Titled: Retooling CCW zones

Pack heat in your house of worship? Carry a concealed handgun to your child's teacher conference in a school or day-care center? What about a pistol in the hospital emergency room?

Since July 1, 2001, Michigan residents licensed to carry a concealed pistol have been prohibited from carrying it in these and several other pistol-free zones. Now, a Michigan lawmaker -- state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt -- is conducting Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into revisions of the CCW law. One proposed change is to ease up these no-carry zones, possibly dropping some of them.

Gun-control advocates argue that licensed handgun bearers would provide security that does not exist under the present law. And they have a point.

In recent weeks a trio of unrelated attacks killed three people in an Atlanta, Ga., courtroom on March 11; seven in a Milwaukee, Wis., church on March 12; and eight at Red Lake High School in Minnesota on March 21. Would some of those people be alive today if someone had been armed and able to disable or obstruct the gunmen?

It's an interesting question. The article does a pretty good job of just presenting the information without pushing the reader one way or another. I really wish more of the main stream media would present news stories in this way.

For the record I believe I should be able to openly carry my firearm with me where ever I go.

But thats just me.

If any of you reading this Blog are from the Three Rivers, Michigan area I invite you join the Liberty1st Forum. And yes even if you are not from the Three Rivers area you are still welcome. We talk about much that doesn't have anything to do with Three Rivers politics. Check it out here.

In the mean time here are some pictures of various places in Three Rivers you might enjoy.

Titled: Stop Unjust Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles According to Speak Out Michigan there are bills that would force the police to return a vehicle of a car if the owner is not convicted of a crime. I am not sure how long they will keep this particular text up so I am going to post the whole thing. Afterword I will post a link to the bill's text.

Michigan law allows the police to confiscate a motor vehicle if they suspect that anyone used the vehicle for an illegal purpose. It doesn't matter whether the owner gave consent. It doesn't even matter whether someone stole the vehicle.

For example, if the police claim that they found any marijuana in your car, they can seize your car. How the marijuana got there doesn't matter. Maybe it fell out of the pocket of an auto mechanic, valet parking attendant, or auto thief. Or maybe the wind blew a miniscule amount of marijuana through an open window. The police can confiscate your car.

Although the government sometimes is required, and often is willing, to return the vehicle to an innocent owner, the owner must pay a large fee. In Wayne County the fee is $900.

Senate Bills 138-143 will help protect innocent owners from unjust forfeiture. These bills will require the government to return a motor vehicle, without any fee, if (A) the owner is not charged with a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation, or (B) the owner is charged with, but found not guilty of, a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation.

Please ask your state senator and state representative to support Senate Bills 138-143.

SpeakOutMichigan provides an easy way to send e-mail to them. It provides a prewritten letter, to which you can add personal comments. Type in your zip code and SpeakOutMichigan will identify your state legislators and send them the letter. It takes only a minute or two.

SpeakOutMichigan also provides an easy way to send e-mail to your friends, so that they can contact their state legislators. Again there is a prewritten letter.

Help protect yourself and other innocent owners from unjust forfeiture.

Support Senate Bills 138-143.

Here is the text of the bill(s).

Did you know there was a Museum of Left Wing Lunacy? Me neither. However we do now.

Also there is a Conservative Brotherhood, which bills themselves as a group of African American writers whose politics are on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Expanding the dialog beyond traditional boundaries, they seek to contribute to a greater understanding of African Americans and America itself through advocacy and commentary.

I can't remember how I found the first link but I found the second one via The Black Informant.

On April 15th I saved someone. No not on their taxes. I turned the author of this Blog onto the Republican Liberty Caucus. I did so in response to this post.

Senate Bill 374 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Bruce Patterson on April 13, 2005, to require a court to notify the Secretary of State when it issues a personal protection order prohibiting an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Under current law a court must notify the county weapons board. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 375, which would eliminate the county weapons boards and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here. 

Senate Bill 375 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on April 13, 2005, to eliminate county concealed weapon licensing boards, and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here.

Other Michigan CPL bills can be found here, here and here.

