)	Poleski (R)	Potvin (R)
Price (R)	Pscholka (R)	Rendon (R)	Rogers (R)	Schmidt, W. (R)
Shaughnessy (R)	Shirkey (R)	Somerville (R)	Stamas (R)	Tyler (R)
Walsh (R)	Yonker (R)	Zorn (R)

---

AGAINST

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

Ananich (D)	Barnett (D)	Bauer (D)	Bledsoe (D)	Brown (D)
Cavanagh (D)	Clemente (D)	Constan (D)	Darany (D)	Durhal (D)
Geiss (D)	Greimel (D)	Hammel (D)	Haugh (D)	Hobbs (D)
Hovey-Wright (D)	Howze (D)	Irwin (D)	Jackson (D)	Kandrevas (D)
Lindberg (D)	Lipton (D)	McCann (D)	Meadows (D)	Nathan (D)
Olumba (D)	Rutledge (D)	Santana (D)	Stallworth (D)	Stanley (D)
Stapleton (D)	Switalski (D)	Talabi (D)	Tlaib (D)	Townsend (D)
Womack (D)

It's on to the State Senate. It should pass there if it goes up for a vote. Richardville isn't reliable on fiscal issues all the time, but he's solid on 2nd Amendment issues. Hopefully Snyder will sign it. I don't think he has that strong of opinion on this issue one way or the other, but I don't think he'd stand in our way with it if it heads to our desk.