Respectfully, I do not want 'Constitutional Carry' in MN :)

[bstrawse]

The more I think about it the less there is to debate here....

Who can not get a permit in mn?

What is required? 4 hours of training every five years.

Now If we had permit to carry regs like NYC or DC THEN there would be a battle to be fought...

Calling Professor Joe Olson (author of the MCPPA) Calling Professor Joe Olson....What would you change about the law of significance???

You could think of something but not much.

I personally would like to see a 2A in the MN constitution if any thing goes wonky with the Federal situation.

There is no requirement in MN 624.714 for a specific number of hours of training - only that specific topics be covered...

Bryan

[ttousi]

as noted by bstrawse

specifically
from 624.714

Subd. 2a. Training in the safe use of a pistol.

(a) An applicant must present evidence that the applicant received training in the safe use of a pistol within one
year of the date of an original or renewal application. Training may be demonstrated by:

(1) employment as a peace officer in the state of Minnesota within the past year; or

(2) completion of a firearms safety or training course providing basic training in the safe use of a pistol and
conducted by a certified instructor.

(b) Basic training must include:

(1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

(2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

(3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense
and the restrictions on the use of deadly force.

notice no time requirements nor any standard or minimum course of fire

[gunsmith]

Your course must be given by an "instructor" who has been 'certified' by a 'certifying organization'.

That "certifying organization must be recognized by the BCA. They have a list.

That's Ballpark and from memory....am I correct?

Instructor >>>>Instructor Certifying Organization (Madfi for instance)>>>>>recognized by BCA

[bstrawse]

Your course must be given by an "instructor" who has been 'certified' by a 'certifying organization'.

That "certifying organization must be recognized by the BCA. They have a list.

That's Ballpark and from memory....am I correct?

Instructor >>>>Instructor Certifying Organization (Madfi for instance)>>>>>recognized by BCA

Correct.

B

[DustinD]

The things we should try and change first concerning carry would be:

Replace the training requirement with a free PDF that covers the laws, standards, basic safety, and so on. Actual training, while a good idea, would not be required to defend yourself outside the home without it being a gross misdemeanor. The main reason for this is that the costs are preventing a lot of people from getting their permit. Just look at Florida's million carry permits.
Reduce the fee for the permit itself.
For the above to we can compare it to voting, people would be up in arms if we required a poll tax and literacy test. These fees discriminate against the poor.

Change the age requirement from 21 to 18 years old. I would prefer for it to be even lower, but that is what we could likely get.
Remove all carry and transportation restrictions for long guns. I am not sure of the exact number, but many sport shooters and hunters are committing serious crimes on a regular basis and not knowing it. If possible add air rifles and paintball guns to this list.
Remove the notification requirement for carrying into government buildings that currently require notification.
More places to carry, college campuses being a big one.

That said, I would like our focus to be on suppressors and SYG laws.
Maybe also see if we can ban prosecutors from mentioning the gun or ammo type used by the defendant in self defense trials.

[RobD]

The things we should try and change first concerning carry would be:

Replace the training requirement with a free PDF that covers the laws, standards, basic safety, and so on. Actual training, while a good idea, would not be required to defend yourself outside the home without it being a gross misdemeanor. The main reason for this is that the costs are preventing a lot of people from getting their permit. Just look at Florida's million carry permits.
Reduce the fee for the permit itself.
For the above to we can compare it to voting, people would be up in arms if we required a poll tax and literacy test. These fees discriminate against the poor.

Change the age requirement from 21 to 18 years old. I would prefer for it to be even lower, but that is what we could likely get.
Remove all carry and transportation restrictions for long guns. I am not sure of the exact number, but many sport shooters and hunters are committing serious crimes on a regular basis and not knowing it. If possible add air rifles and paintball guns to this list.
Remove the notification requirement for carrying into government buildings that currently require notification.
More places to carry, college campuses being a big one.

That said, I would like our focus to be on suppressors and SYG laws.
Maybe also see if we can ban prosecutors from mentioning the gun or ammo type used by the defendant in self defense trials.

You should take a look at who's in office.

We tried SYG, it got vetoed. Need a much friendlier leg to open up carry laws. Never underestimate how badly things can be amended.

