Urgent: Call Senator Latz THIS MORNING

[Andrew Rothman]

Do you want gun registration? More permit denials? Second Amendment infringements?

That's easy: do nothing.

If you don't want those things, make two phone calls in the next two hours.
_______________________________

Put the pressure on: make two phone calls and send one email right away!

Last night, Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-46) rammed his gun control bill through the Judiciary Committee (he's the chairman), and refused to take a vote on Sen. Julianne Ortman's (R-47) rights-respecting Criminal Control bill.

The good Ortman good bill, SF 1359, has been the support of GOCRA, the NRA, the Minnesota Sherrifs Association, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, and has broad, bipartisan legislative support, including more than half of the Minnesota House. Sen. Ortman's bill addresses criminals' use of guns.

Sen. Latz's bad bill, SF458, attacks the rights of law abiding citizens, and would create unversal gun registration in Minnesota, send us back to the bad old days of "May Issue" purchase and carry permits, and strip gun owners of vital Due Process protections.

Demand a vote!

We need you to call Sen. Latz's office right this minute and demand that he put Sen. Ortman's SF1359 on the agenda of today's Judiciary Committee meeting. The meeting starts at 11:30 this morning, so we need you to call RIGHT NOW!

Sen. Latz: 651-297-8065

If you can't get through, try his committee administrator:

Cheryl Youakim: 651-296-4842

Whether you get an answering machine or a person, here's the short, clear message:

Minnesota demands a vote on SF1359!

When you've done that, please call your own senator with the same message, and ask the senator to contact Sen. Latz this morning.

To make sure the message gets through, please also send an email message to Sen. Latz on his web page: http://www.senate.mn/members/member_ema ... id=1102&ls

Take action now! Don't let the rights-grabbing SF458 bill be the only option on the floor!

Twitter users: Spread the word on Facebook and Twitter, retweeting @GOCRA_MN tweets and using the hashtag #demandavote

[Texastransplant]

DONE!

[gunnerbmg]

done and sent out 12 emails to fellow gunnies they will act

[xd9]

Done X2 and emails! Plus sent snail mail. Might get there late on this one though.

[darkwolf45]

Could someone refresh my memory please? I swear I heard Latz tell the public in the last hearing that the public would have the opportunity to testify in regards to the (then) upcoming omnibus bill. But I am certain I heard him correctly last night saying tht he would not be allowing public testimony.

[shooter115]

Done

[2in2out]

Done.

And, Darkwolf45, good point. I'm not sure what happened to his promise to allow public input.

[JK-linux]

I called both numbers, left a very brief and polite message for both and my personal cell number and full name for both. I hit the talking points re: Sheriff's Assn. etc... listed in the first post and expressed deep concern over SF458 and whole-hearted support of SF1359. Very polite, in my best "I voted for you, and I don't understand why you would do such a thing." type-voice.

With any luck SF458 won't pass, SF1359 won't get heard, and NO new legislation will come out at all for this session.

[shooter115]

Called him and it went straight to VM, so I left a message. Tried to call again and it went straight to VM. Called the other number and it went straight to VM as well. Has anyone actually gotten through to a real person. Just wondering if they are getting bombed or have maybe just shut the phones off.

[darkwolf45]

How's this?

