SF 458 Passed committee...

[ktech]

Best outcome - SF458 fails on the floor since it doesn't have the votes; SF1359 (better than SF458, but still more regulation nonetheless) never comes up, and nothing gun-related "gets done" at all this year.

+1

SF1359, while not as bad as 458, still creates some issues that really don't need to be issues. One that comes to mind in particular is possession of ammunition by people under the legal age to possess the firearm that ammunition goes in. I understand the intent, but it also creates problems - what if Johnny goes on a hunting trip with his dad and ends up with an extra round in his backpack, which is then found at school or somewhere?
Just one example... I'm with JK-linux though; I'd be happiest if nothing passed.

I think that HF1359 isn't perfect, and no legislation is, but I think that such a bill is an opportunity to forge something that IS good. This is what was done with the MPPA of 2003. No, I wasn't around firearms then like I am now, but what if people had said "Well, this first draft sucks. Better not pass anything."

I understand not wanting anti-gun legislation to pass, but I'm confused by the unwillingness to forge GOOD pro-gun legislation our of a rough draft. At least we have something pro-gun/pro-freedom NOW. Why not work to improve it vs. wishing it fails? I don't get it. I see your point about the ammo in the school backpack, so, don't wish its failure!! FIX IT!! I think far too many people are of the mindset that ALL gun legislation is bad legislation, and it's just not. It's that people are so used to the anti-gunners filing these crap bills and so few pro-gun/pro-freedom bills even getting introduced, let alone voted on or passed that there's this rampant fear among many gun owners "OH NO!! A gun bill!!! Send in the NRA, GOCRA, SAF, etc!!" GOCRA is a large influential, local Minnesota force and thus is in a way, a core part of HF1359, as is Tony Cornish, and a few others...... so for anyone totally new and not paying attention - They are on OUR SIDE!! Why would anyone want that legislation to fail the chance to be voted on, improved, voted on and implemented? I just don't get it. Sorry. I never will.

You and everyone else is entitled to your opinion, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. Just as HF237 and HF458 were amended and refined, so too can HF1359 or any other proposed legislation also be fixed.

The problem is it doesn't add anything good - it just makes more things illegal.

If this were good, pro-gun legislation, I'd support it. It's mediocre criminal legislation at best.

Again, this bill is not pro-gun or pro-freedom.

In fact:

Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) Whoever files a written
7.8 report with a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that
7.9 the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
7.10 (b) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
7.11 than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
7.12 (1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
7.13 (2) violates paragraph (a) while knowing that the firearm has been transferred to
7.14 someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, as defined in
7.15 section 624.712, subdivision 5.
7.16 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes
7.17 committed on or after that date.

Not sure the point of this section, to be honest. All the majority of the "good bill" (SF1359) does is make things that are already illegal more illegaler.

I understand and appreciate the intent behind the legislation, but this sort of legislation isn't what we need. Again, as much as I respect and appreciate GOCRA, just because they say something is good does not make it so.

[BigBlue]

Again, this bill is not pro-gun or pro-freedom.

In fact:

Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) Whoever files a written
7.8 report with a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that
7.9 the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
7.10 (b) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
7.11 than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
7.12 (1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
7.13 (2) violates paragraph (a) while knowing that the firearm has been transferred to
7.14 someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, as defined in
7.15 section 624.712, subdivision 5.
7.16 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes
7.17 committed on or after that date.

Not sure the point of this section, to be honest. All the majority of the "good bill" (SF1359) does is make things that are already illegal more illegaler.

I understand and appreciate the intent behind the legislation, but this sort of legislation isn't what we need. Again, as much as I respect and appreciate GOCRA, just because they say something is good does not make it so.

I believe the point of that section is to add some more impactful punishment for straw sales situations. i.e. When someone buys a gun and then gives it (or sells) to a prohibited person and then claims it was stolen as a way to avoid prosecution under the straw sales law. It does have other potential negative effects, such as making felons out of people who thought they lost their firearms in an unfortunate boating accident, but I don't think that was the real goal here.

BB

[BigBlue]

The ban on magazines and "Semi Automatic Military Style Assault Weapons" have been pulled (deleted) from all current bills.

In MN, yes. But it is advancing at the federal level. Bad things could still happen. Contact your federal reps and senators.

BB

[texasprowler]

SF 458 would effectively return MN back to being a "may issue" state. ........permit denials would likely become the norm in certain counties.

Returning back to MN general ban on handguns in public could be a good thing. Would McDonald overrule?

[jshuberg]

No, neither Heller nor McDonald dealt with the carrying of firearms in public. The ruling of the 9th circuit court in Moore v. Illinois did find that a state must provide a mechanism for a person to be able to carry in public, but they didn't go into what that mechanism must be or how it must work. That, and the 9th circuit doesn't apply to MN.

Hopefully they appeal to the Supreme Court, and that they not only affirm the ruling, but provide further guidance that a state *must* issue a carry permit to any individual who has not had the right stripped by due process of law.

We don't want to return to being a "may issue" state, where a county sheriff or police chief can decide who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, and who can't. We need to continue to do everything possible to protect our rights.

[whiteox]

No, neither Heller nor McDonald dealt with the carrying of firearms in public. The ruling of the 7th circuit court in Moore v. Madigan state must provide a mechanism for a person to be able to carry in public, but they didn't go into what that mechanism must be or how it must work. That, and the 9th circuit doesn't apply to MN.

Hopefully they appeal to the Supreme Court, and that they not only affirm the ruling, but provide further guidance that a state *must* issue a carry permit to any individual who has not had the right stripped by due process of law.

We don't want to return to being a "may issue" state, where a county sheriff or police chief can decide who gets to exercise their constitutional rights, and who can't. We need to continue to do everything possible to protect our rights.

FTFY

Calguns forum has a very good section about the cases that are winding their way through the courts now.

[XDM45]

@ktech and BigBlue

As I said earlier:

"I think that HF1359 isn't perfect, and no legislation is, but I think that such a bill is an opportunity to forge something that IS good. This is what was done with the MPPA of 2003. No, I wasn't around firearms then like I am now, but what if people had said "Well, this first draft sucks. Better not pass anything."

If you have ideas on improving it, write the authors. Is it that you are just against this bill or against ALL gun bills, even when improved to your liking?

[jgalt]

The ruling of the 9th 7th circuit court in Moore v. Illinois...

Fixed it for ya'...

[BigBlue]

@ktech and BigBlue

As I said earlier:

"I think that HF1359 isn't perfect, and no legislation is, but I think that such a bill is an opportunity to forge something that IS good. This is what was done with the MPPA of 2003. No, I wasn't around firearms then like I am now, but what if people had said "Well, this first draft sucks. Better not pass anything."

If you have ideas on improving it, write the authors. Is it that you are just against this bill or against ALL gun bills, even when improved to your liking?

You must be mistaking me for someone else. Your comment makes no sense based on my posts.

[2in2out]

The ban on magazines and "Semi Automatic Military Style Assault Weapons" have been pulled (deleted) from all current bills.

In MN, yes. But it is advancing at the federal level. Bad things could still happen. Contact your federal reps and senators.

BB

I agree.

Even though all 3 of my US congressional members are democrats who have sold their souls for gun control, I'm not letting up on them... or, letting them off the hook.