All of those words and you did not address my point at all. YOU GUYS WANT THE LAWS. When you have the laws, your side doesn't enforce them. So what is the point of new laws that will similarly go unenforced?Since cray and doc liked your post I'll address all three of you as if you all agree...
I'm pretty sure that MI's law is not an additional law, as prior to the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision, it would have been illegal anywhere in the US to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle. So it wasn't MI that abolished sensible laws, it was the GOP Legislatures that mandated open carry. It's even a hugely popular cause among the right to push for "constitutional carry", the notion that open carry laws superceded any states ability to restrict open carry in their jurisdiction...
So my first assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong... The pro-gun crowd on this board believes in the concept of open carry as a constitutional right. And at least as it pertains to you three, if you believe it is your "right" to open carry, that would mean you believe having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is also a "right"...
Again correct me if I'm wrong... So unless you feel that right only extends to certain folks, would you say that the crime of having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is not really a crime, but rather a "constitutional right"? And if you're going to say "it's MI law" and make that distinction I'll remind you that none of you were willing to apply that distinction when it came to Rittenhouse and his violation of WI law. Again, correct me if I'm wrong and any of you argued against that charge being dropped by the judge...
So my point is that it's the height of cynicism and basically hypocrisy to now attack the "liberal" prosecutor because he declined to prosecute a law that none of you personally agree with. Esp since you oppose the law itself and seemingly agree with activist Legislatures who have basically done away with the law that you're now upset wasn't enforced?
I disagree with the Prosecutors decision not to prosecute just as I disagree with the judge throwing out the violations of WI law that Rit was guilty of. But that's because I agree with both laws, and I don't believe in open carry as some sort of a right.
I just see it as a cynical self serving argument to conveniently blame the DA for not enforcing a law you disagree with. The reality is had the stop occurred in IN it would not have been a crime and YOU personally prefer the IN scenario. So now you disingenuously want to use this as an example of gun laws (which you hate) not being enforced?
But again if any of you do actually think it should be against the law to carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle, then I apologize for lumping you in with the hypocrites...
Forget what I do or do not want, it is immaterial to the argument you were making. You are arguing there should be more laws to stop gun crime. The laws were in place in Michigan, a progressive DA did not enforce them, and a guy who, by the laws you all claim to want, should not have legally been allowed to have a gun, managed to not only have one but use it to murder several people. So again, your argument against my point that there is no point in having the laws in place of progressive DAs will not enforce them is to say, "Well you all don't want laws anyway!"
Why should law abiding citizens give up a right because of criminals that gun grabbers refuse to throw the book at?
Last edited: