Michigan’s Republican governor vetoes bill that would allow concealed carry in schools

posted at 6:51 pm on December 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

Disappointing but understandable. If even the NRA was sufficiently cowed by public reaction to Sandy Hook to keep silent until today, how much political leeway did the Republican governor of a blue state have to expand gun rights — in schools?

Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a bill this afternoon that would have allowed gun owners with extra training to carry their concealed weapons in schools, day care centers, churches and stadiums.

In his veto letter sent to the Legislature shortly before 4 p.m., Snyder said the bill had a fatal loophole that didn’t allow for those institutions to opt out of the new legislation and prohibit weapons from their buildings.

“I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” he said. “Each is entrusted with the care of a vulnerable population and should have the authority to determine whether its mission would be enhanced by the addition of concealed weapons.”

The bill passed the Michigan legislature, which is also controlled by Republicans, the day before the Connecticut rampage, so it was Snyder alone who was left to squirm here. He made no bones about what influenced him either:

Gov. Snyder said in a release sent to The Huffington Post that last Friday’s shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary led to a thorough review of the bill. Instead, he said he calls for a “more comprehensive review of issues relating to gun violence.” He has now ordered a multi-departmental assessment of the state’s services and needs regarding at-risk children.

“This type of violence often leaves society with more questions than answers,” Snyder said in the release. “The reasons for such appalling acts usually are numerous and complex. With that in mind, we must consider legislation like SB 59 in a holistic manner.”

It’s legal in Michigan to carry openly, just not concealed, so the stakes were low. Besides, for the moment, Snyder’s facing a nasty backlash over the right-to-work law he signed last week. Per PPP, the public opposes the RTW statute, 41/51. Snyder’s approval rating now stands at 38/56, down 28 points since early November, and the Republican legislature is even less popular than he is. This was an easy chance for him to get on the other side of them and to cash in some of the goodwill he earned from conservatives after taking on the local unions. If he has to endure a few weeks as a Democratic talking point in the great gun-control debate (“even Michigan’s Republican governor thinks…”) then, as a blue-state pol, he can live with that.

Via RCP, here’s what a red-state pol sounds like on the same issue.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

“I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” he said.

Except for the psychopaths who run rampant over a defenseless and captive crowd.

Unbelievable morons and cowards.

We just never learn the lessons of the Left: when on defense go on offense. It’s a basic model of survival the human body understands when viruses invade.

And this is why we’re losing. And will keep losing. Because we’re playing like losers.

rrpjr on December 18, 2012 at 9:33 PM

The opposite of “gun-free” is Armed Camp America, Cindy. I know that’s the goal of the NRA and the wet dream of gun fetishists, but some of us would like to think we’re better than Somalia.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM

So, what’s your proposal? Do you want to reinstate the AWB? If so, do you also want to return to the INCREASED homicide rate that existed every year that it was in effect as compared to the rates that we’ve seen in the last few years? That’s right! The murder rate hit FOUR DECADE LOWS in 2010 and 2011 — 6 and 7 years after the AWB expired.


The AWB or CCW Laws: Which Has Had More Of An Impact On The Murder Rate?

As to the NRA…

The Delusion of the Left: If The NRA Went Away, We Could Have “Common Sense” Gun Control

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

So, what’s your proposal? *snip*

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 9:34 PM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

What should the wattage of my lightbulbs be?

At what temperature should my home thermostat be set?

What MPG rating should my car have?

What should my daily caloric intake be?

How many other rights and choices do you believe you are entitled to take away?

Left Coast Right Mind on December 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM

What should the wattage of my lightbulbs be?

At what temperature should my home thermostat be set?

What MPG rating should my car have?

What should my daily caloric intake be?

How many other rights and choices do you believe you are entitled to take away?

Left Coast Right Mind on December 18, 2012 at 9:51 PM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Why 6? Why not 5? Why not 8?

Why should the media get to cite unnamed sources or be protected from most defamation suits?

Why should American flags be allowed to be burned?

Why should we allow mosques and churches in the US when all we need are synagogues and Hindu temples?

Why shouldn’t we make voters show ID and proof of citizenship?

Why do the police really need a warrant?

Why should you be allowed to take the 5th in all cases?

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Why 6? Why not 5? Why not 8?

Why should the media get to cite unnamed sources or be protected from most defamation suits?

Why should American flags be allowed to be burned?

Why should we allow mosques and churches in the US when all we need are synagogues and Hindu temples?

Why shouldn’t we make voters show ID and proof of citizenship?

Why do the police really need a warrant?

Why should you be allowed to take the 5th in all cases?

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM

I repeat, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of guns which can be owned in this country.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t imply or codify such regulations or constraints.

So which is it — no more than six rounds or less than 60? Tell us what we have a right to. Then fu*k off.

rrpjr on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

So what you’re saying is that a woman being assaulted by a man has only six shots before needing to reload and being vulnerable to being taken down? Why do you want to curtail the ability of women to protect themselves?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I repeat, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of guns which can be owned in this country.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Yeah and if the next school shooting involves a revolver but over a dozens children are still killed you’ll be back here demanding all guns be banned.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

…I was hoping my Nerd would sign it!

…last friday freaked him out!

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

I might be willing to reduce the size of my magazines, right after the federal government reduces the size of magazine of all armed troops, FBI Agents, etc. to the same value. No federal or troop firearm should hold more rounds than the citizens of the republic can. Just a check on those who would forget that “we the people” are the boss, not the employee.

djtnt on December 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading.

You went to Strawman Warehouse didn’t you? Were they clearing out the 2012 models to make room for the 2013s? Were their prices innnnnsaaaaaaannnnne?

The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms.

So that’s what “shall not be infringed” means. Always wondered about that.

That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

I can’t own an RPG because I can’t afford one. But why would I want something that only has one shot at a time, when I can have one of those nifty guns that shoot 60 rounds w/o reloading?

Left Coast Right Mind on December 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

An RPG is not a firearm, imbecile

UncleFodder on December 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You do realize that no correlation has been found in America or around the world between strict gun laws and a lowering of armed assaults right? You’re just going to diminish the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves while empowering criminals to have access to more powerful weapons than law abiding citizens.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

So what you’re saying is that a woman being assaulted by a man has only six shots before needing to reload and being vulnerable to being taken down? Why do you want to curtail the ability of women to protect themselves?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM

ONLY six shots?
If she hasn’t taken her assailant down in six shots, he’s probably ducking for cover.

Really a stupid comment, gwelf.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

No one is saying there should be no regulation of weapons. But your preferred regulations would not have changed the outcome of any of these massacres (and in some cases would have made them worse). Your preferred regulations won’t – and haven’t historically – produce the outcomes you claim or think they will.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM

An armed man is a citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.

Citizens know “gun laws” do not reduce violence and evil.
Subjects think “gun laws” do.

Someday, and it is probably going to be soon, the citizens and the subjects are going to have a real old time fight (like the 1860′s), and my money is on the citizens.

When the SHTF, don’t count on big daddy government to come save your bacon, subjects.

djtnt on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

You do realize that no correlation has been found in America or around the world between strict gun laws and a lowering of armed assaults right?

Tell that to the people of Australia. Twelve days after a 1996 massacre they passed sweeping gun control laws and haven’t had a mass shooting since.

You’re just going to diminish the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves while empowering criminals to have access to more powerful weapons than law abiding citizens.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

That’s NRA fear-babble nonsense.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

ONLY six shots?
If she hasn’t taken her assailant down in six shots, he’s probably ducking for cover.

Really a stupid comment, gwelf.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Yeah – he might duck for cover. Or it may be dark. Or the women just might be a teensy weensy bit nervous and her accuracy might to down just a little bit. But you’ve got their back right? Each of her 6 bullets will come with the chumpThreads seal of guarantee not to miss.

