Michigan today is still waiting for Governor Rick Snyder's decision on a bill that would allow concealed guns in places where you cannot take them now, like schools, daycare centers, churches and stadiums. Michigan Republicans passed the bill on Thursday, the day before the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. As he considers whether to sign or veto the bill, Governor Snyder has cited his own narrow miss with a school shooting back in 1981 as a personal experience that shapes his thinking.
The bill passed in an avalanche of 282 bills during the lame duck session. In that haste, it appears the gun bill may have passed with a surprise loophole. The idea was supposed to be that facilities could still ban concealed weapons, but the legislation is unclear on whether publicly owned places like schools could opt out. Meanwhile, supporters of the measure are using whatever leverage they can, including reminding the governor that the old law lets people carry guns openly in schools, and the new law does not. From MLive:
Rob Harris, spokesmen for Michigan Open Carry Inc., predicted the practice [of open carry] will become more common if adults cannot protect their children and themselves discreetly.
"He has a choice to make," Harris said of Snyder. "He can either allow people to continue to carry openly in those areas or he can sign the new law that would force people -- with the proper permits and extra training -- to carry their firearms concealed."
Either way, the gun folks are saying, they're bringing guns to school in Michigan. On a related note, since the shooting in Connecticut, gun store owners around Detroit are reporting quintupled sales. Snyder has until December 27 to decide about the bill. If he does nothing, the measure would be pocket vetoed.
UPDATE: The bill's sponsor says Snyder will veto the bill. Republican state Representative Mike Green says the Snyder administration asked lawmakers on Thursday night to tighten the loophole about public schools, the same loophole that has since been described as surprising. From the Detroit News:
"They told us Thursday night he'd veto it if we didn't include that language," said Green, who says he refused to concede to the governor's demands. "We just said 'enough's enough' and we passed it."
Leave a Comment:
What in the hell is wrong with these people!? How in the world does this two-faced liar think this will help... because YOU KNOW he will sign the bill.
So... if a gun is in a daycare center... somehow it is out of the sight of the provider... and child get's a hold of the gun and shots themself or someone else... Snyder is going to be able to sleep at night with that!
This in-human garbage has proven he is a snake in the grass and doesn't give a damn about anyone except himself and his screwed up morals. Trust him? No.
Sorry about the lovely grammar, etc. above. This subject just really upsets me to no end. I know I am not alone.
In my 48 years I have never owned a gun. I don't want one. I have had many things that have happened in my life where I would be the perfect case to purchase a gun for protection. "I want it for protection." "I go hunting." "I, or my family have been the victim of violence." That is what I usually hear when people purchase a gun, that is not me.
No matter the training... the policies... the care... that gun can be a catalyst for something fatal. It could be an accident... it could be turned on you... the list just goes on and on.
Snyder is a liar. He will sign the bill. Gun sales will go up. And, unfortunately more innocent people will die. Who is to blame??? Let's start with the "lawmakers'...
No one except police and the military needs a semiautomatic anything. No one but police and the military needs a hand gun.
But we can't even discuss it, because too many of our judges and legislators are owned by corporations and a few wealthy people. Any Republican who has not already denounced 'corporations are people' and the Taliban/Teaparty's attempts to disenfranchise US citizens is a threat to national security.
I don't even trust the police with a weapon period. I'd trust myself or my neighbor than any pos cop.
From TPM:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) vetoed a bill on Tuesday that would have allowed gun owners with extra training to carry concealed weapons in schools and churches, the Detroit Free Press reports:
I guess you don't know WTF you are talking about. He vetoed the bill. Nice rant though.
Shocking for the veto of the bill. Really. The rest of my "rant" still stands though.
We as a Country spent the last 20+ years saying to never keep a loaded gun around children. Now this nut wants them to be in schools and daycare centers. Seriously the thought of the gun owner putting their gun their desk and a child or student getting their hands on it, and shooting someone never crossed their minds? Because more than likely, that is going to happen than some random mass shooting. And having people carrying a concealed gun at a Sports Arena/Stadium is ALWAYS a good idea! I mean seriously, who actually thinks that it's smart to have a gun around 100,000+ other people at a sporting event, when people fight over Ref calls?
Don't forget how many people drink beer at sporting events. Angry fans, guns and beer. Not a good combination.
PEOPLE WTF are you thinking? There are "highly strung" unstable individuals in every profession (including teachers) and I surely don't believe that MORE GUNS are the answer! When did WE allow ourselves to become a society of short term myopic thinking, and WHY?!?
ENOUGH!!
As we get farther and farther into this I keep being led to the conclusion that what the end result/goal of all of this is are unregulated private army's. I'm not meaning like private security firms or even mercenary groups but militias that are determined to overthrow the government of the united states. I know that sounds crazy but it really is where we are heading. If we unwind gun laws any more than they are now I believe we are facing a very definite possibility of armed insurrection and civil war. I do not want to live in Syria.
