Falsities About SB789 Being Spread

SB789, sponsored by Mike Green, would make numerous positive changes to the statutes concerned with concealed pistol licensure. This would include such things as:

  • Eliminate the county gun boards – requirements verification shifts to Michigan State Police
  • Count Clerk becomes the licensing authority
  • Remove the requirement to provide two references
  • Reduce the application fee $15 from $105 to $90
  • 100% of court costs and attorney fees to the appellant if a denial gets overturned
  • Shorten and cement the timeframe for a go/no-go in regards to the application

NO WHERE does it remove the fact that the licenses shall be issued assuming the applicant passes the more or less objectively defined standards in 28.425b. In fact, the striking of 28.425b(7)(n) (shown below) further solidifies the the shall-issue aspect:

Issuing a license to the applicant to carry a concealed pistol in this state is not detrimental to the safety of the applicant or to any other individual. A determination under this subdivision shall be based on clear and convincing evidence of repeated violations of this act, crimes, personal protection orders or injunctions, or police reports or other clear and convincing evidence of the actions of, or statements of, the applicant that bear directly on the applicant’s ability to carry a concealed pistol.

Given the positives, can someone explain why a supposedly “Constitutional” former sheriff is spreading misinformation?

Raines anti SB789

A friend of mine talked to Raines last night and indicated that he’s really anything but the “constitutional sheriff” he claims to be. I’m not one to try and toss out second hand information as authoritative, so I’ll let him mention the discussion if he wishes. However, from what I’m hearing, Raines is the one who wants to be able to arbitrarily deny CPLs “to keep people safe”.

You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

  56 comments for “Falsities About SB789 Being Spread

  1. KG One
    March 11, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Yeah, Sheriff Raines rationale has left me a little confused as well.

    Personally speaking, given the racist history behind firearms registration here in Michigan, I rather see the entire process scrapped permanently.

    Until that time, this bill is at least a step in the tight direction.

    You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(1)
    • March 11, 2014 at 10:21 am

      KG,

      Trust me, you aren't the only one who would love to see "Constitutional Carry" come about.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Laurie Raines
      March 11, 2014 at 2:40 pm

      I find this libelous and disingenuous article posted in Right Michigan to be a great disservice to all Michigan Gun Owners. The fact that common sense, caution, over 50 years of real-life experience and reality are being thrown to the wind by those involved in this political back-room shenanigan is a serious threat to all responsible Michigan gun owners. The lies being told are coming from Lansing, not from those who have been standing up to the nonsense we see going on.

      In fact, the truth is SB 789 gives State Police immunity and puts county clerks on the line for damages and local taxpayers too!

      One of the many things I learned working inside State Gov't. for years (including the Legislature) was to FOLLOW THE MONEY! MSP, with their added immunity in Green's bill, stand to make over $24 MILLION, add over 55 NEW State employees and the on-record anti-gun State Police will be in charge (as Mike Raines points out) for "determining whether the applicant is eligible to receive a license to carry!" (pg. 9 & 10) and the immunity for MSP spells out what’s going to happen to the accountability here.

      Making County Clerks glorified paper pushers for State Police is a dangerously risky prospect and responsible for MSP errors and omissions! Esp. since our Local Constitutionally-Elected Officials do NOT report to political appointees in other branches of gov't., anyone with a lick of common sense & Constitutional knowledge knows that violates the Constitution and our rights too.

      Sadly, some behind this seriously flawed SB 789 are hanging their hats on forcing Michigan Gun Owners to fight for their rights to be restored (and the thousands of dollars it will cost them) in the same courts that are funded by State Gov't.!!! How do you think that's going to play out?
      Mike Raines, as our Sheriff, worked harder than any former Sheriff in Eaton County to streamline, make gun boards more citizen-friendly and to protect the rights of Eaton County Gun Owners & the safety of our families and some of the liberals behind SB 789 disparaged him greatly for doing just that!