I’m curious how you’re also going to guarantee that they’ll only be attacked by one person and that they won’t miss at all?

If my comment is so stupid why can’t you effectively argue against it?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Alright, I gotta go to bed.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Tell that to the people of Australia. Twelve days after a 1996 massacre they passed sweeping gun control laws and haven’t had a mass shooting since.

You’re just going to diminish the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves while empowering criminals to have access to more powerful weapons than law abiding citizens.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

That’s NRA fear-babble nonsense.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Tell that to Germany. They also passed a gun ban after a mass shooting. And saw another several years later. Norway also has strict gun control laws. Didn’t stop Brevik. There are more armed robberies in Britain than ever – and guns are completely banned there. Our most dangerous cities have the strictest gun control laws.

NRA fear-babble nonsense isn’t a sufficient explanation of the numerous studies that show gun bans have no effect on armed assault. Look at all the stuff linked by Resist We Much. Just dismissing it as NRA propaganda doesn’t erase the facts you willfully ignore.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Tell that to the people of Australia. Twelve days after a 1996 massacre they passed sweeping gun control laws and haven’t had a mass shooting since.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Not even this one?

Left Coast Right Mind on December 18, 2012 at 10:26 PM

ONLY six shots?
If she hasn’t taken her assailant down in six shots, he’s probably ducking for cover.

Really a stupid comment, gwelf.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:16 PM

You’re also saying that women are stupid. Women who buy handguns have the option of which gun they get and the bullet capacity they feel they need. Who the hell are you to tell them that they only need 6 bullets?

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I need to move to Texas. Especially because the state produces women who look like that reporter.

Bishop on December 18, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Teresa Woodard? Yeah, she’s hot. She’s fairly new, has been at Channel 8 less than a year. She also interviewed that guy that was a contestant on The X Factor, the country singer that inflated his military record in the Army.

Ward Cleaver on December 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

A woman is free to abort her offspring. It’s her choice you neanderthal conservatives!!!!!!!!!1

A woman wants a gun with more than 6 bullets in the clip? No way – I’m going to make that choice for her.

/chumpThreads

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Not only do these politicians ban concealed carry from these places but they put up signs advertising the fact that weapons are not allowed. That draws the nuts like flies to sugar. Please tell me how many police stations in this country came under attack in the last ten years. Political correctness not only kills freedom it kills innocent people.

savage24 on December 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Schools couldn’t even opt out!

But why should they want to? What makes more sense than allowing people to carry concealed guns into school buildings?

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Public schools shouldn’t be able to opt out. They can’t opt out of any other civil rights can they?

I do think that private property and private institutions should be able to though (like private schools, churches etc).

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I repeat, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of guns which can be owned in this country.

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

So, you won’t mind “common sense” regulations on any other “right” in the Bill of Rights then.

Gotcha.

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Is there any principle that Boehner will not compromise on? Is there any at all?!

JellyToast on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I was told a long time ago when I was a young man, that if you compromise your principles, you didn’t have any principles. You compromised them.

Mirimichi on December 18, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Snyder’s approval rating now stands at 38/56

So what? Let them have a Democrat, then. It seems to me that a Republican’s job is to reverse as much liberalism as possible once elected and force the next Democrat regime to reestablish what they once had rather than advancing new liberalism. It’s really not too easy to reestablish the failed liberalism once it’s reversed, despite the shouting. Especially at the state level because you risk chasing off your producers. You chase that “38″ out of Michigan, you got a state that makes Somalia look like Disneyland. A chunk of that “56″ also realizes that.

Conservatives need to be willing to lose and not look at government as a life long career. Compromising and getting along with Democrats will destroy the country.

Buddahpundit on December 18, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I repeat, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of guns which can be owned in this country.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

in·fringe
/inˈfrinj/
Verb
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): “infringe a copyright”.
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.

Based on this definition of “infringed” – I don’t buy that chumpy.
Just because libs have managed to do it anyway, doesn’t mean it’s right according to the Constitution.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:06 AM

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

In a kneejerk reaction to a shooting, the UK outlawed civilians from having any firearm, even down to the .22 target pistols used in the Olympics. The result –
http://www.examiner.com/article/defenseless-british-citizens-are-attacked-their-own-homes-by-violent-burglars-every-30-minutes

Guess what – criminals get their guns on the black market, or MAKE them.
Do you really think making any kind of gun illegal will cause all criminals to lose a thousand years of human experience and knowledge in machining and manufacturing such that nobody can even MAKE a gun themselves?
Did you know that any skilled machinist with some knowledge of guns can create a full auto gun very easily?

My favorite line from the Rush song Manhattan Project:
“big shots try to hold it back, fools try to wish it away”

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM

chumpThreads. I’m all for starved rats in cages attached to these peoples faces.

tom daschle concerned on December 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I was told a long time ago when I was a young man, that if you compromise your principles, you didn’t have any principles. You compromised them.

Mirimichi on December 18, 2012 at 10:47 PM

That attitude does not work in politics. That is a guaranteed losing attitude. You have to know when to get half a loaf. This isn’t about “compromising principles”, this is about recognizing that there is a limit to what the Republicans are going to be able to get. If you want to play knucklehead, then fine, the Republicans will get thrown out of Congress. This is EXACTLY the attitude of “radical conservatives” that Reagan didn’t like:

Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise(in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.

“Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

“I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

“If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

If Boehner can raise that 250K cap on the tax cuts to 400K or 1 million, great, that saves a lot of small business jobs. If he can get some spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling deal, even better. Over 65% of the people WANT a combination of some closing of tax loopholes AND a reduction in spending. If it doesn’t get done with this House, the people will throw the Republicans out, put the Democrats back in, and get it done that way.

If we don’t get a debt ceiling deal done and automatic sequestration kicks in, we are talking likely a catastrophic result economically. California alone is looking at possibly losing 200,000 jobs just in defense manufacturing and R&D. The follow-on impact to communities losing those 200,000 jobs would be massive. Florida would be looking at losing around 100,000 jobs. Texas would lose a lot. The Republicans will get the blame for that, not the Democrats.

The people voted for higher taxes, give it to them and then rub the Democrats’ noses in it in 2014. Show them the damage it does. Obamacare alone is going to result in layoffs and hourly cutbacks of workers. But if Boenher can temper any deal by eliminating more of small business from the impact and get some spending cuts, great.

But if we try to play idiot and play an “all or nothing” game, we are going to end up with nothing and get thrown out of Congress. In fact, I am not even sure a lot of the people talking like that are really “conservatives”. I believe a lot of them are Democrats running around on social media and in blog comments saying stuff like that in order to get people to go along so the Republicans commit political suicide.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Dangit, I think I thought I was commenting on a different thread.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Dangit, I think I thought I was commenting on a different thread.

crosspatch on December 19, 2012 at 12:41 AM

:) It’s ok, at least I got to read your comment. Coudn’t agree with you more. I feel exactly the same way. they won, we lost. They should own their legislative initiatives and economic fiascos and/or successes. Time for Republicans to come to terms with it. It’s not like they have been appointed as Vestals to guard the Temple and maintain the sacred fire or something :)…let the Dems govern, and if we can get a few good deals in the process, tat will benefit businesses and the economy n the long run, all the better.

jimver on December 19, 2012 at 1:17 AM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

And no Congress should hold more than six liberals.
We can start there.

dominigan on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 AM

I repeat, the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of guns which can be owned in this country.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

I repeat, the 1st Amendment does not preclude the enactment of constraints and regulations on the types of speech liberals can make in this country.

(Sounds pretty idiotic doesn’t it?)

dominigan on December 19, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Tell that to the people of Australia. Twelve days after a 1996 massacre they passed sweeping gun control laws and haven’t had a mass shooting since.

You’re just going to diminish the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves while empowering criminals to have access to more powerful weapons than law abiding citizens.

