Titled: AG Sprays Machine Gun Opinion (registration required)

Anyone who lawfully — key word being lawfully — owned a federally registered machine gun on or before May 19, 1986, can keep the gun and transfer it if the transfer is approved by the U.S. Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Attorney General Mike COX issued his opinion about the possession and transfer of federally registered machine guns in response to a request Rep. Leon DROLET (R-Clinton Twp.).

Mike SESSA Jr., who lives in Harrison Township and has worked with Drolet since the early 1990s to advocate for Second Amendment rights, sent the request to Drolet.

There was some confusion as to whether a license was needed to obtain the gun. The question was whether the document that has to be filled out in order to get a license is actually considered a "license." According to the Cox opinion, the document is enough to qualify as a license because it follows all federal guidelines.

Anyone who doesn't meet the requirements and fill out the documents but possesses a machine gun can go to jail under state and federal law.

So now you know

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 1

After the law (concealed carry) was passed, many people had concerns of out-of-control violent crime, and western style gunfights in the streets.

That didn't happen, and, according to the 2003 Michigan Uniform Crime Report, Michigan experienced a 10 percent drop in violent crime between 1999 - a year before the CCW law was passed - and 2003.

For now, an individual can still be held responsible for taking a life, no matter what pretenses surround the death. The people who received a CPL know this and have serious concerns about the price that they would pay if forced to defend themselves or their family.

"I could be perfectly justified in what I've done," said Rick Hansen, co-owner of Silver Bullet Firearms, located at 5121 S. Division Ave. "And Kent County could burn me on a criminal trial which could cost as much as $50,000 in lawyer fees, even if I'm not convicted."

"Then a year and half down the road, say a relative comes up to me Are you Rick Hansen?' And because some kid strung out on drugs came into my home, and I defended myself, I could be sued in a civil trial, which could cost another $50,000," Hansen said.

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 2

Because violent crime rates continue to decrease in Michigan, coinciding with the CCW law passed in 2000, it is hard for the pro-gun community to understand the concerns gun-control advocates still harbor.

Lt. Ralph Mason, public information officer for the Grand Rapids Police Department, hasn't seen any of his initial concerns about the CCW law come to fruition.

"We really haven't had the problems that some people thought we would. I'm still not in favor of it. But I personally thought we would have a significant problem," Mason said.

A decrease in violent crime doesn't mean people are ready to loosen gun laws, according to Shikha Hamilton, state president of the Michigan Million Mom March, a chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Unless gun bills relate to hunting, generally the general public doesn't support it. We don't take an anti-gun stance. This is just an unreasonable bill," Hamilton said.

"That is the biggest challenge working in Michigan," Hamilton said. "When you have the legislature falling in line with the gun lobby and not representing their constituents."

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

Just in case you missed the latest occurence of government intrusion into the lives of everyday folk, Kipper at xrlq.com has a round up of California's new laws that came into effect this week.

Most of you are aware of the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation. Something you may not be aware of is its policy of "impartiality" in reporting. By this I mean that both sides of an argument are given equal weighting, despite any moral or ethical imbalance implicit in the first place. With asymetrical warfare, such as terrorists against the US forces, this results in news articles that refuse to acknowledge right and wrong, all in the name of good journalism.

Take, for example, today's report: Two killed as Israel strikes car.

At first glance, this sounds like Israel has just murdered two random, innocent people on their way to a community picnic. It is not until the ninth paragraph that we are informed that the occupants were a local commander of the Islamic Jihad organization, and his lieutenant, both dressed in military fatigues.

I am not trying to address the rights and wrongs of the israeli / arab conflict here, just illustrating the way the BBC has of  distorting the coverage through editorial policy.

Titled: Martin backs effort to keep gun-crime suspects in jail; race tightens

Martin agreed to support "reverse onus" bail conditions, which would require those accused of gun crimes to demonstrate why they should be released. The promise was part of a pledge during a Saturday phone call to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller, who have vowed to end the gun violence that most recently claimed the life of a 15-year-old Toronto girl...

...Reid acknowledged that the reverse onus provision will require justification under the Charter of Rights, but the Liberals believe the courts will recognize that "the importance of protecting citizens against gun violence is paramount."

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago has upheld a verdict in favor of General Motors, after a born-again Christian employee sued the automaker for religious discrimination. The case stemmed from 43-year-old computer engineer John Moranski, who petitioned GM to form a company-sponsored Christian group.

Moranski's attorney argued that the manufacturer sponsors 'affinity groups' for minorities including women, gay men and women, veterans, disabled people, and racial and ethnic groups, and the manufacturer's refusal to create a similar group for Christians violated their client's civil rights.

