|
|
There has been a major change in the status of Michigan's new concealed weapons permit law, but MAP's position regarding the legislation remains the same. The State Supreme Court ruling that the measure could not be put to a vote of citizens in the November, 2002 election did nothing to lessen grave concerns regarding police officer safety, declared MAP Executive Director Fred Timpner. "Our opposition to a 'shall issue' rather than a 'may issue' concealed weapon permit process is based on one fundamental consideration - the impact this will have on the safety of law enforcement personnel throughout our state," he explained. "This position has nothing to do with gun control. We do not endorse gun control. It is strictly a matter of concern over a potential increase in the danger officers face on the job. "For this reason, MAP continues to oppose the law. We will work through the Michigan Association of Police Organizations (formerly the Michigan Police Legislative Coalition - see story, this edition) with organizers of the petition drive which would have placed the law on the November ballot had the Supreme Court not blocked a referendum. We will assess the possibility of a second petition project aimed at getting the question onto a future ballot." Timpner also expressed strong disagreement with the high court's 4-3 decision because of its negative effect on citizens' ability to implement their will via the ballot box. "The ruling takes power away from the people and puts it in the hands of special interest groups," he asserted. "This law should be put to a statewide vote. The influence it has on our society is too significant to have a technicality stand in the way of such a vote." Specifically, the "technicality" to which Timpner referred was a $1 million spending item that was tacked onto the concealed weapons bill last year, a tactic that - according to Michigan law - made the measure ballotproof. Because of this strategy what had been a successful petition drive, with more than enough signatures, ended up as an exercise in futility. The Supreme Court found that the attached appropriation did, indeed, preclude a referendum. Justice Michael Cavanagh, one of the court's dissenters on the ruling, was outspoken in expressing the same criticism as Timpner. The ruling amounted to a "disembowlment of the public's constitutionally guaranteed right to referendum," he declared. "By holding that the money inserted....circumvents the peoples' reserved referendum power, the majority holds that the referendum power exists at the Legislature's pleasure. Whenever the Legislature wants to avoid the people's checks on its power, it need only insert some money into a bill." The new concealed weapons permit law remains in effect, while it would have been suspended if a referendum vote were pending. Meanwhile, spokespersons for groups that organized the previous signature drive said they have begun preparations for a similar initiative that would place the law on the November, 2002 ballot. |
|