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

That’s NRA fear-babble nonsense.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Since you suggested it, I decided to look up the stats on violent crime in Australia. You can read the report yourself.

For violent crime, the stats fluctuated up and down… except for assault. Assault went from just over 114,000 in 1996 to over 171,000 in 2010! That’s a FIFTY PERCENT INCREASE! And those numbers didn’t fluctuate much… it was a drastic increase after 1996 when the gun law went into effect. (Also note that most of the increase were within the first 5 years!)

So, I’d say while your argument may (I haven’t validated your statement one way or another) be true, it is largely irrelevant. The fact is… violent assault increased dramatically after the weapons ban control laws went into effect.

dominigan on December 19, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Uhhhh, what bout “Open Carry”

Does send a better message.

BigAlSouth on December 19, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

God created Adam and Eve. Sam Colt made them equal.

gwelf on December 19, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Hmmm…schools?

Sure, lets take building full of children and liberal adults, and give the adults guns.

What could possibly go wrong?

percysunshine on December 19, 2012 at 8:14 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I have a 7 shot clip for my 9mm. I have 10 clips. I can swap clips in less than 2 seconds.
Maybe we should limit abortions to 1 per lifetime.

Bevan on December 19, 2012 at 8:16 AM

ok the GOP in COngress better grow some balls or their are going to be alot of non republicians in congress come 2014. Now is the time for them to step up and shut this whole thing down.

Hello Mitch talking to you. Do you really want to be primaried in your state because you allowed gun control to pass?

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

if the people owned RPG’s I doubt have the crap coming out of Congress would be happening

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 8:19 AM

The problem is not the weapons, but the fact we have public schools to educate the masses. It is highly likely this would not have happened in a private facility for education.

DevilsPrinciple on December 19, 2012 at 8:19 AM

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

hey buddy how does it fell to know you supported laws like CT toughest gun laws and gun free zones which led directly to those kids being gun down defenseless in their classroom.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM

When you’re committed to gun free zones you’ve also committed the people in them to deadly consequences.

Time to leave the emotion out of our laws.

Speakup on December 19, 2012 at 8:23 AM

A very level headed decision. Here is the most important part;

“I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” he said. “Each is entrusted with the care of a vulnerable population and should have the authority to determine whether its mission would be enhanced by the addition of concealed weapons.”

It is important to provide people the right to carry, but it is also important to equally protect the right of those institutions to opt-out. Ultimately, they are keepers of the institution and entrusted with its safety and the well-being of those children.

Marcus Traianus on December 19, 2012 at 8:29 AM

When out local Policing agencies have full auto weapons we should in turn be able to posses them as well. This is the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Not this RINO whitewash I’ve been reading.

Mr. Arrogant on December 19, 2012 at 8:32 AM

In his veto letter sent to the Legislature shortly before 4 p.m., Snyder said the bill had a fatal loophole that didn’t allow for those institutions to opt out of the new legislation and prohibit weapons from their buildings.

Oh, since a few couldn’t opt-out no one is allowed to opt-in?

Too bad Bloomberg in NYC didn’t operate the same way when it comes to banning 32oz cups of soda pop.

Did the bill require armed security at schools? Or did it simply authorize it?

Guns don’t put our schoolchildren in danger every day they attend. The politicians do!

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:41 AM

The most insane gun free zone was the one at Fort Hood that was forced upon our soldiers (the ones that defend us with guns) which enabled Nidal Malik Hasan to execute his Jihad with no resistance.
.
Gun free zones are an invitation to the murderous. You will never be able to remove the guns from everyone and gun free zones just make the malicious much more dangerous.

FactsofLife on December 19, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Well of course, after such a tragedy, you have to ban the one thing that might have saved lives: allowing people to defend themselves and others in so-called gun-free zones.

He should have been afraid to veto the bill after Newtown.