      The politicians who are not interested in protecting our gun rights have become the greatest threat to our Constitutional rights and freedoms I have ever seen in my lifetime.

      We also worked alongside MCRGO, gave them a lot of our time and money too in order to support individuals who are pro-responsible gun owners too when it was a grassroots organization that looked out for our rights, that was before Politicians in Lansing took it over!

      So, the facts and truth are on our side. I do not live in a panacea. And, as I told Tom Lambert yesterday, "I’m a Christian and I believe in God. Say you're not? If I’m wrong, I have nothing to lose. But, if you’re wrong, you have everything to lose." I see SB 789 in a similar light and I know that giving our gun rights to a pro-gun control dept. is not the answer any more than forcing MI gun owners to fight for their rights in costly court battles. I stand firm with my husband, former Sheriff and Pro-Responsible Gun Owner Mike Raines.

      I will continue to pray that reason and responsible leadership will defeat those bills that threaten and infringe upon our rights, like SB 789. On that same note, I will continue to support those with common sense, reasonable and responsible solutions along with integrity (not hidden agendas) when it comes to protecting our UNALIENABLE rights. God bless.
      PLEASE READ THE BILL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2014-SIB-0789.pdf

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • Tom
        March 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        Wait, the immunity only speaks to ISSUED licenses. In the same paragraph you simultaneously raise concerns about the MSP NOT issuing licenses, but then also not being responsible for the licenses they SHALL ISSUE under the act?

        Which one is it going to be? How can you be worried about the licenses the MSP is going to issue when you are saying that the MSP is not going to issues licenses?

        Folks, this is the epitome of double speak.

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • Jason
        March 11, 2014 at 9:36 pm

        OK, Read the bill. Finished about 10 minutes ago. It seems like it streamlines the issuance process. There are a lot of "SHALL" points in there that I really like too.

        You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(1)
        • Corinthian Scales
          March 11, 2014 at 9:49 pm

          All the "SHALL" I need to read is right here, and nothing gets more streamline than that, coincidentally, that is in effect here, the second safest state in the Union.

          The rest is bullshit for those who seek permission.

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • SovereignMary
        March 12, 2014 at 10:00 am

        This post by Michigan Votes is surprisingly and shockingly wrong. I had a recent messaged conversation with Senator Mike Green .. and he does not want to have the county commissioners in charge of issuing CPL's.

        As Senator Mike Green stated to me in a Facebook message - "the bill states county clerks, not the county commission. their headline is incorrect, yes. They already accept applications and send out approvals and notices. The bill eliminates a step in the process and the time/resources they expend for clerking gun board meetings.

        They support the bill.

        I have received thousands of emails, phone calls and letters from around the state of individuals who have experienced major problems obtaining CPL's from their gun boards, whether it involved illegal delays, local fees, and additional requirements.

        Some gun boards meet only once a month, others every other month. The differences from county to county are all over the map and it has to end. "Shall issue" should be SHALL issue and in a timely manner with the same standards STATEWIDE, regardless of how connected you are to gun board members, which county you live in, or your personal resources. That is what I hope to accomplish."
        I profusely apologized to Senator Green for swallowing whole this misinformation.
        http://www.michiganvotes.org/2014-SB-789

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • March 12, 2014 at 10:15 am

          For folks who need perspective on what she is saying, the site said

          " to eliminate county concealed weapon licensing boards, and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol licenses to county commissions. "

          Small oops, but has a really different meaning if one does not read the bill. It is the clerk who assumes responsibility.

          The Commissioners for their part are even more out of the process than EVER before, since they will no longer appoint gun board members in situations where they do so currently.

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Corinthian Scales
            March 12, 2014 at 10:50 am

            If approved to purchase, then why the Hell would one need be approved to carry?

            You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(0)
            • March 12, 2014 at 2:35 pm

              Strictly because there is a disparity of force...

              You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • Corinthian Scales
                March 12, 2014 at 5:18 pm

                Yep. And it's pure hogwash. This bill being floated now is as big of an air biscuit as all the rest.