Good Morning sir,
I am not a direct constituent of yours, however given the nature of the bill referenced in the subject line of this message I felt it necessary to express my sincerest disappointment in your behavior last night at the Judiciary hearing. First of all, I do recall hearing you say explicitly at the last meeting regarding this bill that there would be time alloted for public testimony regarding it once it was prepared for inclusion in an omnibus bill.
My interpretation of this is that my first impression watching that hearing was correct- you have no interest in the views of your constituents or of other consituents that will be affected by your legislation. While I can admit that this interpretation may be incorrect, (despite increasing evidence that it is correct) what I can say with certainty is that your dramatic change on stated and promised procedure is unequivocally unacceptable.
Furthermore, your insistence on breaking up portions of the bill without even providing a draft of what provisions you intended to change is shameful to a point of absurdity. Non sequeter arguments of precedent (which may or may not in actuality support your case) for this type of action aside, dramatic changes which effectively eliminate the ability of stakeholders to even voice their concerns over your actions demonstrates a breach of trust on a fundamental level. This breach of trust significantly increases the ethical burden on you to demonstrate succinctly that you stated changes to proposed law is in fact the change that will actually be proposed.
Finally, I am incredibly disturbed by the fact that you refused to even allow the poosibility of open discussion of a bill that, in my honest opinion, actually have a better chance of achieving the results you stated you wish accomplish.
I will leave it to you to discover the implications regarding this last onerous move you committed.
Thank you, and as an aside I wish to also convey my thanks regarding another unrelated matter. Your behavior last night was so egregious that for the first time in my life I believe I have become motivated to become activated politically and will assist in the coming election by joining a candidate that intends to replace you in the sanate.
Sincerely,
Brian T. Rule

[Thunder71]

Did you send that yet?

If not, I see some correction opportunities.

[darkwolf45]

No, I was just finishing up proofreading before I hit the send button.

Here is the edit:
Good Morning sir,
I am not a direct constituent of yours, however given the nature of the bill referenced in the subject line of this message I felt it necessary to express my sincerest disappointment in your behavior last night at the judiciary hearing. First of all, I do recall hearing you say explicitly at the last meeting regarding this bill that there would be time allotted for public testimony regarding it once it was prepared for inclusion in an omnibus bill.
My interpretation of this is that my first impression watching that hearing was correct- you have no interest in the views of your constituents or of other constituents that will be affected by your legislation. While I can admit that this interpretation may be incorrect, (despite increasing evidence that it is correct) what I can say with certainty is that your dramatic change on stated and promised procedure is unequivocally unacceptable.
Furthermore, your insistence on breaking up portions of the bill without even providing a draft of what provisions you intended to change is shameful to a point of absurdity. Non-sequitur arguments of precedent (which may or may not in actuality support your case) for this type of action aside, dramatic changes which effectively eliminate the ability of stakeholders to even voice their concerns over your actions demonstrates a breach of trust on a fundamental level. This breach of trust significantly increases the ethical burden on you to demonstrate succinctly that your stated changes to proposed law is in fact the change that will actually be proposed.
Finally, I am incredibly disturbed by the fact that you refused to even allow the possibility of open discussion of a bill that, in my honest opinion, actually has a better chance of achieving the results you stated you wish accomplish.
I will leave it to you to discover the implications regarding this last onerous move you committed.
Thank you, and as an aside I wish to also convey my thanks regarding another unrelated matter. Your behavior last night was so egregious that for the first time in my life I believe I have become motivated to become active politically and will assist in the coming election by supporting a campaign effort of a candidate that intends to replace you in the senate.
Sincerely,
Brian T. Rule

[yukonjasper]

done. Not to discourage any other action on this, but I am skeptical that public outrage will have any effect. I get the sense that the tactics belie the attitude and this particular "public servant" has already decided what outcome he wants and will do all in his power to achieve that end.

Pressure from your local representative Senator would be a good route since these types can insulate themselves from public opinion, but may be swayed by fellow legislators. Afterall, he'll need others to vote for future "important" legislation and if the perception is that he has alienated the support of his collegues, he could be moderated. Blind ambition is hard to stop sometimes.

In case you don't know who represents you:
http://www.gis.leg.mn/OpenLayers/districts/

[Thunder71]

That's better.

But I agree, anything against his bill will just prompt the delete key and he'll assume you don't know what you want, and that will reaffirm in his mind he's doing what's in your best interest.

[Jackpine Savage]

Probably worthwhile letting Senator Bakk know what you think of Latz's performance as committee chair as well. As I understand it he made the committee chair appointments.