The automaker has a blanket policy to refuse sponsorship to any groups centering on religious or political grounds. In a nine-page ruling, the court found no merit in Moranski's arguments tying his claim to the 1964 Civil Rights Act's Title VII provision (prohibiting discrimination based upon color, race. religion, sex, or national origin).

This being the season for new resolutions and other such leaps into the unknown, I very quickly snatched the "Blogger Required" sign from the window and sent Buck a long and winding email. Something must have clicked, because after a flurry of messages, a password followed allowing me access to this very blog. And who am I, you may be asking? Well, I'm an ex-Brit, who chased a dream all the way to frosty Michigan. I hope to bring a little different perspective to the discussions on this blog and hopefully prompt some of you to become frequent commenters, contributors and active advocates for the cause of liberty.

It's going to take me a couple of days to get up to speed but I'll leave you with something hopefully a little more revealing: a meme for new bloggers stolen and adapted shamelessly from Seeing the Forest:

Why I'm A Guest Blogger

Four of your favorite foods: 
Steak and Roast Potatoes 
Special House Lo Mein
Melted cheese on toast
Hungry Howies 5 item pizzas

Four movies you could watch over and over:
Lawrence of Arabia
The Full Monty
Snatch
Amelie

I have this web space that, for the most part, is going to waste. I just don't have the time to devote to it it anymore and haven't for a long time. Anyway I hate to see this space go to waste so much so that I am looking for someone interested in Blogging (a Blogger wannabe) to help the Liberty 1st Blog reach its a potential audience.

So if you are a right of center libertarian (or a Conservative purist) who always wanted to try out Blogging but didn't have the web space or don't know how to get started this may be the perfect opportunity for you.

Email me at "blog at Liberty1st.org" for more info.

Titled: MCRGO wins in Kent County!

Today, MCRGO Counsel David Bieganowski called with very good news: MCRGO has prevailed in its lawsuit against Kent County!

You may recall that some time ago MCRGO challenged Kent County's arbitrary requirement that all CPL applicants complete and submit additional 'customized forms'. Chief among them was a form--requiring a physician's signature--attesting to an applicant's 'mental health'.

Predictably, physicians routinely refused to sign such a form. Without a 'Doctor's note', applicants would then be required to attend a gun board meeting in person or even denied their CPL effectively undermining the intent of the 'shall issue' clause within State's statute. Note that Kent County was the only one of Michigan's 83 Counties to adopt such a requirement.

Based on statute, Kent County Chief Circuit Court Judge Paul Sullivan has ruled as follows:

"Mental Status Verification Forms are 'void and unenforceable".

His ruling also negates Kent County's additional requirement that applicants disclose name or address changes for the past 8 years.

We are pleased that the Michigan CPL statute MCRGO worked so hard to implement continues to withstand such legal challenges. Our goal then was to pass crystal clear language that would withstand 'creative 'interpretion' later. Judge Sullivan's ruling demonstrates once again that MCRGO has succeeded.

We thank Judge Sullivan for his jurisprudence and stand by our fundamental position:

Once an applicant has been 'cleared' by the F.B.I. and completed the intensive training required by law, s/he shall be granted their constitutional right to self-defense.

See the original news item for more info and how you can help win these battles over individual liberty.

I have had one for a couple of months now and just haven't got around to bragging blogging about it yet. It was my first semi automatic purchase and I absolutely love it. Prior to purchasing it I had considered a Springfield Armory XD40 but a friend of mine had this Sig, which at the time had only had 100 or so rounds run through it that he wanted to sell on the cheap. Anyway, long story short, it was an offer I couldn't refuse and now I am very glad I didn't.

Suddenly I am a Sig P229 enthusiast (read obsessed). If you are a Sig enthusiast also be sure to check out the Sig Forum here.

Titled: Mi. House votes to place Second Amendment plaque on Capitol grounds

A plaque honoring the right to bear arms would be placed near the state Capitol under legislation approved Wednesday by the state House.

The House voted 108-0 to send the Senate a bill that would require the Michigan Capitol Park Commission to place the plaque near the Capitol or in the adjacent mall area. The plaque would be installed once enough private money is collected for a foundation to which it could be attached.

The plaque, which was created by the Iosco County-based gun rights group Brass Roots, is made of more than 18,000 empty shells collected at a 1994 rally at the Capitol. It measures 4 feet by 6 feet and is inscribed with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and a similar provision in the state constitution.

Rep. Leon Drolet, a Republican from Macomb County's Clinton Township who sponsored the bill, said the intent is for the monument to be funded completely with private dollars

The best part of that is that it was done with private money. Awesome!

Titled: THE BATTLE LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Gun control advocates failed earlier this year to stop a Florida law allowing people to use deadly force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution from being signed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

They aren't going to let it happen again.