                The Republican majority in Lansing are a bunch of pussies being led around by the biggest queef of them all, a Progressive Nerd jumping to whatever tune the Wooden Shoe Mafia plays because they're the ones feeding the jukebox.

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
  2. Corinthian Scales
    March 11, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Yes, there is plenty one can consider good in the bill, however, handing over more authority to the MSP is completely irresponsible.

    Regarding County Sheriffs one can vote their ass out if they fail to honor their sworn Oath, the MSP jackboots one cannot, and this public sector union lobbyist jagoff is all about registration.

    You Betcha! (2)Nuh Uh.(1)
    • KG One
      March 11, 2014 at 11:24 am

      Looking at most of the sponsors behind the bill, exactly what is keeping them from just simply repealing PA 372?

      Seems like a no-brainer.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • March 11, 2014 at 11:34 am

        The guv probably

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • KG One
          March 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm

          Is there anyone who can be asked to confirm that?

          Given the kvetching and screaming he did for FTW and the subsequent "Come to Jesus" meeting that he had to change his mind, with the number of 2A Supporters here in Michigan, it seems possible to catch lightening in a bottle s second time when it comes to the guv.

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • March 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm

            That post was based merely on a gut feeling. I could be horrendously wrong.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
            • Tom
              March 11, 2014 at 3:12 pm

              I am the Assistant Legislative Director for Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

              Mr. Gillman is correct. The #1 obstacle to constitutional carry is Snyder.

              You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • KG One
                March 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm

                Thank you, Tom.

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • March 11, 2014 at 11:44 am

      Well, the problem is registration is already there.

      The MSP would still be able to get called to the floor to if they start doing bullshit denials, especially given the appellant would be able to recover 100% of costs and attorney fees.

      Also, if we had an AG ballsy enough to actually do what's right, MCL 752.11

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
      • Corinthian Scales
        March 11, 2014 at 11:59 am

        But, we don't have an AG ballsy enough as we all witnessed his peeps in action here, the courts suck too, and as the old saying goes, "the fish rots from the head" or, the Progressive anti-RTKABA Nerd directs the MSP, which lobbied against SB 59 so, the reality in this state is exactly - this.

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • March 11, 2014 at 12:20 pm

          I would argue that if the MSP really wanted to [insert choice four letter word here] things up, they could do that as is.

          "Ooops, sorry, keep losing your finger print card..."

          You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Corinthian Scales
            March 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm

            True 'nuff. But, what happens when Law becomes bullshit anyway?

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
            • March 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm

              Oh, the law is already bullshit.

              I argue that if you don't think someone is safe enough to actually utilize their RIGHTS, then they probably aren't safe enough to be out of lock up.

              You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • Corinthian Scales
                March 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm

                We're on the same page. Everything else is about controlling the herd of Sheeple.

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                • March 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm

                  Well, I think the telling point will be when people stop marching/being vocal about the issue... that's all I'll say there.

                  You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • Laurie Raines
          March 11, 2014 at 2:42 pm

          I find this libelous and disingenuous article posted in Right Michigan to be a great disservice to all Michigan Gun Owners. The fact that common sense, caution, over 50 years of real-life experience and reality are being thrown to the wind by those involved in this political back-room shenanigan is a serious threat to all responsible Michigan gun owners. The lies being told are coming from Lansing, not from those who have been standing up to the nonsense we see going on. In fact, the truth is SB 789 gives State Police immunity and puts county clerks on the line for damages and local taxpayers too!

          One of the many things I learned working inside State Gov't. for years (including the Legislature) was to FOLLOW THE MONEY! MSP, with their added immunity in Green's bill, stand to make over $24 MILLION, add over 55 NEW State employees and the on-record anti-gun State Police will be in charge (as Mike Raines points out) for "determining whether the applicant is eligible to receive a license to carry!" (pg. 9 & 10) and the immunity for MSP spells out what’s going to happen to the accountability here.

