Three Rivers, Michigan has two active forums where residents and non residents alike are invited to join and contribute to any one of the many discussions that take place there. The forums are similar in content but also have very distinct differences. I moderate the Liberty1st forum and Cayce, a friend of mine, moderates the other.  

The two forums are the Liberty1st forum and the Citizens of Peace forum. You can check the last 20 topics from each forum here.

House Bill 4643 passed on the House Floor today

HB 4643, Sponsor Rep. Rick Jones. Weapons; licensing; issuance of concealed pistol license renewal; require within certain period of time. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).

This Bill involves CPL Renewal Delay Problems. If the concealed weapon licensing board does not issue or deny issuance of a renewal license within the 60-day period, the period for the original license is extended for 180 days or until a renewal license is issued or denied.

The full text of the Bill can be read at the following link: HB-4643 MCRGO continues to develop, monitor and advocate legislation consistent with our Mission Statement: "Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation"

Titled: Gun Owners Should Worry About Property Rights Ruling

The recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court legislating away property rights in the United States should give pause to all gun owners, as well as all Americans.

The plain language of the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to the taking of private property for public purposes. "Public purposes" has been understood for more than 200 years to consist of roads, government buildings and similar public uses. This is still the general understanding by all but a handful of folks in black dresses.

The idea that the owner of a higher tax-yielding use should be able to get the government to grab another owner's property and give it to the user that pays higher taxes is quite simply a theft. In one afternoon, the Supreme Court has done away with private property in the U.S.

Do gun owners think they will remain immune from such tyrants? Already, at various times, six of the nine justices have said that U.S. law should conform to foreign law -- especially European law and UN treaties. How long until our gun laws are made to conform to say, England's, where they have an almost total gun ban?

Just adding another whack to the dead horse. This was also posted at the Liberty1st forum.

Ripped off from Cowboy Blob's Saloon, Smokehouse, and Shootin Gallery.

David Codrea asks a great question.

If real property can be taken away from its owner by a community based on the plunderer's definition of "public good," why can't tangibile property be similarly confiscated?

Things like guns...?

He's right. Using the term "public good" as loosely as the court did to take away someone's property opens up a door that we may never fully shut again. If they can take someone's home what's to stop them from taking anything else? Nothing.

Titled:  U.S. Gun Sales on the Rise

Gun sales in the United States are shooting up, according to current and projected firearms sale figures from gunmaker Smith & Wesson Corp.

The 153-year-old Massachusetts company Wednesday said firearms sales for fiscal 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 11 percent over fiscal 2004 levels.

Hey I am part of a trend.

Arkansas and Michigan now have an official reciprocity agreement.

Some follow up to the CPL legislation mentioned yesterday.

Titled: Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

We The People have a Constitutional Right and Duty to protect our families and ourselves. Had this woman a pistol and the will to use it for protection the only one dead would be the estranged husband.

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4643 (Revise CPL renewal deadlines)

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on April 20, 2005, to require a county concealed pistol licensing board to approve or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) license renewal application within 60 days of its submission, and if they do not, extend the original license by 180 days, or until the renewal application is approved or denied.

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4642 (Allow spouse to transport pistol)

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on April 20, 2005, to allow an individual to carry or transport a pistol belonging to his or her spouse if it is properly licensed and inspected, and if the individual carrying or transporting it has also obtained a license to carry or transport.

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4522 (Exempt veterans from CPL training)

Introduced by Rep. Joel Sheltrown on March 17, 2005, to exempt honorably discharged veterans from the state’s Concealed Pistol Permit (CPL) safety training requirement.

Aphapatriot does a nice job of comparing strict gun laws in the UK with a rise in violence there. Read part 1 here.

Stay tuned for part 2.

Say Uncle, a long time eminent domain abuse protagonist makes note of some events surrounding the recent Kelo decision. For more information on this topic there is an Eminent Domain Blog here as well as an activist website here.

It's a start.

Titled: What is Neolibertarianism?

What is Neolibertarianism? Frankly, it's a question we've been asking at the QandO weblog since we began popularizing it last year. Often, the idea of Libertarianism has reminded me of Justice Potter Stewart's thoughts about obscenity. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it," he declared.

That was good enough for Justice Stewart perhaps, but he was only interpreting the Constitution. We, on the other hand, are beginning publication of a journal that we hope will begin defining the fundamental intellectual and philosophical underpinnings of Neolibertarianism. If you're going to do that, then you should probably have a clear understanding of what Neolibertarianism is.

Much of what follows will be a comparison between Neolibertarianism and the more traditional sort of libertarianism, which we call Paleolibertarianism. In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to adherents to the former as Neos and the latter as Paleos.

In a nutshell the philosophy of the Neos breaks down like this:

1. When given a public policy problem, the solution that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
2. The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
3. The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.

And Foreign Policy:

1. A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
2. A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.

The strategy is similar to that of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is if you can't beat them, then join them and reform them. I like it. I also tend to agree with their take on the futility of the Libertarian Party's chances of success on the national stage. Read more about that here.

Titled: Election 2008: Liberal Dem 40% Conservative GOP 39%

Election 2008 will be a toss-up if Democrats nominate a liberal candidate and Republicans nominate a conservative. A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 40% of Americans say they would vote for a liberal Democrat and 39% for a Conservative Republican.

