OUR LAST POLL ASKED THE QUESTION;

In 2006 the Michigan Legislature enacted new legislation known as the "Self Defense Act" which became law in October.
 
The provisions set forth:
 
     1) Eliminates civil liability to any person who, uses deadly force or less then deadly force in self defense (or the defense of another), provided the use of deadly force is lawful and in compliance with current law (cannot be sued by the offender or offender's family, friends, heirs etc.).
     2) Eliminates the obligation to retreat if the person using deadly force or less then deadly force in self defense (or the defense of another), is in any place he or she is lawfully entitled to be, provided the use of deadly force is lawful and in compliance with current law.
 
Which best describes how you feel about the new changes?      YOU ANSWERED:
 
  • 77%   I support the changes in their entirety. No modifications of the current language are necessary

  • 14%   I am neutral on the issue, I do not believe that the changes will make any noticeable difference.

  • 3%     I applaud the changes as such that lawful citizens should not be required to retreat, but feel that the civil liability issue is far to restrictive.

  • 5%     While the elimination of civil liability should resolve some of the issues clogging our courts, I feel that a responsible citizen should still be required to retreat to a safe location.

  • 1%     The old law was effective and we should consider reverting to the old language. The new definitions are not necessary.
This Months Poll Question


This months question is an assessment of our readers confidence in their government. Shortly after hurricane Katrina, a state of emergency was declared by FEMA. Law enforcement in New Orleans was ordered to " confiscate " the lawfully owned firearms of its citizens, during a time of social upheaval and chaos, when citizens needed to defend themselves the most. Since that time, the NRA has lobbied to assure that firearm confiscation of that magnitude never occurs again.

In the fall of 2006 Governor Granholm signed into law new legislation commonly known as the "Emergency Powers Protection Act". It is presented here as a two bill package HB 6363 and HB 6364. The new law effectively prohibits the government from ordering  the seizure, taking, or confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition  from individuals. Please read this important legislation and after reading HB 6363 and HB 6364, do you think that the citizens of Michigan are safe from gun confiscation during times of declared national emergencies?


  Yes, I feel our state government would never attempt to suppress our rights to keep and bear arms, even in times of extreme crisis.

  Yes, I have confidence in our state government, but I still do not have trust in our federal system.

   I do not trust either, no amount of legislation could change that.

   I think that it is all right for the government to temporarily "suspend" our constitutional rights during times of crisis. After all, it is for our own good and in the best interest of our country.

  I do not think that government would infringe our rights under normal conditions, but I am not so sure under times of extreme crisis