If this incident proves anything, it’s that the conventional thinking about gun-free zones has completely failed.

tom on December 19, 2012 at 8:43 AM

A French psychiatrist whose patient hacked an elderly man to death was found guilty of manslaughter on Tuesday in a groundbreaking case that could affect the way patients are treated.

How long until that starts happening here?

Washington Nearsider on December 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM

If this incident proves anything, it’s that the conventional thinking about gun-free zones has completely failed.

tom on December 19, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Ask any lib: Gun-free zones don’t fail. The problem is that there aren’t enough of them! We need more–like the whole country. Once all of America is a gun-free zone we’ll all be safe, true and sure.

The same way poverty can be ended if we just throw more money at the problem. /

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM

gwelf on December 18, 2012 at 10:29 PM

It’s part of the Chumpwar on Women, any woman that can’t take down a rapist in six shots is basically asking for it.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

The same way poverty can be ended if we just throw more money at the problem. /

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM

We just need poverty-free safe zones, right.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

We just need poverty-free safe zones, right.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

There ya go!

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

Not only that, she could be on Guam, run too close to the edge and as her assailant(s) attacks her, she could be saved by the whole thing tipping over.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:54 AM

And no Congress should hold more than six liberals.
We can start there.

dominigan on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Exactly, we can definitely believe that the founders could not have foreseen the proliferation of liberals (who have a problem with liberty).

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

You’ll have to point out that language to us. Is it in the super double-secret Article 5?

The only limitation I can see in the 2nd Amendment is the word bear. That means anything I can carry I cannot be denied.

NotCoach on December 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Don’t know why women need ANY type of weapon to thwart an attacker, if it’s a legitimate attack their bodies have ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

greataunty on December 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM

Plus, she commits no civil rights violation if her attacker is a minority. Because any woman who kills a minority assailant did it because she’s a racist at heart.

Just ask our resident racial expert on that, libfreeordie.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

No, it isn’t.

GWB on December 19, 2012 at 8:58 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Do you truly think, if they had such technology when the Bill of Rights was amended to our Constitution, there would have been exceptions made? If so, prove it. People back then used to freely own cannons.

And who the hell are you to dare tell me to what I have no right when it comes to firearms? It’s not like anyone elected you God, last I heard.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Disappointing but understandable.

Quit making excuses for these cowards. If they can’t stand up for what’s right NOW…when will the right time be?

YELLOW COWARD TO THE CORE.

Pale Rider on December 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM

ChumpThreads,

Hey, let’s set you down on foot with a bunch of feral hogs and 6 shots. Or, lets have you be a woman faced with several robbers or rapists, and 6 shots.

Good luck.

I thank God everyday I live in Texas and have Rick Perry as governor.

juliesa on December 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Says a clueless know-nothing who wouldn’t be able to recite the Second Amendment verbatim without Googling it first, and has clearly never read a single sentence from the Federalist Papers.

Pale Rider on December 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

It’s part of the Chumpwar on Women, any woman that can’t take down a rapist in six shots is basically asking for it.

Axeman on December 19, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Ha!

gwelf on December 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM

If I had my way, every girl would receive, on her 16th birthday, a gift from the government: the handgun of her choice, 500 rounds of ammo, government-paid training in how to use and care for her weapon, and a Federal CCW. With proper safety training, of course.

Do that for just a year, and the instances of rape will plummet.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM

As a citizen of the great state, I was hoping he would sign it. For the moment I will take last weeks RTW signing over this..for now.

I listened to him at length yesterday on a local radio program. He had issue with some of the wording in the bill and is looking for some changes in the legislation, sent it back so they could get it right. If it matters, he did make the comment that something needed to be done in the way of arming at least somebody in the school.

Snyder is not your typical politician, not by any stretch. He is not concerned at all about the next election, only in what is right for the state. MI has had so much progress since his election, his motto is ” No blame, No credit”. He pissed off so many last week with RTW, not just the unions. He either hurt his chances of re-election or he helped it, we won’t know for awhile. He also signed some abortion legislation last week, so the anti life people are in an uproar.

