I still disagree with staging demonstrations for a right we already have, but hey, the group they had on appeared decent. And I credit Fox2 with reporting it well.

They're/we are simply trying to get the word out to those that don't know but may like to know that OC is legal in Michigan and many other states.

Maybe someday it will be a great big non-issue to see a gun carried in the open in Michigan like it already is in many other states.

The more people that are informed the less likely sheeple will call 911 (MWAG)

That makes plenty sense, but I still can't help but feel that the gatherings, or some of the behavior at them anyhow will motivate the soccer moms to do away with that right........I also don't see it as a "right" exactly.....there just ain't a law against it.......yet.  

I wish it was more acceptable to carry openly in public, and ain't sayin nobody shouldn't promote safe open carry and public awareness.  I just feel that there has been just as much harm done as good since it all started......the accidental discharge in a park, and the dude with the AR at the restaraunt seemed like bad press to me.

People seem to forget just how easy it would be for them to write and enact a law to make open carry unlawful.  I bet they could do it overnight without the knowledge or consent of any citizen.

I think the demonstrations should be promoting making it a constitutional right to carry, or a law at least saying it is legal.  There is a law saying that I can carry concealed, I like being able to read that.

The whole open carry honestly looks like a loophole, or an oversight,  which I believe it is from the transportation law change a while back.  The same type of loophole that allows me to carry concealed shotguns and rifles because Michigan says they're pistols........I'm sure I could promote that to some people, but I'd probably just ruin it for everyone.

Somewhat related.

I don't know how many of you go to Jay's in Clare.

They've had a sign for quite a while at the front stating that concealed carry is welcome.

A few months ago, they changed it.

Now it says something like  'Jay's welcomes lawful concealed and OPEN carry.'

Does it bother you that our representatives in government would want to turn a right into a privilege?

I don't go on a quest to prove a point, but when I show a house or building in some areas, I open carry. I'm not interested in buying a license for a God given right. I'm also not real shy when my office tells me, "Be careful, the building isn't locked."

There is no loophole.

Holy Wah!
That was a great story with no anti gun bias!

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/group-educating-people-on-open-carry-law

Who's that directed at...?

I think they served themselves and gun owners well in this report! They were knowledgeable, presentable, well spoken and not at all radical or wearing the issue on their sleeve. A very good Fox 2 News Report.

Now let's monitor the public sentiment and evaluate the perception!

There is a constitutional right to carry and that is Michigan Constitution Article 1 Section 6. Changing it overnight would be impossible short of a constitutional convention that amends it. Michigan's RKBA is even stronger than the 2A and allows bearing of arms for self defense and defense of the state. Our former Macomb County Prosecuting Attorney Carl Marlinga wrote an opinion back in the 90's that researched the right and led to Macomb County offering General Unrestricted Carry Concealed Weapons licenses. I believe that same opinion of his elaborated on the unconcealed or open bearing of arms as a constitutional guarantee. Of course back then few people chose that option when they could get a general or the modern version CPL.

§ 6 Bearing of arms.

Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
Former constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 5.

Macman,
Nobody really. Just saying it was a good news report with none of the usual anti gun media bias.

Just watched it, can't really get a less biased newspiece than what was aired. I'm especially impressed that they didn't dredge up some pant wetter to snivel about it from the other side of the issue.

Bustoff, you don't know me, but I've read many of your posts and I respect you and the things you do.  I also know you have the capacity for good conversation.  Please don't take my comments as mean spirited or argumentative, they're not meant that way, only to convey a point in conversation.  I often piss people off, just thought I'd say it wave the flag beforehand.

I've been gaining interest in this subject lately and I know YOU know your shit, much like me you spend time READING the law.  I have comments and questions.



I can't agree more with this.  I've seen some bad examples from past get-togethers.  Everyone here knows how media spins shit, this is a new concept to people, not a good time to set a bad example.  A few bad eggs......well, you know, it wouldn't take much for them to turn it into a bunch of crazy gun nuts doin whatever.  I'm surprised that they've never been reported as "a bunch of men  met today, at a local restaraunt to expose their tools.....just because they could."

I don't like bad press for gun owners, and the "any idiot can attend" gathering is destined for failure.  You end up with idiots.  

Has there ever been anti open carry demonstrators at a gathering?  How bout protesters?  That can heat things up a bit.  What happens if an idoit waves his gun or looks menacing toward one.....or shoots one?

There's a reason Flava Flav ain't leading the civil rights movement. They don't want him to.  I'm honestly concerned that these few bad examples will eventually ruin it for everyone.





That's the best example I've seen of it being a right, but I still don't feel it is  (not saying i don't think it should be).  By that example I'd call it "arguable in court"  but not a right.

To me....this is a RIGHT......Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep, bear, and carry arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Until it says this, I feel that this right is only as good as the lawyer I hire.

Can you cite any laws having to do with, or mentioning "open carry".......The 2nd amendment is a right.....and the GCA and NFA are laws governing that right.  

I'd feel better about the open carry "legality" if there was at least a law that said just something simple.....something like.....

"All pistols carried openly shall be in a black or brown holster, failure to comply shall be a felony."

It's simple, no big deal, and recognizes "open carry" with an MCL number.

I've been hoping for similar recognition for my "under 30" rifle/pistol concealed truck shotgun"  We know it's legal, they've recognized in the past that it was......but there is nothing available as hard proof that it is legal to carry.  the closest has actually been HB5038.  But my dreams are dying with it.

I see the issues as similar......a "grey area" for lack of a better term.  

No problem A_number_1

Like I was saying about Mich Con Art 1 Sec 6 having been researched at great depth by many of our pro gun scholars.

The word "bear" as used in the amendment means to "carry" and that's where the right is derived. Marlinga's and others research turns up the same meaning and I believe "Blacks Law Dictionary" of the time period was used to determine the meaning of bear and the meaning of bear was found to be "carry". The word bear means the same thing as carry.

From "FindLaw.com - definition of "bear"
1: to physically carry (as an object or message)
Example: the right of the people to keep and bear arms –– U.S. Constitution amend. II

So Michigan's Constitutional Right means:

Every person has the right to keep and carry arms for defense of himself and the state.

And when you speak of the GCA or NFA regulating or governing the 2A - the very only reason we can still buy and transfer machine guns was because the Congress at the time debated their ability to BAN such arms. To avoid violating the 2A and perhaps judicial review finding such an action unconstitutional they used their taxing authority to slap the $200 transfer tax on transfers of those weapons to discourage their possession.

The May 19, 1986 New Machine Gun Ban that was a midnight hour "without objection" amendment from the floor of the Congress to the pro gun bill "The Firearms Owners Protection Act" FOPA The new machine gun ban became part of the act and was never removed. It is what stops us from buying and selling or making newer than 1986 MG's unless you're a properly licensed FFL paying the SOT - Special Occupational TAX! President Ronald Reagan signed the FOPA into law perhaps with a reservation that some part of it might be troubling or potentially unconstitutional.

The problems associated with challenging the constitutionality of such laws are generally the conditions that bring it before the Court and the Money available to fund a case.