Tony Cornish to propose ALTERNATE GUN BILL ??? Huh.

[AR]

Who is this guy??

Tony Cornish

He looks kinda old school mafioso there... The MN Gangster of Gun Rights?

Some guys look like 'a Judge' Tony looks like a Sheriff and he was one and a Commander of a National Guard Tank Company. In that shot he looks like he's steeled himself for a difficult task.

In most photos Mark Dayton looks like he needs his nurse to give him a bottle or a syringe of anti-psychotics.

What's keeping this guy from 6 years in the Governor's Office?

Any way ...Thanks to the Mods for cleaning up this thread...I wouldn't have cared but in my opinion this 'ALTERNATIVE GUN BILL' as it's being referred to is front and center....I'm sensing a bit of a letdown now that we have Assault weapon and mag ban off the table.

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK = REGISTRATION.

and isn't that the reason 'private ownership of firearms' is gone in Australia, New Zealand and the UK?

I'll have to stay current w/ GOCRA updates....but I didn't show at the Capitol for the last two sets of hearings but from my perspective getting the 'ALTERNATIVE' bill on the House floor is the EndGame here.

THERE ARE OVER 70 SPONSORS TO THE 'ALTERNATIVE' THAT'S MORE THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE.

This is half of a big victory....which can easily be defeated by Harry Reed / Pelosi backroom BS.

[BigBlue]

Any way ...Thanks to the Mods for cleaning up this thread...I wouldn't have cared but in my opinion this 'ALTERNATIVE GUN BILL' as it's being referred to is front and center....I'm sensing a bit of a letdown now that we have Assault weapon and mag ban off the table.

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK = REGISTRATION.

and isn't that the reason 'private ownership of firearms' is gone in Australia, New Zealand and the UK?

Gun registration is/was the primary goal of the antis during this whole debacle. It is the 'foot in the door', a key piece they need to continue their ultimate end-goal of removal of all firearms from private use. The rest of the stuff they threw at the wall was just (take your pick) either icing on the cake for them or a big distraction meant to allow 'compromise' down to their main goal.

You're right, we CANNOT let up. Universal registration cannot pass.

BB

[BigBlue]

Any way ...Thanks to the Mods for cleaning up this thread...I wouldn't have cared but in my opinion this 'ALTERNATIVE GUN BILL' as it's being referred to is front and center....I'm sensing a bit of a letdown now that we have Assault weapon and mag ban off the table.

UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK = REGISTRATION.

and isn't that the reason 'private ownership of firearms' is gone in Australia, New Zealand and the UK?

Gun registration is/was the primary goal of the antis during this whole debacle. It is the 'foot in the door', a key piece they need to continue their ultimate end-goal of removal of all firearms from private use. The rest of the stuff they threw at the wall was just (take your pick) either icing on the cake for them or a big distraction meant to allow 'compromise' down to their main goal.

You're right, we CANNOT let up. Universal registration cannot pass. That's why this alternate bill is important. It 'does something' which will pacify a lot of people while making sure to not sell the farm.

BB

[AR]

So what's the plan here?

Will there be a call to attend hearings....this really seems to be the endgame. And it looks like we're about to be rolled by Paymar.

The football analogy is we've played 3 good quarters and we could lose by a last second fieldgoal.

[bstrawse]

So what's the plan here?

Will there be a call to attend hearings....this really seems to be the endgame. And it looks like we're about to be rolled by Paymar.

The football analogy is we've played 3 good quarters and we could lose by a last second fieldgoal.

There aren't any hearings on any of the new bills scheduled yet. But you can bet your bottom dollars there will be a call to attend when they are scheduled...
b

[AR]

I watched both House and Senate hearings and (this is a subtle call) it seemed that both Paymar and Latz were very acutely aware that they were 'Hip Deep' in "Hoppin-Mad Citizens." I saw the photos of the hallways full of people.

I have read accounts of the original passage of the MCPPA of 2003 and there were all kinds of tensions approaching the final votes....

ON THE DAY OF THE VOTE SOMEONE CALLED THE POLICE AND STATED THAT JOEL ROSENBERG (RIP) HAD EMAILED THEM THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR....HAD SENT EMAIL MESSAGES THREATENING VIOLENCE DOCTORED TO LOOK LIKE THEY CAME FROM HIM.....

THIS IS THE KIND OF KOOK-BURGERS WERE DEALING WITH.

end of caps

And for anyone who doesn't know Joel Rosenberg was one of the core movers / shakers behind the law.

We need to remember how ObamaCare was passed...Al Franken was the deciding vote and he was elected by a margin of 314 fraudulent votes.

Again the football analogy.....it's a 60 minute game.