He cracks me up though, he is so positive all the time.

shar61 on December 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

No civilian firearm should hold more than six bullets.
We can start there.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Lets put it another way: you want to ban the M1911. In original government configuration. One of the most popular handguns of ALL TIME STILL IN PRODUCTION because people love it.

And the Mauser C96 come to that.

The Browning 1910/1922.

The Thompson SA M1927.

The Luger.

The P38.

And that hasn’t even gotten the world to the end of the 1940′s… and there are lots more where that came from.

When did the idea of 6 shots as a ‘good idea’ disappear off the landscape? See that C96? That was the death knell for the revolver and the M1911 (yes 1911 entry of service) sealed the deal. That is why the C96 started out with a 10 round box magazine fed by a reliable stripper clip.

Why did police decide to drop the revolver in the US? High capacity firearms available to criminals were leaving them outgunned.

You aren’t going to stop criminals, collectors, avid enthusiasts, ‘rebuild kits’, and the massive, indeed impossible problem, of all those already existing, high capacity weapons already available in their millions if not tens of millions at this point.

Then there is the Marlin Model 60. It is the Commodore 64 of rifles: you can find them stashed in closets, under car seats, in dusty old boxes in attics, and a beloved learning platform for millions of entry level shooters. It is probably the most prolific rifle ever produced… fires the lowly .22lr… after Armageddon there will still be fully functional Marlin 60′s to be found with a few of them sitting next to the clicky IBM keyboards.

The M1 Garand.

Various models of the SMLE, totally bolt action.

The Henry rifle… design date of 1860… lever action. I know civilians way back in the 1860′s didn’t see ANY NEED for such a carbine but, hey, that was only before the US Civil War started.

You don’t even want to get out of the 19th century and that is your STARTING POINT? Maybe you want to outlaw anything designed since the STEAM ENGINE while you’re at it… save that the first internal combustion systems were showing up before the end of the 19th century, too. You can’t even be dragged up to post-WWII or even something a bit more modern like the 1980′s. And did you ever bother to check out what happened AFTER the Clinton AWB? Those large capacity mags sold like hotcakes. Still do as they are just plain fun to shoot.

And for your lovely idea of 6-shots or whatever the ‘reasonable limit’ is: are you going to put that on the POLICE TOO? Or do you want police to be more well armed than the rest of the general population? If so, why? We’ve had the BATFE run guns illegally to Mexico… the US State Dept did the same plus worse with grenades and FA weapons… looks like DHS has been turning a blind eye towards that, too… so why, exactly, is the US safer with better armed gangs south of the US border coming into the US for that? And if its reasonable to hand over guns to criminals that are much worse than what civilians can purchase under the CURRENT REGULATIONS then how, in any way, shape or form, will putting your limit in place actually protect a civilian population that will be horrifically outgunned by criminals? Or do you just want police and criminals to have such arms… do note that the police took 20 minutes to show up in CT and that they couldn’t stop the attack because, you know, when seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.

And our federal government is already ignoring treaties, regulations and its legal obligations to NOT supply arms to criminals outside the US that can easily get INTO the US. Aren’t you ever so trusting of authority? It is trust misplaced.

Thanks, but no.

Good luck on your backwards, quaint and 19th century notions of firearms. You might want to join the 21st century some day. Maybe then you can figure out where the ‘real’ discussion starts and it sure isn’t with firearms as every regulation meant to keep such weapons from one man failed in CT and with such strict regulations and more of the same and worse in places like Chitown, we can say that it isn’t the regulations that have failed as they have left the civil population unable to defend itself which was the INTENT of those laws. Thus they haven’t done a thing for ‘protecting’ people and have, instead, just created more victims of criminals. And with the types of drive-bys and modern shoot-outs between gangs, just see where your idea of 6 shooters gets you. Time to join the 21st century and deal with mental illness and stop trying to paint those who want basic protection for their home and family as being ‘criminal wannabes’. Believe me, if you don’t think you need more than 6 shots in defending a close-quarters environment, then you haven’t really thought about home invasions. We have crime and criminal types that blow away the old 6-shooter concept which was great for the Old West, but just doesn’t apply today. And what makes YOU feel safe leaves ME feeling undergunned, but then I’m not placing my faith in government to come to the rescue, either.

ajacksonian on December 19, 2012 at 10:05 AM

…I was hoping my Nerd would sign it!

