🚀 go-pugleaf

Power to the people? Patriots arise and defend your country from freedom
robbers foreign and domestic!


Gun law spurs no violence - No problems arising from concealed weapons
permits.

By PATRICK SULLIVAN
Original URL: http://www.record-eagle.com/2002/apr/07guns.htm

      TRAVERSE CITY - Nine months after a state law that allows most people
over the age of 21 to qualify for a concealed weapons permit, worries that
gun violence would soar have not materialized and few glitches in the law
have been reported.

      "It's obvious that people aren't shooting each other over traffic
disputes, there's no blood in the street," said David Bieganowski, a
Traverse City lawyer and chapter president of the Michigan Coalition for
Responsible Gun Owners.

      Michigan law was changed July 1, 2001, to allow citizens over 21 to
receive a concealed weapons permit if they have completed a gun safety
course unless they have been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors
or have a history of mental illness.

      Bieganowski, who is also a National Rifle Association certified
firearms instructor and teaches the legal section of the gun safety course
at several sportsman's clubs, said the biggest complaint he has heard is
from people who have been denied permits because they have been cited for
driving with an expired license plate.

      Because the law bars anyone with certain misdemeanors within the past
eight years or any misdemeanor within the past three years from getting a
permit, a violation for driving with an expired plate, a misdemeanor in
Michigan, forces gun boards to deny permits.

      Department of Natural Resources fishing violations can also cause an
applicant a three-year delay in obtaining a permit.

      "I'm sure it was an unintended consequence," Bieganowski said. "They
call me and I tell them to call their state representative because I can't
do anything about it."

      The overwhelming majority of people who apply for permits are granted
them, according to records kept by the Michigan State Police and county
clerks.

      In Grand Traverse County, 454 people have applied. Of those, five have
been denied, 352 have been approved, and 97 are pending. Across northwest
Lower Michigan, 2,273 people have applied, 14 have been denied, 1,798 have
been approved and 461 are pending.

      Across the region, just over 10 percent of the applicants are women.
Of the 1,798 permits approved, 182 went to women.

      The level of interest shown by women prompted Bieganowski to hold a
"women-only" concealed weapon training course at the Cedar Rod & Gun Club in
June. The class, announced last month, has already almost filled.

      "Women seem to light up a bit when they hear 'women-only,' "
Bieganowski said.

      Many of the women who have already attended Bieganowski's classes are
wives of men who own handguns. Women are more likely to want a concealed
weapon permit for the purpose of personal protection than men, he said.

      "I'm sure the reasons are different and self-protection is the No. 1
reason for women, some men get them just out of principal," he said.

      No shootings in northern Michigan have been connected to concealed
weapon permit holders.

      Wilson Brott, a lawyer who has also provided legal training for
applicants, said the requirements to get a permit are meant to discourage
violence.

      "What we try to do is make sure people are real wary of even pulling
out your firearm," Brott said.

      The law also more severely restricts where people can carry a
concealed weapon. Forbidden areas include bars, schools, churches, day care
centers, hospitals and sports arenas.

      Missaukee County's gun board began issuing permits under the new law
months before it took effect and they have seen no problems with permit
holders, Missaukee Sheriff James Bosscher said.

      "Some people want them for traveling, some people want to carry, some
people want them just because it's their right," Bosscher said.

      Patrick Sullivan is the reporter for crime, courts and public safety.
He can be reached at (231) 933-xxxx, or at psullivan@record-eagle.com


> "Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He
and
> They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone
> else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no
> force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill
effect.
> In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such
> liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel
> any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the
> properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen and
the
> royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation, including
> but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had
> voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215]. This
> reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is
> the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in
which
> men have held it."
>
>
> --Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956

>
> > The gun can only be legally used for target shooting
> > there fore it should be stored where it is used.
>
> The gun can be used to lawfully defend ones person or property when
> threatened..... This is a fundamental right, and any law that states
> otherwise can be safely ignored. End of Story.
>
> Per Arbour and LeBel JJ. : Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code requires a
> subjective mens rea. Constitutional considerations aside, there is a
common
> law presumption that, absent a clear expression of Parliamentary intent, a
> person is not liable for a criminal offence in the absence of subjective
> mens rea. However, the elements of the offence must be distinguished from
> the evidentiary problems that arise in any offence where the trier of fact
> is called on to determine the subjective intent of an accused. To do this,
> the trier of fact must look at the externalities or objective indicia of
the
> accused's state of mind.
>      Under s. 88(1), an accused's subjective purpose must be one that is
> dangerous to the public peace. To avoid importing an objective element
into
> a purely subjective approach, the concept of a "purpose dangerous to the
> public peace" needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of s.
> 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing harm
to
> persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons or
> property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but
does
> require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.
>
>
>
>