Tony Cornish says no chance of bans passing this year..

[Thunder71]

It's yet to be seen if there will be consequences.

You know why the governor was able to veto this with no political consequences? Because most Minnesotan's don't really care about gun laws one way or the other. While that was helpful in proving my point, it didn't really answer the question.

[george]

"Thunder71"]It's yet to be seen if there will be consequences.

It would be nice if the 50% of gun owners would stop voting for these people for once to put the scare into them, to stop this stuff.
One time around is all it would take, Clinton and Gore are still bringing it up.

[Heffay]

SOMEBODY OWES ME A "HEFFAY WAS RIGHT" THREAD!!!

[2in2out]

...To those mentioning CO and NY or whatever state... I live in MN and those laws don't affect me. The only thing happening here in MN is a skillfully played move by the left to get pro-gun folks worked up for political gain.

I'm not exactly the most politically savvy, and maybe that's why I don't understand how it helps liberals if all of this is just to force gun owners to be one-issue voters. Wouldn't we vote the liberals OUT of office?

As far as other states, I believe it does affect us. This is a foothold for legislative action on a national level. The chair of the MN Senate committee said that a gun ban was something for the federal government to consider. How appropriate - passing the buck on a controversial issue in Minnesota, yet supporting the idea at the same time.

[jdege]

SOMEBODY OWES ME A "HEFFAY WAS RIGHT" THREAD!!!

Are you promising that we won't see a Universal Background Check bill pass into law?

[connsolo]

A universal background check bill just got through a Washington state house committee.

[Hmac]

To those mentioning CO and NY or whatever state... I live in MN and those laws don't affect me. The only thing happening here in MN is a skillfully played move by the left to get pro-gun folks worked up for political gain.

I'm not following how anyone gained from this cycle.

I'm not following how the new laws in New York and Colorado don't affect us in Minnesota.

[JeremiahMN]

To those mentioning CO and NY or whatever state... I live in MN and those laws don't affect me. The only thing happening here in MN is a skillfully played move by the left to get pro-gun folks worked up for political gain.

I'm not following how anyone gained from this cycle.

I'm not following how the new laws in New York and Colorado don't affect us in Minnesota.

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

[Bear]

Semi-good news. Stay vigilant though!

And....

It does not mean a federal ban isn't coming.

Things seem oddly quiet all of a sudden. Just a perception. I know the grabbers are out there working their schemes...but it appears the rabid nature of it all is wanning a bit.

Well...that is until the next large scale shooting takes place.

[xd9]

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

[XDM45]

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

They set legal precedence via case law.

[JeremiahMN]

...To those mentioning CO and NY or whatever state... I live in MN and those laws don't affect me. The only thing happening here in MN is a skillfully played move by the left to get pro-gun folks worked up for political gain.

I'm not exactly the most politically savvy, and maybe that's why I don't understand how it helps liberals if all of this is just to force gun owners to be one-issue voters. Wouldn't we vote the liberals OUT of office?

As far as other states, I believe it does affect us. This is a foothold for legislative action on a national level. The chair of the MN Senate committee said that a gun ban was something for the federal government to consider. How appropriate - passing the buck on a controversial issue in Minnesota, yet supporting the idea at the same time.

No, one-issue/pro-gun conservatives will not vote out dems, there aren't enough of them. I'm a liberal, but at the office I'm surrounded by conservatives. There are only a couple that could care at all about any of these new gun laws that have been proposed. The majority of the conservatives I know say things like "Who needs a 30 round clip" or "Why shouldn't you have to get a background check to buy a gun". The type of people that have been showing up to these hearings and making noise, are similar to the people that wanted a ban on same sex marriage. They are similar in the fact that they are the fringe of the republican base, not the norm.

While there aren't enough pro-gun republicans to sweep dems out of office, there are likely enough of them to affect the primaries. (Since most people, republican or dem don't care about those either.) What the dems are hoping is that next election, they will get to run against the single issue pro-gun candidates who are considered to far out on the fringe to win the general election. Or even better yet for the dems, the pro-gun single issue candidates can't win the primary, but the gun activists won't be happy with that so they'll push them to run as a 3rd party . (Ask Norm Coleman how that worked out. )

[JeremiahMN]

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

They set legal precedence via case law.

Yeah, not so much. Perhaps if we were talking federal laws. Or are you saying since it's legal to have some weed in Colorado, I could use that as a legal precedence in MN that it's OK because Colorado is ok with it? I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the interwebs. Feel free to enlighten me with some specific examples of this happening in the past.

[XDM45]

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

They set legal precedence via case law.

Yeah, not so much. Perhaps if we were talking federal laws. Or are you saying since it's legal to have some weed in Colorado, I could use that as a legal precedence in MN that it's OK because Colorado is ok with it? I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the interwebs. Feel free to enlighten me with some specific examples of this happening in the past.

I'm no lawyer either. I was simply stating that lawyers will cite cases from other states (California is a popular one for that) and that the federal government will look at those laws as well. I can promise you that the feds are watching what the states are doing for gun control right now. Anyone who thinks they're not, is misguided.

As for pot, there is some issues with that. The state says it's legal, the feds say it's not, so California medical facilities get bust all the time by them. Laws are pretty open to interpretation, so that's why the'res the whole saying about not becoming a "test case". The thing is, every case is unique and case law isn't as subjective because it's a closed case that lawyers can look at and say "Well, the law says this, and this is how this judge, jury, prosecutor, attorney, etc) looked at it and was decided based on XYZ, so that kind of applies here in our case because......" Again, I'm a layman when it comes to law, not a lawyer, but as I've said on here many times, we have an American LEGAL System, not an American JUSTICE System; so what is Legal isn't always Just, and what is Just isn't always Legal.

When a law goes on the books, it spider webs out and it affects other things, like court cases. Then those cases become part of the web and now that affects other cases (case law), and so forth and so on. So a case 10 deep may reference case 4. 5, and 7. If you start to unravel things, it's an unholy, if not impossible to do, mess. This is why we must prevent certain things from becoming law in the first place. When it comes to gun control, even though the ban expired, you can bet your last dollar that it's still rippling effects today even though it's no longer in effect. I'm sure it affected the gun manufacturers, people, in many ways, but that in itself could be it's own thread.

[bstrawse]

Please explain how the laws in New York or Colorado affect me, if I don't visit either of those states.

They set legal precedence via case law.

Only at the US Supreme Court.... We're not in their federal circuit...,