…last friday freaked him out!

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2012 at 10:11 PM

No way, KOOLAID. Snyder isn’t a conservative or constitutionalist. He’s a nanny state republican at heart, albeit, with no motives beyond fixing Michigan from an economic standpoint, at this time.

totherightofthem on December 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Then don’t buy anything that holds more than 6 shots.
I personally think the 17 rounds my M&P9 holds is fairly reasonable, although more would be better.
If you should ever have to deal with a home invasion by 2 or 3 or more armed thugs – which is happening a lot these days – I’d be very interested to see what those 6 shots do for you. My guess is once the cops finally show up, it will just be to do crime scene forensics and work on investigating your murder.
On the other hand, I want as many shots as I can get at one time – knowing that in the heat of battle against multiple attackers, I just might miss a few shots.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Help me with something… as clearly and concisely as possible, tell us the purpose for (or thinking behind) the Second Amendment. Not what someone thinks it should be, or what we might wish it was, or what our “modern” world would have it be, but specifically what the folks who actually wrote it saw it to be. Since interpretation and meaning lies in authorial intent, surely it would behoove us to start by exploring what the authors intended it to mean.

psrch on December 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I think it was the right decision given the lack of an institutional opt out

krome on December 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM

A rifle or pistol that has to be reloaded after six shots is perfectly reasonable. No, it’s not a cure-all, but it’s a start.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 10:09 PM

So a few intruders just has to wait out 6 shots, eh? Or does that mean that a person has to pack 2+ weapons that carry 6 shots each?

No one has a right to a gun that shoots 60 bullets without reloading. The 2nd Amendment does not prevent regulations and constraints on firearms. That’s why you can’t own a RPG.

chumpThreads on December 18, 2012 at 9:58 PM

The people who will have the guns that you fear are criminals, and they don’t care about the 2nd Amendment.

It’s a very, very slippery slope that you’re riding. The moment that the government says what type of gun can/can’t be used or says what the purpose of the gun should/shouldn’t be allowed, it’s about government control.

Kyle_Reese on December 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Being from MI I had hoped Synder would sign the bill. I see no reason to have gun free zones that invite crazies in to kill. the killers pick out these places,s chools, mall, churches because they know there will be noone to stop them.
After CT I had thought maybe he would sign the bill to protect our kids who have no one to defend them Guess not . Disappointed in him.

Bullhead on December 19, 2012 at 12:01 PM

“I believe that it is important that these public institutions have clear legal authority to ban weapons from their premises,” he said. “Each is entrusted with the care of a vulnerable population and should have the authority to determine whether its mission would be enhanced by the addition of concealed weapons.”

I’m pretty sure all these schools that have suffered these horrendous events have outlawed guns on their premises.

Just think how many more of these massacres we’d have if it weren’t for these laws! OK, so it doesn’t work all of the time, but it obviously does work most of the time!/s

This is just an extension of the belief that only “trained officers” and other government officials should have guns and no one else. And if innocents are massacred, that’s just too bad…because it has to do with the type of society many pretend that we have and wish to live within the boundaries of their Kumbaya fantasies.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 19, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Gov. Snyder must pray every night that the next “Sandy Hook” doesn’t have an “MI” suffix, for it will be all on him since he had the opportunity to attempt to derail such an incident, and he whiffed.

Another Drew on December 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Ann Coulter has a good article on this

Some teachers and staff need to be gun trained & armed. Only a gun will stop a crazed killer with a gun in a school, not dumb gun laws.

Chessplayer on December 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2