The battle in Michigan over the so-called deadly force legislation is an important one for both sides. It could open the doors to similar laws across the country - a top priority for the National Rifle Association - or stop the effort in its tracks.

Titled: Michigan Bills would allow deadly force on intruders

Michigan residents could fatally shoot someone who breaks into their home or vehicle without facing criminal or civil prosecution under new legislation.

A two-bill package introduced today would assume that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or an occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. It is patterned after a law signed earlier this year in Florida.

The bills also would eliminate the requirement that people who are being attacked have to retreat before responding

Last month I posted this, Canada Blames Us. Well here is the rebuttal.

Any urge to point the finger at the U.S. for weapons smuggled across the border is simply misguided, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins diplomat said Thursday. "I don't think it's fair," he told The Canadian Press in an interview.

Canadians seeking a scapegoat should look in the mirror, he suggested.

"The majority of guns coming from the United States are purchased by Canadian citizens," Wilkins said.

"(This is) in violation of our state laws - and (they're) smuggled back across the border in violation of your laws."

Isn't that the problem with all gun laws? Law breakers, by nature, don't obey them anyway.

Titled: New Zealand rated most business-friendly

The World Bank said Tuesday that it had concluded that New Zealand was the most business-friendly country in the world and that Serbia and Montenegro made the biggest pro-business changes last year.

A World Bank study showed that New Zealand and Singapore were the easiest countries to do business in. The United States came in third, followed by Canada.

Ouch that hurts.

The Liberty1st forum has been a little slow lately so this is a reminder and/or an invitation to join the forum and get involved in one of the many discussions that take place there.

Titled: Thoughts on the wording of the Second Amendment

Most of the controversy over the Second Amendment arises from the fact that it has both a "militia clause," stating that a well regulated militia is essential, and then the "right to arms" clause. Prof. Volokh's article The Commonplace Second Amendment points out that the use of a prefatory clause stating a purpose was quite common in State constitution drafting of the time. (This makes sense. The idea of judicial review, of a court striking down laws as unconstitutional, was undeveloped at the time. As the Jefferson-Madison letters on the idea of a bill of rights suggest, a bill of rights could be seen as establishing certain rights beyond controversy, not to guide the courts, but to let the people know clearly when rights had been infringed, so that they might vote the scoundrels out, rise up in arms, or otherwise react en masse. So why not state why a right was important?)

It turns out Madidson did. Read the rest of the post to find out what it is he said.

2005 House Bill 4977 (Make CPL expire on birthday)

Introduced by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand on June 21, 2005, to revise the expiration date of concealed pistol licenses (CPL) so that they are the same as individual's date of birth. Specifically, the license would expire on the first birthday that occurs starting five years after the date the license is issued.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 21, 2005.
• Reported in the House on September 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

2005 House Bill 4978 (Ban CPL for illegal alien)

Introduced by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand on June 21, 2005, to prohibit issuing a concealed pistol license (CPL) unless the issuing agency has determined that the individual is not barred under federal law from possessing or transporting a firearm, and is not an illegal alien.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 21, 2005.
• Reported in the House on September 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

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.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on April 20, 2005. Reported in the House on June 23, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
• Substitute offered in the House on September 8, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not limit its application to a person's spouse, but instead allow an individual to carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol belonging to another individual, if the other individual's pistol were properly licensed and inspected, and the individual carrying or transporting the pistol had obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol .
• The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on September 8, 2005.

Titled: Michigan Bills would allow deadly force on intruders

Michigan residents could fatally shoot someone who breaks into their home or vehicle without facing criminal or civil prosecution under legislation introduced Wednesday.

The two-bill package would assume that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant.

Although I think it is ridiculous that we need our legislatures permission to defend ourselves. I am happy they are writing it specifically into Michigan law.

The bills also would eliminate the requirement that people who are being attacked have to retreat before responding, as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be.

Republican Reps. Tom Casperson of Escanaba and Rick Jones of Grand Ledge introduced the bills. They said the legislation will prevent residents from having to worry about whether they are justified in using force to defend their families and property.

"This legislation makes it clear that you will not be prosecuted or sued for defending your life, family or property in your own home," Casperson said in a written statement. "This will prevent criminals or their families from suing victims for injury or death."

That sounds about right. Of course not everyone in Michigan agrees with it or shares my enthusiasm for this legislation.

Carolynne Jarvis of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence criticized the legislation. She was an outspoken opponent of a 2001 law that made it easier to get a license to carry a concealed weapon in Michigan.

"When concealed carry was expanded in Michigan, the rational was that guns only would be used as a last result. This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort," she said. "It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date ... than you are an intruder."

Sound familiar? Its the same kind of nonsense we heard back when the whole CCW debate started. The MCRGO has more info here.