          Making County Clerks glorified paper pushers for State Police is a dangerously risky prospect and responsible for MSP errors and omissions! Esp. since our Local Constitutionally-Elected Officials do NOT report to political appointees in other branches of gov't., anyone with a lick of common sense & Constitutional knowledge knows that violates the Constitution and our rights too.

          Sadly, some behind this seriously flawed SB 789 are hanging their hats on forcing Michigan Gun Owners to fight for their rights to be restored (and the thousands of dollars it will cost them) in the same courts that are funded by State Gov't.!!! How do you think that's going to play out?

          Mike Raines, as our Sheriff, worked harder than any former Sheriff in Eaton County to streamline, make gun boards more citizen-friendly and to protect the rights of Eaton County Gun Owners & the safety of our families and some of the liberals behind SB 789 disparaged him greatly for doing just that!

          The politicians who are not interested in protecting our gun rights have become the greatest threat to our Constitutional rights and freedoms I have ever seen in my lifetime.

          We also worked alongside MCRGO, gave them a lot of our time and money too in order to support individuals who are pro-responsible gun owners too when it was a grassroots organization that looked out for our rights, that was before Politicians in Lansing took it over!

          So, the facts and truth are on our side. I do not live in a panacea. And, as I told Tom Lambert yesterday, "I’m a Christian and I believe in God. Say you're not? If I’m wrong, I have nothing to lose. But, if you’re wrong, you have everything to lose." I see SB 789 in a similar light and I know that giving our gun rights to a pro-gun control dept. is not the answer any more than forcing MI gun owners to fight for their rights in costly court battles. I stand firm with my husband, former Sheriff and Pro-Responsible Gun Owner Mike Raines.

          I will continue to pray that reason and responsible leadership will defeat those bills that threaten and infringe upon our rights, like SB 789. On that same note, I will continue to support those with common sense, reasonable and responsible solutions along with integrity (not hidden agendas) when it comes to protecting our UNALIENABLE rights. God bless.

          PLEASE READ THE BILL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2014-SIB-0789.pdf

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • March 11, 2014 at 2:47 pm

            Hi Laurie, I believe you posted the same thing twice. The first time posting, it requires approval, so that is why it didn't show right away.

            BTW welcome to the debate. Opinions expressed are those of the commenters and authors.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm

            "FOLLOW THE MONEY! MSP, with their added immunity in Green’s bill, stand to make over $24 MILLION"

            Currently the MSP get's $64 of every fee. Under SB 789 the MSP will get ... $64 of every fee, yet they will have to do more to earn that money.

            On the other hand, the fee will go from $105 to $90.

            Mrs. Raines, would you mind showing your work?

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
            • Corinthian Scales
              March 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm

              The tax should be zero, as it's a bullshit money grab Law to begin with.

              You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • Tom
                March 11, 2014 at 3:14 pm

                By that logic, you should support any bill that makes the law less BS. A reduction of $15 sounds like less BS to me.

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                • Corinthian Scales
                  March 11, 2014 at 4:13 pm

                  By your logic, one would've voted for Romney because Democrat-lite is less fast moving Socialism.

                  Bullshit is bullshit, pal.

                  You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                  • Tom
                    March 11, 2014 at 4:27 pm

                    So, you're in favor of the $105 fee? That doesn't sound pro gun owner to me. We can whine all we want about the fee, but our current options are $105 and $90. Pick one.

                    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                    • Corinthian Scales
                      March 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm

                      You pick one, Tom. And, don't ever be led to believe that I submit to a 'mother may I carry' slip.

