Monday, October 31, 2005

How Could She Sue a Pro-Gun Senator?

I've watched slam after slam (mostly from the self-serving Charles R. Perricone, once-upon-a-time Speaker of the House) on how I am such a terrible person because I have included in my suit a supposedly pro-gun Senator, Alan Cropsey.

Short answer is, I believe in the law and Senator Cropsey isn't following it. He's one of the people who sat back and watched the law be broken and was fully aware of it.

But there's a longer answer as well.

Despite Mr Kliemann, also on MCRGO's Board of Directors, and his demand that I stop emailing any member of the Board that was also a sitting Legislator, I know who I sent emails, letters, etc. to. Senator Cropsey made the same decision to violate the laws and Bylaws that various other members of the Board did. If anything, frankly, I would think that his ethics, as a sitting Legislator, would demand that he follow the law, which he knew was legitimate, and the Bylaws of the organization he professes to love so well, not to mention those Court Orders that keep coming down the pipe.

Years ago, I explained to him that our Bylaws didn't allow for him to be the Legislative Chair. I pointed out the Bylaw, quoted the Bylaw - but no, the good Senator decided to heck with any of that. He'd do as he pleased and as Mr. Perricone pleased and on with the show.

Of late, he has even used his office to personally attack me to tens of thousands of Michigan citizens in an attempt to make them believe that I am wrong for expecting our organization, his and mine, to follow the law, the Bylaws and standing Court orders.

That would seem like enough, wouldn't it? Well, frankly, it is.

But let's take a look at that "Pro-Gun Senator" idea.

For the last seven months a very good Bill has been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which the Senator is Chair. For those of you who know how committees work, you know that if the Chair wants it to move, it will move.

H.B. 4186 would give everyone the full 5 years they are paying for when they apply for the Concealed Pistols License and was passed by the House 109-0 on March 23rd.


As it stands now, if someone has a CPL and then has to apply for a renewal, and they apply early to avoid letting their CPL run out before their renewal comes through, it is entirely possible to lose a month or two or even, as I did, four or more months. Introduced by Representative Tory Rocca in the first few days of February, 2005, the Bill would establish that when a person renews an expiring CPL, the starting date of the renewed license will be the expiration date of the old one, even if the person renews the license before it has expired.

Good Bill, seems sensible, no big deal, really. However, it was developed and offered by a Pro-Gun group that Senator Cropsey and Mr. Perricone, who served briefly as Speaker of the House and was then sent home, have decided are their "competition." How that works, I have no idea, but it's past time Senator Cropsey abandon that ill-founded idea and do more than give lip-service to the idea of being Pro-Gun.

Certainly, Mr. Perricone has been demonstrating for years that he was an Anti-Gunner, from working to establish Criminal Empowerment Zones to his recent interference with my Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a law abiding citizen.

But with Senator Cropsey heralding the Castle Doctrine Bill (also a good Bill) and shouting from the rooftops how Pro-Gun he is, I'm asking for some proof and so are a lot of other Pro-Gun activists.

H.B. 4186 is an excellent common sense Bill. It's been sitting waiting for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee since March 24th. Two-hundred-twenty-two days.

Move it, Senator Cropsey - the ball is in your Court, so to speak. Make it happen; you know you can. Put aside your feelings about the so-called competition and guide this Bill though to the success it deserves. Give CPL holders their money's worth.

Heaven knows gun owners are the reason you're in office. How about a little loyalty to your constituents?