The survey also found that if both parties nominate a moderate candidate, the Democrats have a 42% to 38% advantage. Obviously, events over the next three years could change these figures in either direction, but the survey generally shows an electorate that remains evenly split between the two parties.

I can only hope that this is how the election plays out but I, for one, am not holding my breath that the Republicans will actually nominate a real conservative. When was the last time that happened? Oh yea it was Ronald Reagan, who by the way, was only one of the most popular presidents in modern time. Why would Republicans want to repeat such success? It is so much safer to run with quasi conservatives like Bush, McCain and so many other RINOs that seem to populate the Republican party.

As a side note it would be interesting to see which way the moderate vote goes. I suppose it would have a lot to do with the individual candidates but I would love to see an election based solely on conservative vs liberal where the personalities are equally matched and the only thing that separates them is politics.

I am not sure if Zendo Deb meant to do this or not but she provides a great juxtaposition of how Britain and the U.S differ when it comes to self protection.

First we have Brits may get right to fight back followed by Oklahoma defends right to Keep and Bear Arms. In the first example the question is whether British citizens should be allowed to defend themselves against intruders. The fact that this question has to be debated at all is mind blowing enough. However when you consider that previous legislation was defeated because the Attorney General argued that burglars have rights also, you really have to question whether the end of Western Civilization has already begun. In the second example the Oklahoma legislature signed into law a bill that would prohibit cooperations from limiting an employee's right to self protection (in America). Maybe there is hope for Western Civilization after all.

Titled: Proposed ban on affirmative action incites fiesty debate

The proposed constitutional amendment would ban the use of race and gender in university admissions, government hiring and contracting. But the panel and an audience generally supportive of affirmative action failed to reach consensus about what has happened in other states where similar plans have been enacted, or what specific Michigan programs would be affected under MCRI.

Enough said. Oh I wish it were so.

But Frank Wu, dean of the Wayne State University Law School, said consideration of race in university admissions is necessary to compensate for lingering discrimination. Everyone wants our major institutions to reflect the diversity of our society, Wu said, but "it doesn't happen automatically."

How do you compensate lingering discrimination without additional discrimination?

Denise from the Ten Ring does a nice job of categorizing anti-gun people here. In part II, which can be found here she offers some suggestions in how to deal with arguments from each group.

A couple of really great posts I found via Say Uncle.

Titled: Michigan's threat from concealed weapons

If you plan a trip to Michigan, you may want to check your life insurance policy, update your will and don your body armor. Come Sunday, unless the state supreme court intervenes, it will start letting residents get permits to carry concealed weapons. Gun-control advocates are braced for the worst.

"I can guarantee you that I've honked my last horn at an intersection in Michigan," former prosecutor L. Brooks Patterson told the Tribune's Tim Jones. A disgusted Oakland County official threatened to put up billboards saying "Welcome to Dodge City." Police groups say their members will be in jeopardy from "more guns in more and more locations."

Of course Michigan is already a risky place to honk your horn. Its homicide rate has long been well above the national average. Detroit currently places third in the ongoing competition to be the murder capital of the United
States. And things can only get much worse if lots of Michiganders take to packing heat, right?

It's a little dated but makes a great point anyway. You have to read the whole thing because the teaser is a bait and switch for anti-gun propaganda. It was written just prior to the time the "Shall Issue" law went into effect in Michigan. Four years later it hasn't gotten more danerous. In fact the statistics show something quite dfferent.

I am not saying that one is related to the other but those are the numbers. You can see the numbers yourself on the pdf file that the State of Michigan compiled them on.

Well after procrastinating for the last eight months I am going to, in a matter of speaking, bite the bullet and apply for my CPL. I took the course back in October of 2004 but just haven't got around to applying for the license. Anyway I'm starting the paperwork now. I'll let you all know how it goes.

Memorial Day Three Rivers, MI. May 30th 2005

Veterans, Thank you.

Everything you wanted to know about Michigan's CPL but didn't know where to ask.

Michigan House Bill 4694

(Authorize concealed pistol for certain state employees): Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet on April 28, 2005, to allow state workers with concealed pistol permits (CPLs) to carry a concealed firearm when doing off-site inspections on private property as part of their duties. Under current law, CPL holders doing inspections for the state (such as Family Independence Agency workers making home visits) are not permitted to carry while on duty.

Text on the bill can be read here.

For immediate release

Michigan residents with CCW permits now will no longer have to worry about their permit lapsing during renewal process and will be able to carry their spouse's registered weapon under legislation introduced by Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

Under current law, if the board does not decide on renewal or rejection prior to the expiration of the CCW, the permit holder can no longer use the permit until renewed. Jones' measure would extend the existing permit until the board issues or denies the renewal.

"Renewal applicants are law-abiding people. If they were going to commit a crime, they wouldn't be applying for a renewal," Jones said. "This decreases the amount of bureaucratic red tape and worry placed on residents when renewing a concealed weapons permit."

Jones is also introducing legislation to allow permit holders to carry a weapon registered to their spouse.

"Rather than make a husband and wife buy another gun, we let the CCW holder carry their spouse's," Jones said. "This is just plain common sense and makes the CCW permit more user-friendly to the good law-abiding residents of Michigan".

Text and Analysis:
House Bill 4642 (2005)
House Bill 4643 (2005)

Link and text via the MCRGO.

Rep. Ronald Paul from Texas has introduced H.R. 1703 to restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. The text of the bill can be found here.