                      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • Laurie Raines
                March 11, 2014 at 4:51 pm

                Corinthian, My husband, former Sheriff Mike Raines told Tom the same thing. And, they're duping gun owners on this. NOT only will SB 789 grown bigger state gov't. at a cost of $8.4 MILLION+/year (or are they imagining that gun owners CPL applicants are not taxpayers?!), but if you consider the fact that there are over 430,000 CPL holders in Michigan (that my friends, despite the fuzzy supporters of this bill's math = $27.52 MILLION! Truly a significant chunk of change for Big Gov't. Coiffures. I find it amazing that after all these years, the politicians in Lansing behind this bill are all of a sudden claiming NOW they're going to make them "earn that money"?! WHY have they failed miserably to ensure that they've earned it prior to this. (Please do NOT misunderstand my stand on this as that will be the next attempt to try to discredit us...Inside the MSP there are some good, honest, hardworking people and as with other places, there are some who are not.)

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                • Corinthian Scales
                  March 11, 2014 at 5:21 pm

                  I don't misunderstand your position. Has there been example on RightMi.com highlighting what a Peace Officer should be? Yes, see here. Example of a Constitutional Sheriff? Yep, see here too.

                  Has there also been example of what is the nanny regulate everything for revenue problem in Lansing? Why yes, yes there has.

                  You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
                • T om
                  March 11, 2014 at 8:46 pm

                  Money going to the government from every CPL applicant currently: $105 + extra fees
                  Money going to the government from every CPL applicant with SB 789: $90

                  Please tell me how the government taking less of our money is a bad thing.

                  Also, why are they just now making it so these people have to earn their money? Because people like you have been getting in the way of the previous bills to fix this.

                  You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 2:52 pm

            There is no "added immunity" for the MSP. The section she is pointing to says that as long as the government issues a license under the law, then they are not civilly liable. Which only makes sense because the law says SHALL ISSUE (something the Raines do not understand).

            If the government issues a license outside of the statute, then their immunity no longer applies and they are now liable.

            BTW, that section is in the EXISTING language. That's right, Green isn't touching it.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm

            "anyone with a lick of common sense & Constitutional knowledge knows that violates the Constitution and our rights too. "

            Anyone with a lick of Constitutional knowledge understands that giving even a Constitutionally elected official authority over your rights is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

            SHALL ISSUE!!

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 2:57 pm

            "(and the thousands of dollars it will cost them) in the same courts"

            That is the way the current system works. If you read the bill and the article above, then you will know that all fees and costs are rewarded back. Again, unlike the current system which you are advocating we keep.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
            • Laurie Raines
              March 11, 2014 at 4:55 pm

              Tom, There you go again...You know that's NOT entirely honest. Chances are as I noted once denied by a State Dept. Michigan gun owners would have one heck of a fight on their hands (a lengthy and costly one too) trying to fight another State-Funded body (the courts)! That said, it was made clear last evening that LAWYERS who also stand to get rich off the taxpayers under this bill support it. Again, I don't and all I asked is that you are honest and accurately inform citizens based on the facts, not your opinions. Thanks & God bless.

              You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
              • Tom
                March 11, 2014 at 8:51 pm

                So you want to stick with the current system then? A system where people are being wrongfully denied by gun boards that can't follow the law. A system where they then have to spend thousands of dollars of their own money to get a right they should have in the first place.

                As opposed to a system that makes the people who made the mistake and didn't follow the law pay for the legal fees and court costs. Looser pays laws have been a big conservative item for years. That is exactly what this is and only liberals oppose it.

                You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm

            "Mike Raines, as our Sheriff, worked harder than any former Sheriff in Eaton County to streamline, make gun boards more citizen-friendly and to protect the rights of Eaton County Gun Owners & the safety of our families"

            Yet he told me about certain practices in his gun board that only only violated people's 2A rights, but also their 5A rights to due process. It is because of people like Mr. Raines that we need to get rid of these gun boards. There is no such thing as a position of authority between you an your rights.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
  3. Tom
    March 11, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    What authority is being handed to the MSP? It's very clear right on pg 2 of SB 789 that he County Clerk is the issuing authority.

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
    • Corinthian Scales
      March 11, 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Please read again, the MSP now becomes de facto "county gun boards".