The gun lobby will not rest until every man, woman and child in this country owns a gun -- that's their job.
Our job is to make it politically dangerous to side with the gun lobby.
or dangerous for anyone who wants to own a gun apparenty...
Thanks Mr. "don't Tread On Me" Jones for your daily demonstration that there are indeed two species of hairless biped on the planet. Homo Sapiens (us) and Homo Sap (you).
Please send me your address. I'll be happy to come take your gun from your cold dead hand.
That would be a laugh. What are you gonna use? Your keyboard?
The gun lobby is on the right side... Freedom (the second amendment)
Since when did we change our educational facilities from schooling children into a gun range?
November 2nd 2010
Good one Dragon, it is time for everyone to realize that mid term and state/local elections are as important, if not more so that the 4 year general election.
Governor Rick Snyder has proven to me in the last few weeks that he cannot be trusted. He says things that are intended to give a certain impression, and then does things that prove he meant the opposite all along.
The lame-duck session is rushing through everything they can think of right now, in part because they are losing some of their majority next month, and in part because the sheer volume of bills prevents any one of them from getting the scrutiny it deserves.
I wish I knew what the hell was even happening in my state legislature. But that would put me ahead of the entire Democratic delegation and a good chunk of the Republicans as well.
Goldie Taylor was on Up last Sunday and describes her life experiences with gun ownership providing to liberal non gun owners some insight into the sort of thinking behind otherwise liberal people who want to keep their guns. (link )
People go off on the penile power aspects of this- I have written a few notes like that- but listen to her sentiments when she admits about the bravado. Guns have great psychological power for those who feel they are in situations of powerlessness. Taylor guarded her children by sleeping next to the door with a pistol. She wasn't a paranoid or macho nut- It was not some weird liberty issue, but a home defence issue.
I think we can chart an aggressive gun control policy that goes far beyond banning assault weapons and high capacity clips. So long as these folks know there is no hidden agenda to take away their guns, administrative hassles like annual registration renewal is not such a big deal- especially if it tends to reduce the number of illegal guns out there.
As for those who are drawn to weapons because they feel a lack of agency in the world, the ultimate solution is at a deeper level . There is little need for an inanimate symbol of power when they feel they have real power to positively influence their economic, social and political circumstances. The plutocracy thrives by stripping real power, and substituting an ineffective baby pacifier to take its place. b By keeping them vulnerable and fearful with a constant stream of crime news, they are able to convince the fearful that their enemy is liberals who want to take away this source of false comfort.
It is the three card monte of gun politics.
It's truly offensive when people paint all gun owners with a broad brush as you have just done. I own a Glock 45 handgun. I go to the range and fire it for fun and sport, it is a true test of focus and concentration to excel at shooting. I keep it in a safe, unloaded. It has exactly nothing to do with my genitalia, or my political leanings, it's a sport I participate in that I feel is good for my golf game. Thats all it is. I am a progressive person that supports gun control, sensible gun control. You don't have to sugarcoat a message to me, talk straight and specific. But your tone suggests you have some sort of freaky psyche superiority over gun owners, and that you just need to massage the message. That sounds like far right wackos who feel the policy does not need change, only the message.
Sorry, how did I paint them with the same brush? In that post alone, I described three very different types. Gun as home defense, gun as symbol of political agency, and gun as masculine compensation. Taylor was in the first. Cheney gives every appearance of being in the last. Many paranoid libertarians are in the middle group. But that is hardly all the categories. In another post yesterday (link), I described two more, gun as tool of hunter, and gun as big boy toy.
What are you interested in here, a peeing contest? Ok fine. I am a fifth generation Washingtonian who grew up in rural areas with guns in the house and have handled guns since I was a boy. The only guns I know about are those that have been in the family for generations- I know how to clean, break them down and shoot them. But I don't have much emotion for them, nor do I think of using them as fun any more than I think using my circular saw is fun. My sister in law is a biatholon shooter, and I can relate to the concentration and shooting part- so I sort of can relate to what you are doing but if you are into the ballistics accuracy I don't see what the deal with a cannon handgun is- Anyway, I can hit what I am aiming at well enough with a pistol or rifle but frankly it doesn't turn my crank. I can see how my sister likes doing that and I don't think she has any psychological problems. A lot of the guys I see at the local shooting range do seem to be a little nuts though, they seem torqued about their pistols and rifles- like they mean something much more. Its like a guy who picks up a double headed axe with a sly grin. To me its big deal- I can take down a tree pretty fast with one, but to him,it is something more.
Anyway- it's the something more that I am on guard about. I don't intend to teach my children anything about guns and I refuse to have any in the house. There is simply no need for them and they are more trouble than they are worth.