[JJ]

That said, I would like our focus to be on suppressors and SYG laws.

SYG and carry law changes aren't going anywhere. Even though the current legislature is DFL controlled, I still believe you are right on your first priority. Even if laws are not passed this year, the discussion should at the very least be opened IMO. The lefties always want to be more like Europeans, lets capitalize, and make some hay.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... aring.aspx

...snip...While American gun owners don’t often point to Europeans as providing an example that should be followed, the use of suppressors in Europe is an exception. In many of the countries “across the pond,” the use of these noise-attenuating devices is actively encouraged. Buying “moderators” (their term for suppressors) from a hardware store is often no different than buying a hammer or a screwdriver. They are often not subject to the same draconian regulation as consumers here in the United States....snip...

We regulate noise pollution in cars, ATVs, etc. Why not try and push to legalize suppressors?

[ex-LT]

More places to carry, college campuses being a big one.

You are aware that the MNSCU colleges and universities are prohibited from restricting carry by visitors, right? So is the U of M, although they claim they're exempt from the law. They CAN restrict carry by employees and students, however.

[bstrawse]

I'm all for legalizing suppressors - however, I do not believe that such a bill would even get a hearing with Paymar and Latz controlling the two committees through the end of the 2014 term. We're going to have to go all-out just to play defense, unfortunately.
b

[JJ]

I'm all for legalizing suppressors - however, I do not believe that such a bill would even get a hearing with Paymar and Latz controlling the two committees through the end of the 2014 term. We're going to have to go all-out just to play defense, unfortunately.
b

Sometimes the best defense, is coming out swinging with a strong offense.

I've worked the legislative process on some other issues in the past. The one that I was most involved with, it took two years of behind the scenes before we even got a hearing. then two more years in committee before we made it thru. There is no doubt i understand that we are going to be on our heels on some issues. But sitting back and doing nothing accomplishes exactly that.

[Thunder71]

I've often wondered why we can do both offence and defense, even if nothing is getting passed should it stop us from trying? Obviously they aren't giving up on coming in with new ways to restrict us.

[Lights]

I say we go for suppressors. They are legal in every state around us. I know how long it can take to get things past also. I was one of the guys that pushed for use of lights for predator hunting here in MN. It took 3 years if I remember correctly.

[Mn01r6]

While I agree that the legislative process usually takes many years of "getting the average legislator used to the idea" before it passes, we are talking about trying to survive the proverbial 1,000 year storm right now. We have had some recent back-to-back tragedies that are being blamed on guns and we have a huge target on our backs right now. Would you accept a universal background check requirement in trade for the possibility of having suppressors legal in 3 years or would you rather wait until next year to start the process of education with a new crop of legislators that will be elected in 2014, having held our ground in the interim?

[Thunder71]

Why is it one or the other, why can't they keep trying for things - those opposing guns do it every chance they get.

It's like saying; "If they try it this year and fail, it's over with for that topic."

We all but succeeded two years ago if it wasn't for a veto by the Governor, is there a reason it doesn't go through the process again? It's already written and the majority agree with it.

And are suppressors really on the top of the list of things to get through?

[JJ]

Would you accept a universal background check requirement in trade for the possibility of having suppressors legal in 3 years or would you rather wait until next year to start the process of education with a new crop of legislators that will be elected in 2014, having held our ground in the interim?

My concern on that note, if we keep hanging back and waiting, we waste the opportunity to get Legislators with seniority. I'm all for educating new Legislators down the road, but you run the risk of further extending the timeline by doing nothing. Freshmen legislators hold almost zero power to get bills to committees.

We have to realize, that some that are considered allies of the 2nd, often times do not support suppressors. On the plus side, I do think that some legislators considered opponents of the 2nd can be sold, when the idea of making existing ranges quieter, with less impact to the general population. We can also key on the reduction in long term hearing damage (and cost to health care long term). Along side of those issues, it can serve as a benefit to the manufacturing sector, as we do have a strong presence in state of arms and ammo manufacturers.

Nobody is saying we have to throw all our eggs into this basket. What a lot of us are asking is for a collective agreement to make this part of the long term plan.