Swamp Wars and Illegal Immigration....

I enjoy watching Swamp Wars, featuring the Venom 1 team of the Miami-Dade fire department.  One of the re-runs shown over the weekend documented the rescue of a large iguana that had gotten stuck in a chain link fence.  The officer successfully freed the animal from the fence, then put it into a pet carrier for transport.  As she did so, a neighbor asked to see the iguana, wondering aloud why it was necessary to remove it from the area.  The officer explained that, since the iguana was an invasive species, it would have been illegal to release it back into the wild.  The neighbor protested that such iguanas were seen all the time in the neighborhood; she didn't think that they represented a problem.  Then she made this statement:

"I don't think it's fair that an animal, just because it's not native of this territory, should be, you know, removed because of that. Being American equals to being an immigrant."

Wow.  Open borders logic applied not only to illegal immigration, but now to invasive species as well.  A person or an animal is American by virtue of migrating (as opposed to immigrating) here - regardless of the method of entry or the damage that might be caused.  I am 100% in favor of legal immigration; my own family came to be in this country that way four generations ago. But LEGAL is the operative word.  Anything else is invasive.

SB59 Being Debated In MI State Senate Now - Contact Your Senator NOW!!!

This bill will provide for concealed carry in pistol free zones (among other things).

"Under the legislation, permit holders would be allowed to carry guns in the so-called “pistol-free zones” if they undergo an extra nine hours of training beyond the current eight.
They also would have to fire an extra 94 rounds at the range beyond the 98 the legislation requires for a basic permit. Just 30 rounds are required now."

Gun on his hip, state Sen. Arlan Meekhof demonstrates his support for allowing concealed handguns in schools and other public places | MLive.com

I am urging everyone to contact their Michigan State Senator to urge them to vote for an amended version of SB 59.  As you can see above, this bill would permit CPL holders to concealed carry (CC) in a "pistol free" zone if they take additional class hours, fire nearly three more boxes of ammo, and then REQUEST an exception to "pistol free" zones.  Someone with a CPL who chooses to open carry (OP) in a "pistol free" zone, however, may do so without any additional class hours or anything else required in this bill.  This is fundamentally discriminatory under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, places an undue burden on those who have a Constitutional Right to CC in these areas, and is a violation of the recent federal district court (Maryland) ruling which states that the mere existence of the right in the Second Amendment (also stated in the Michigan Constitution) is all the justification we need to exercise our right to carry; legislation adding requirements to this right amounts to "rationing" of the right (Judge Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan, 2012).


We need to flood the offices of our state senators (Michigan legislature) with calls/emails/faxes urging them to amend SB 59 to eliminate the additional requirements and to establish OC/CC parity with regard to the right to carry in so-called "gun free" zones in Michigan.  Links to the Michigan State Legislative Directory can be found in the right column of this blog.


There is no time to lose.

MI House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger and Second Amendment Rights.....

He claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.  And yet, when faced with the possibility that Michigan Senate Bill 59 (SB 59), a bill that will, among other things, eliminate gun free zones for holders of concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) who have gone through an ADDITIONAL 9 hours of training (over and above the 8 hours required now to receive a CPL) and REQUEST an exemption from the zones, might actually pass, he gave the following warning to the Michigan House of Representatives (read this statement carefully):

"I support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as Michigan’s Constitution as they both protect our citizen’s right to bear arms.  Therefore, I support allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons.
 Unfortunately, we have many horrific cases that show that banning concealed weapons in certain places does not deter those who would harm innocent people.

However, this legislation will require significant discussion in the House. This is an emotional issue and I understand and respect that there is significant disagreement among our residents. If it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to undergo its own fact finding, testimony from the public, and the bill will receive full and careful deliberation."

SB 59 spent over a year in the Senate Judiciary Committee being studied, deliberated, and testified to before it was finally passed out of committee to the full senate for a vote (scheduled at this time for the week of April 20).  But not satisfied with this level of due diligence, the Speaker has put the House on notice that he expects them to spend even more time, money, and energy debating an issue that has already been put to rest by the Federal District Court of Maryland.  His reasoning?  "This is an emotional issue..."


The statement above first appeared in an interview with West Michigan reporters on March 27, 2012.  Following that interview, I sent Speaker Bolger a letter detailing the case to move expeditiously when SB 59 passes in the Senate, and asking him on the basis of the evidence to reconsider his instructions to the House to study this issue to death.  In an emailed response, he sent me the same statement he gave to the press, containing the same rationale shown above.


In response, I emailed Speaker Bolger the following letter, which I now post as an open letter to Rep. Bolger, once again asking him to reconsider his instructions to the Michigan House.  I ask all like-minded individuals to take the time to contact his office to voice your displeasure as well.

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate your reply.  However, I cannot be in stronger disagreement with your position.

With all due respect, we do not decide the exercise of Constitutional Rights based upon the anticipated "emotional" response that might be engendered by the exercise of the protected right.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of speech based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of religion based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of press, or association, or due process or protection from illegal search and seizure based upon emotional considerations.

As Judge Legg opined in his recent U.S. District Court decision, we decide the exercise of these rights based upon the fact that the rights EXIST.  Period.  That is all the justification we need.

I can point to dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents throughout our history that would support the case for limiting the exercise of the freedom of speech or press or religion - the exercise of each of these rights engender emotional responses that have led to all manner of emotional outcry by detractors.  And yet, we not only protect the exercise of these rights, we celebrate their exercise!

The same must be true with regard to the RIGHT protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.  Does the issue of firearms carry engender an emotional response?  Absolutely.  But just as it is true that this is not a consideration that hampers the free exercise of all of our other Constitutionally protected RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, so you cannot base your decision to continue limiting what federal courts have declared to be a basic right, the exercise thereof requiring no justification other than the existence of the right - the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in our own defense - on the argument that "[T]his is an emotional issue."

Sir, with all due respect, your continued reticence to implement the FULL EXERCISE of our Second Amendment right flies in the face of the oath that you took upon entering the Michigan legislature:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative according to the best of my ability."

Your duty is to protect and support the exercise of all of the rights prescribed in both Constitutions - regardless of the emotional response they might engender from detractors.

Respectfully,

Speaker Bolger can be reached at the following:

House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger 1-877-BOLGER-1 (office) 517-373-9119 (fax) JamesBolger@house.mi.gov