[JJ]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/rep-tony-co ... 00276.html

[ex-LT]

What's keeping this guy from 6 years in the Governor's Office?

Perhaps the fact that the governor's term is only four years?

[Holland&Holland]

Alright, so I get it, we are all supposed to support this one. And I get that Tony is on our side and I get that law enforcement wants this stuff but I can't help feeling like we are supporting the alternate gun bill because it passes a gun bill so that we can say we did something to fight Sandyhook when before sandyhook no one was looking at drafting such a bill.

Do we really need this law? Do we really need any new gun laws? Gotta be honest, ever since the alternate bill was introduced and it was hailed as the 2nd coming of christ by the gun community, it has kinda stuck in my craw. Now I am not saying I am an expert on this and I only skimmed through the bill so maybe someone can enlighten me, but it seems like we are trying to throw a bone to some folks in order to keep the more onerous laws at bay.

Don't get me wrong I appretiate what out GOCRA guys have done and have nothing but respect for those leading the fight on this, it just bothers me that anything is being passed into law regarding firearms when 3 months ago we would have said, no new laws are needed period.

Alright, got it off my chest.

[darkwolf45]

I think it does more than that. It creates a bill that both sides of the issue can supposedly be comfortable with. It creates a clear case where gun rights advocates are not just being beligerant, racist white obstrctionists because our side has gone out of their way to reach out to liberals as well as those in law enforcement to craft something everyone sees as helpful for society.

It also puts antis is a bad spot. The worst thing you can do to someone who is on a long term strategy to ban all guns (from law abiding use) is to counter with a solution that doesn't help their agenda. It makes us look amenable to solving problems of violence, and they suddenly run the risk of their agenda being exposed to the rank and file low info voter.

Do we need more laws? Yes and no, but mostly no. NICS needs to be fixed, and has needed it for a long time. But then, I seriously doubt that antis ever really wanted NICS to work right to begin with. To them its just another step along the way to illustrate how they "tried" to work with us ignorant redneck conservatives, but compromise can never work when dealig with "us."

[ex-LT]

...I can't help feeling like we are supporting the alternate gun bill because it passes a gun bill so that we can say we did something to fight Sandyhook when before sandyhook no one was looking at drafting such a bill.

You obviously aren't familiar with Rep. Paymar. IIRC, every year since 2000 (and quite possibly prior to 2000 as well), he has introduced at least one bill to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. In recent years, with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, his bills have been killed in committee. Now, he chairs the committee, so his bills got heard, and that's also why there's a strong possibility that the 'alternative bill' won't get a hearing in his committee.

I'm pretty sure that he would have introduced his legislation and that of CSM/Heather Martens the day after the election if he had been allowed to. The fact that Sandy Hook occurred between election day and the convening of the 2013 legislative session just provided them with more ammunition for their arguments about why "we need to do something NOW."

[Holland&Holland]

...I can't help feeling like we are supporting the alternate gun bill because it passes a gun bill so that we can say we did something to fight Sandyhook when before sandyhook no one was looking at drafting such a bill.

You obviously aren't familiar with Rep. Paymar. IIRC, every year since 2000 (and quite possibly prior to 2000 as well), he has introduced at least one bill to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. In recent years, with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives, his bills have been killed in committee. Now, he chairs the committee, so his bills got heard, and that's also why there's a strong possibility that the 'alternative bill' won't get a hearing in his committee.

I'm pretty sure that he would have introduced his legislation and that of CSM/Heather Martens the day after the election if he had been allowed to. The fact that Sandy Hook occurred between election day and the convening of the 2013 legislative session just provided them with more ammunition for their arguments about why "we need to do something NOW."

No I get that but what is the point of supporting this bill? Is it just politics? or is it actuall legislation that we as gun owners should want in place and if so why?

[Heffay]

No I get that but what is the point of supporting this bill? Is it just politics? or is it actuall legislation that we as gun owners should want in place and if so why?

There are always things we can do better. Not all bills are about increasing the burdens on us. There can be things that can actually help, such as the mental health reporting stuff.

Why would we *not* do that? Just because it's a bill related to background checks? Not all change is bad.

[Holland&Holland]

No I get that but what is the point of supporting this bill? Is it just politics? or is it actuall legislation that we as gun owners should want in place and if so why?

There are always things we can do better.

Agreed

Not all bills are about increasing the burdens on us. There can be things that can actually help, such as the mental health reporting stuff.

But will this really help anything? I dunno, seems like some folks are convinced but I am not

Why would we *not* do that? Just because it's a bill related to background checks?

Not all change is bad.

Grudgily I may agree with that but not too fast.

[Heffay]

Grudgily I may agree with that but not too fast.

I'm still giddy with anticipation about your impending "Heffay was right" post.