Sarah Brady's press release to the U.S. Newswire dated 4/11/2005.

"The Kansas Legislature last week passed a bill that should be called the 'No Local Rights' bill. If Senate Bill 195 becomes law, no city or town in Kansas would be able to pass its own regulations about guns, if those regulations are stricter than state law. That's a lot of nonsense, and Governor Sebelius should veto it, and the legislature should uphold her veto.

Nonsense? Exchange any other unalienable right with the right to bear arms and tell me this is nonsense. What if a city in Kansas decided that there is no explicit freedom of religion and that everyone in the city must worship at a Church of their choice each Sunday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Still think it's nonsense?

Why is it OK for local governments to regulate guns but not religion or speech? I mean why do we have a Constitution proclaiming and protecting the rights of the individual if some local politicians can remove them with a majority vote?

"Since 1860, local communities in Kansas have been regulating firearms because locally elected officials understood that different laws are necessary in different communities.

Is Mrs. Brady saying that some people in Kansas do not deserve the right to self-protection? How does one determine such a thing? Americans, are supposed to have equal protection under the law. Shouldn't we also have the right to equally protect ourselves from those outside the law?

People can feel the way they want about gun laws, but we should all agree that in a democracy, the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy."

Pet peeve alert!!! I wish that people who insist on characterizing our form of government as a democracy would, at the very least, add the word constitutional to the beginning of their sentence. This would help ensure they realize there is a difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Democracy.

Mrs. Brady is a little confused by our system of government. We are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic and the distinction is important. The founding fathers knew the danger that a majority or the mob, if you prefer, could pose to the minority. They set up a government where the individual would have equal access to everything America offers. When that access is encroached on by a third party such as the governments the individual can seek relief through the courts.

She may be right about putting such wording into the law. It may be anti-democratic if, in fact, the majority does disapprove of it. However it is not unconstitutional and that is all that should matter when it comes to such things.

By the way, I found this press release via this post from the War on Guns who follows it up today with this one.

Titled: Two-Fifths of Americans Online Have Read Political Blogs

Two-fifths of Americans who are online have read a political blog, and more than a quarter read them once a month or more, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll.

Still, 56% of the public has never read a political blog and only 7% of online adults have posted a comment, according to the poll.

Of online adults who have posted comments on a political blog, 21% have posted 10 times or more in the past year. Half have posted between two and five times and 20% have posted only once.

People who identify themselves as Liberals are mostly likely to post comments to political blogs (28%); Moderates (17%) and Republicans (17%) were least likely.

Interesting. See the rest of the results here.

Titled: Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House

In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the disastrous FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.

This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.

Redstate has more.

It is clear to me that Dr. Zen has never faced a rapist, or a gay basher. What should I do, Dr. Zen, if faced with a rapist? Give him what he wants? Sorry, but I would rather give him what he deserves - a couple of hollow point slugs carefully aimed.

Yea what she said.

James Joyner from Outside the Beltway has this concerning the repeal of the death tax.

Titled: Michiganders to face tighter border rules

Metro Detroiters might need passports to re-enter Michigan from Canada under new federal rules being phased in by 2008.

Such a regulation would represent a significant tightening of a border that has been one of the world's freest for more than two centuries.

According to Bush administration officials, new passport regulations -- designed to curtail terrorism -- would apply to Americans returning to the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama and Bermuda.

I don't know. Is this a bad thing? On one hand it seems like another worthless measure that will do nothing to prevent bad guys from getting into the country. On the other hand I do appreciate the attention that borders are receiving.

I just added another Gun Blogger to my daily read list & Blogroll. It goes by the name "The War on Guns" and can be found here.

Yea but was there a  proper two day waiting period? You know a cooling off period so that the purchaser doesn't do anything rash like help start a new government or something.

Michelle Malkin reports that the TSA is, for the most part, going to be dismantled. Well partially anyway.

If Say Uncle can post a picture of his dog so can I.

Isn't he precious?

Update: My wife thinks I am retarded for posting a picture of my dog. I think she's jealous.