Anyway, even this "sportman" category is especially monochromatic either because there are the target range guys who never hunt, then the male bonding, incompetent party in the woods kind of weekend deer hunters, then the ex military stalkers, then the guys who have real backwoods knowledge of prey. So your gun range kind of activity is very different than hunting- right? From your words, I don't detect you have much appreciation for the skill of tracking- reading spoor, examining signs and figuring out what the animal is doing. That involves intimate knowledge of the prey- to be able to think like the prey. But most sport "hunters" are clueless about that. Some bow hunters seem to understand it but a lot are mostly into the stealthy stalking thing. True hunting is a bit of a lost world nowadays. The gun's value is for only one very brief part of that process. Most of it is something that has very little to do with the weapon.
So how many categories are we up to now- I lost count.
Same here, John. I think men who feel the need to have a big gun with lots of bullets are feeling sexually inadequate. Ok, I'm being sarcastic but not really!
Dude, now I feel bad. Don't feel offended by what I just said. My s.o. has guns galore. I don't understand liking guns but I don't stop him from having them in the house. Right now I am so upset I can't think straight. I'm angry. Guns to my mind are killing tools. I hate them. Now, as for assault and these semi automatics and big bullet holders, there is absolutely NO need for them in sport, hunting, self protection or anything else I can think of. That's what I meant about the sexually inadequate statement.
They need to be confiscated and taken off the market. By the way, I hate the NRA too. Gosh it feels good to vent!
John: From right at the beginning of your post to the very end you paint all gun owners the same, like there is some violent association. There is not. I would never hunt, harm, stalk, or track any kind of living animal, anytime for example, nor would I brag about it in a "pissing contest". I saw the same Goldie Taylor segment you did, and I respect her decisions about firearms as well as millions of other Americans. I respect hunters rights, as long as they eat what they kill, not for a trophy. The vast majority of gun owners rarely if ever go to the range, and the number of these people you describe as linked to guns for macho reasons are in most cases some of the most responsible gun owners of all, the real enthusiasts. I suspect we mostly agree on where we should go with this, there should be decisive action against the assault weapons and clips designed for military use.
First off, it should be abundantly clear I don't think gun owners are very similar. There are a wide number of things people are doing with guns. I was looking at broad commonalities but most of it has not to do with violence, but confidence.
As for policy common ground? No, I think we differ because we must go far beyond Feinstein's bill. We need national registration of firearms, annually renewed, with all authorized persons for the firearm recorded. All private sales should be banned, including those at gun shows.
This kind of registration would be no more a big deal than yearly car checkup and registration. People authorized to handle the gun need to be asked a series of psychological questions by a licensed professional.
Every year.
No registration, and it is mandatory gun must be confiscated by law enforcement.
So that goes far beyond assault guns and high capacity clips.
That's just for starters. Beyond that first step, I thnk it would be a good enforcement mechanism to require all registered guns to be retrofitted with thin transmitters that are capable of broadcasting registration numbers on request from authorized. This is similar to RFID gun proposals except that it would have much greater range (at least 500 yards).
Sure, close the gun show loophole. But you won't get anywhere with transmitters or yearly registration under color of tearing down your door. We need less confrontations about guns, not exponentially more IMHO. California where I live has some of the best gun laws, but they don't go far enough.
No registration if it means beating down a door? Sorry, but I don't understand what you think the point of a registry is if enforcement of possession standards is not enforced. If the SSA and VA know when a guy is too nuts to handle his own finance, the authority for the national registry of guns that Johnson proposed 50 years ago would also know about the mental diability. If the owner is no long is legally capable of maintaining the registration for the gun registered to him, then what are you suggesting?
Let him keep it?
Taking guns out of the hands of the insane is the point.
If some relative doesn't surrender it, it gets seized. Same as with a car- towed away.
The NRA has taken it upon themselves the make sure that everyone who wants a gun gets one, whether they are batcrap crazy or not. They don't care who buys one, the more guns that are sold, the more money gun manufacturers make, and the more money they make, the more money they give to the NRA. It isn't just an ideological issue for them anymore, it's also a greed issue. Wayne LaPiere alone makes $700,000 a year. Not exactly chump change. He and the rest of the overseers of the NRA do not want that to change any time soon.
A chicken in every pot was a great idea. A gun in every house is not.
Rachel,
1. Why would you retweet misleading information from the execrable Chris Savage? As numerous reports indicate, including info from your blog, Snyder's veto wasn't precipitated by Newtown. Yet, Savage, who couldn't report accurately about cookies at a Girl Scout meeting, parrots that tired nonsense and you buy it. The governor told GOP legislators before the shooting that, if they didn't include the opt-out language, he'd veto ... and he did.
2. It would be helpful for the sake of perspective if you also reported that Snyder signed into law the same day as his veto two bills that make it easier for Michiganders to purchase handguns and rifles. As a state, we are worse off than we were before the lame duck flood of bills, less safe and morally poorer.
Im an NRA member and thank God they're supporting my rights. Without them the liberal gun grabbers would have outlawed everything. I like my AR and its kept very safe in a responsible way. I enjoy target shooting at the range, its a lot of fun. Its not right for the libs to suddenly say the scary looking gun should be banned and taken away when I've done nothing to cause that.