      I'm not sure where or, when it took hold, however, one cannot even thumb through the alleged Right *news* anymore without seeing big, monolithic Centralized-power propaganda like by Achmed Trotsky from Canada here, blathering on about how everyone must bail out a half a century of failed Progressive Utopian corruption as if that "we're all in it together" shit won't serve to lower others to their level.

      I dunno... perhaps, you believe it's smart to hand off everything to an appointed Centralized agency of public union bureaucracy seeking federal grant funding, and with tax dollar funded lobbyists working against the citizen, I don't.

      You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
      • Tom
        March 11, 2014 at 2:04 pm

        SB 789 as initially proposed: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2014-SIB-0789.pdf

        Pg 2:
        (C) "LICENSING AUTHORITY" MEANS, FOR PURPOSES OF ISSUING A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL ONLY, 1 OF THE FOLLOWING:
        (i) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2014, THE CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSING BOARD IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT RESIDES HAVING THE AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT TO ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL.
        (ii) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2015, THE COUNTY CLERK HAVING THE AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT TO ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED PISTOL.

        The only thing the MSP may do is: (Pg 9 & 10)
        "... investigate the applicant for a license to carry a concealed pistol. The investigation shall be restricted to determining only whether the applicant is eligible under this act to receive a license to carry a concealed pistol, and the investigation regarding the issuance of a license shall end after that determination is made"

        Note: that language isn't capitalized. This means that it is existing language (not new). All the MSP has to do is apply MCL 28.425b (7), just as the county gun boards were supposed to do. The problem is, too many people, like Sheriff Raines (admittedly) are not applying 28.425b. 425b is so clear cut, it doesn't take a human to apply it, let alone three.

        To sum up 28.425b (7), the licensing authority SHALL ISSUE a license as long as all of the criteria are met. Among the criteria is a requirement that the applicant can't have any of an enumerated list of offenses on their record. Baring that, the applicant SHALL be issued a license. No human involvement is required, let alone authority.

        To say the MSP gains authority or is the "sole authority" is completely false and utterly unsupported by any language in SB 789 or even the statute as it currently exists.

        MCL 28.425b
        http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28dld1v355gy2ppe552yt0ms55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425b

        You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
        • Corinthian Scales
          March 11, 2014 at 2:45 pm

          Whatever, dude. It's all bullshit, and the MSP will be given complete control over the deck of 'mother may I carry' cards. Give that enough time to bake, and it'll bite everyone in the ass much like those wedge-headed Canucks.

          You Betcha! (1)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 3:04 pm

            Whatever? It sounds like you are currently sitting on a gun board, because just like them, you clearly appear to not be reading our laws.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
        • Laurie Raines
          March 11, 2014 at 2:46 pm

          I find this libelous and disingenuous article posted in Right Michigan (along with Tom's malicious and untruthful attack on Mike) to be a great disservice to all Michigan Gun Owners. The fact that common sense, caution, over 50 years of real-life experience and reality are being thrown to the wind by those involved in this political back-room shenanigan is a serious threat to all responsible Michigan gun owners. The lies being told are coming from Lansing, not from those who have been standing up to the nonsense we see going on. In fact, the truth is SB 789 gives State Police immunity and puts county clerks on the line for damages and local taxpayers too!

          One of the many things I learned working inside State Gov't. for years (including the Legislature) was to FOLLOW THE MONEY! MSP, with their added immunity in Green's bill, stand to make over $24 MILLION, add over 55 NEW State employees and the on-record anti-gun State Police will be in charge (as Mike Raines points out) for "determining whether the applicant is eligible to receive a license to carry!" (pg. 9 & 10) and the immunity for MSP spells out what’s going to happen to the accountability here.

          Making County Clerks glorified paper pushers for State Police is a dangerously risky prospect and responsible for MSP errors and omissions! Esp. since our Local Constitutionally-Elected Officials do NOT report to political appointees in other branches of gov't., anyone with a lick of common sense & Constitutional knowledge knows that violates the Constitution and our rights too.

          Sadly, some behind this seriously flawed SB 789 are hanging their hats on forcing Michigan Gun Owners to fight for their rights to be restored (and the thousands of dollars it will cost them) in the same courts that are funded by State Gov't.!!! How do you think that's going to play out?

          Mike Raines, as our Sheriff, worked harder than any former Sheriff in Eaton County to streamline, make gun boards more citizen-friendly and to protect the rights of Eaton County Gun Owners & the safety of our families and some of the liberals behind SB 789 disparaged him greatly for doing just that!

          The politicians who are not interested in protecting our gun rights have become the greatest threat to our Constitutional rights and freedoms I have ever seen in my lifetime.

          We also worked alongside MCRGO, gave them a lot of our time and money too in order to support individuals who are pro-responsible gun owners too when it was a grassroots organization that looked out for our rights, that was before Politicians in Lansing took it over!

          So, the facts and truth are on our side. I do not live in a panacea. And, as I told Tom Lambert yesterday, "I’m a Christian and I believe in God. Say you're not? If I’m wrong, I have nothing to lose. But, if you’re wrong, you have everything to lose." I see SB 789 in a similar light and I know that giving our gun rights to a pro-gun control dept. is not the answer any more than forcing MI gun owners to fight for their rights in costly court battles. I stand firm with my husband, former Sheriff and Pro-Responsible Gun Owner Mike Raines.

          I will continue to pray that reason and responsible leadership will defeat those bills that threaten and infringe upon our rights, like SB 789. On that same note, I will continue to support those with common sense, reasonable and responsible solutions along with integrity (not hidden agendas) when it comes to protecting our UNALIENABLE rights. God bless.

          PLEASE READ THE BILL: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/pdf/2014-SIB-0789.pdf

          You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
          • Tom
            March 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm

            The truth is not malicious. Like a firearm, it has no intent.

            Did or did not your husband admit to me that he denied someone a CPL without finding a item in MCL 28.425b to deny under, and instead denied based on his "opinion"? This is a clear violation of 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights. Not to mention SHALL ISSUE.

            You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
  4. sgtguthrie
    March 11, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    Seems to me that this Retired Sheriff must be senile...He's not making any sense. Besides, he was against sb59 and that just pisses me off! Unfortunately I'm still disarmed daily due to Jack wagons like him and the RINO Governor.

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
  5. Laurie
    March 11, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Tom, Your unfounded attacks on Mike are a great disservice to all responsible Gun Owners throughout Michigan. You know full well that Mike and I discussed our fight on the right side of this issue for over two decades to protect responsible gun owner's rights, standing up for others, even placing our careers on the line to do that, while giving our time, efforts and thousands of dollars to achieve just that. We, unlike some of those behind SB 789, "Walk the Talk" with integrity. The fact that you and some others behind SB 789 are now attacking and lying about the dangerous repercussions of SB 789 when it comes to gun owner's rights and about those who responsibly question the serious flaws in it speaks volumes.

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)
    • Tom
      March 11, 2014 at 8:58 pm

      I know that's what you thought you were doing. Instead, what you were doing was not following laws put in place to protect gun owners and their rights. That is why we are now removing such people from the process. Good intentions have no place in SHALL ISSUE.

      You keep talking about facts. The fact is, most of the stuff you are saying is opinion and much it is directly contradicted by language in SB 789.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
  6. Mandy
    March 12, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Okay, so exactly how many people were denied a CPL because this, thankfully now retired, Sheriff decided he didn't like their haircut or the small hole they had in their jeans? What a crock.

    The idea that this guy had any control over someone's safety or choice to protect themselves is infuriating at the least, no matter how many times his wife comes and pastes the same comment over and over and over.

    You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(1)
    • Corinthian Scales
      March 12, 2014 at 9:36 am

      "Okay, so exactly how many people were denied a CPL [Stop]"

      There, fixed it for you.

      You Betcha! (0)Nuh Uh.(0)

Leave a Reply to Mandy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.