| Author | Post |
|---|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 12:46 pm |
|
Sheldon wrote: Venator wrote: Sheldon wrote: Venator wrote:
Kind of old news here. Since I'm the one that put all three opinions together some time ago and have included it in our info packet for over 6 months.
Ah yes but you forget those of us that need bigger easer to read un cluttered fonts, I post for that group as well.
Like me? I don't know what that has to do with posting old information?
so which looks better and is easer to read a cluttered post with a lot of information that is repeated a lot or.... I can read either one. But then I have glasses to correct MY vision. 
|
Sheldon
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Battle Creek |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
Bronson wrote:
There are states that offer non-resident permits or allow non-residents to obtain a permit.
Bronson
Just a little history:
yep N before Mi passed it's shall issue law, state residents flocked to get out of state permits which the state recognized. We had the highly coveted "General Permit" which was all but impossible to obtain, so this was one way they plugged that gap. After they did that is when the big push to enact the shall issue law.
|
Sheldon
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Battle Creek |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:34 pm |
|
Venator wrote: I can read either one. But then I have glasses to correct MY vision.
so do I but the question is which one is easer on the eyes?
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 11:15 pm |
|
Sheldon wrote: Venator wrote: NO, Venator didn't write the one below, I did. I can read either one. But then I have glasses to correct MY vision.
so do I but the question is which one is easer on the eyes?
All I know is, I can get by just fine with this normal sized font.
|
ChuckB
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 11:17 pm |
|
I think the smaller font is easier on the eyes to be honest....But then again I'm notas long in the tooth as some of the others 
|
SpringerXDacp
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 12:37 am |
|
Mike wrote: Interesting that all of a sudden this year, just like Connecticut authorities clarifying that open carry is legal in Connecticut, Michigan authorities have done same:
"Open carry of firearms
Subject to MCL 750.234d, it is legal to carry a visible pistol in public."
Source: Michigan State Police Legal Update No. 66 (June 16, 2008), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._66_238184_7.pdf.
Back On Topic
IMO, this is due to gun forums, such as: OCDO, GT & MGO and all the members who sent letters to the/their local PD's and Sheriff's Dept. I thank all of you for what you have done.
|
mvpel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
So essentially, MCL 28.432 makes it impossible for a resident of Vermont and Illinois, and most residents of New Jersey, New York, California, to legally POSSESS a pistol in the state of Michigan.
That's begging for a legal challenge, ain't it?
|
Big Gay Al
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
mvpel wrote: So essentially, MCL 28.432 makes it impossible for a resident of Vermont and Illinois, and most residents of New Jersey, New York, California, to legally POSSESS a pistol in the state of Michigan.
That's begging for a legal challenge, ain't it?
Probably, but I think that would take a resident from one of those states to challenge it, and said resident would need deep pockets to afford such a challenge.
|
Current time is 01:14 pm | Page:   1 2 3 |
|