Titled: Status of Current Firearms Related Legislation

The new Michigan Legislature has two years to complete passage of bills before a new Legislature takes office in 2007. It is not unusual that bills from the previous session that were not given favorable treatment would reappear in this session. As of the date of this writing, three old anti-rights bills and one much-needed bill have been introduced.

More about those bills here.

Titled: NHS could refuse patients who will not mend ways

Patients who refuse to change their unhealthy lifestyles could be refused medical treatment, under proposals from the Government's NHS watchdog.

The controversial suggestion from the National Institute of Healthcare and Clinical Excellence would mean that a smoker in need of heart surgery might be denied the operation unless he or she promised to give up the habit.

The proposal is contained in a document which sets out for the first time the social values that should underpin decisions by the institute on which treatments to provide on the NHS.

It says all patients should be treated equally regardless of their age or social responsibilities and rules out discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or socio-economic status.

The only exception should be where a patient's age might affect the chances of success of the treatment. "Health should not be valued more highly in some age groups rather than others," it says. On self inflicted illness - that caused by "unhealthy lifestyles", such as casual sex, smoking, drinking or dangerous sports - it rejects the idea of "deservedness" in deciding who should receive treatment and says it would be impossible in many cases to determine which illnesses were self-inflicted.

It adds: "If the self-inflicted causes of the condition influence the likely outcome ... of an intervention, it may be appropriate to take this into account." A spokesman admitted there was a "grey area" between denying treatment on clinical grounds, because a patient might not benefit from it, and "blackmailing" them to change their behaviour in line with medically accepted health norms.

Let this serve as a warning for Americans. This is what national health care will get us. If or when it is put into place it will not take very long for the bureaucratic bean counters to determine that it is certain life styles that are driving up the costs of health care. Therefore anyone who doesn't live up to their standards of good health will be refused or forced to pay a very high premium. Some of you may be OK with that but I'm not. Those of us who take personal responsibility seriously better be able to opt out and have the option to make our own medical choices. And don't even get me started on the huge cost to taxpayers such a system will be.

Titled: Gore Group to Start Cable Channel as Youth Forum

A cable channel recently acquired by an investment group led by Al Gore is to relaunch Aug. 1 under the name Current, hoping to generate much of its content from viewers.

The former vice president and his partners, including entrepreneur Joel Hyatt, are taking an unconventional approach to TV programming in hopes of attracting viewers aged 18 to 34. That demographic, heavily sought by advertisers, has become difficult for TV networks and newspapers to reach.

Messrs. Gore and Hyatt say they hope young people will use the channel as a forum to express their opinions on news and current events. Viewers will be invited to submit short films, documentaries and home videos to be aired on the channel.

Isn't that what the Internet is for?

In an interview Friday, Mr. Gore said the goal of Current is to connect "the Internet generation with television in a brand new way." Its Web site will be a key part of its service, listing topics on which it wants material, such as reviews of movies, CDs or videogames; items on social trends; and advocacy journalism. Current will pay $250 for videos it airs.

Oh. They thought of that already.

Current will provide a fair amount of its own programming, at least initially, said programming chief David Neuman, a veteran television executive who most recently was a consultant for Time Warner Inc.'s CNN. Mr. Neuman said the channel has hired hosts for different segments. While Current primarily will be a news and information channel, he described it as closer to MTV and VH1 than Fox News and MSNBC.

You know that is what I was thinking. It sounds like an MTV rip off. It will be interesting to see where this goes but I have a feeling that they are going to be preaching to the choir (also) the way MTV does and there will not be much appeal outside of those who are already converts for leftist ideologies. My guess is that it will be nothing more then the cable version of Air America and just as successful.

Kevin from Always Low Prices, which features both positive and negative news items concerning Wal-Mart, is being "asked" by Wal-Mart to stop using their slogan on his site, which by the way he has been using for over a year now. Anyway he is reaching out to the Blogosphere to ask for some help/advice in how to respond. If you are such a person or know such a person he would like to talk to you.