Capitol Hearings Thursday 3/20

[Lumpy]

How about saying this all a waste of time because if this passes it will eventually get thrown out by the judiciary as violation of the 14th amendment ones right to Due Process.

Sorry, so far the SCOTUS has denied review of Circuit court decisions upholding protection orders forbidding people from possessing guns. Example: http://blogs.findlaw.com/tenth_circuit/ ... -2030.html

[Lumpy]

They're talking about the carpet bagger from Iowa...Minnesota Gun Rights.

I swear MGR could be a false-flag operation secretly run by gun-control advocates. For example, they are obsessed with promoting constitutional carry- the least of gun owners' worries considering that MN doesn't even have a state protection for gun ownership.

[photogpat]

They're talking about the carpet bagger from Iowa...Minnesota Gun Rights.

I swear MGR could be a false-flag operation secretly run by gun-control advocates. For example, they are obsessed with promoting constitutional carry- the least of gun owners' worries considering that MN doesn't even have a state protection for gun ownership.

Guy's entire "testimony" was - "throw this bill in the garbage, thank you."

Helpful!

[Mn01r6]

jshuberg, Spartan,

Could you expand, publicly or otherwise on your comments.

And thanks to you both, and all the rest who showed up.

They're talking about the carpet bagger from Iowa...Minnesota Gun Rights.

mms://stream2.video.state.mn.us/Senate/ ... 32014b.wmv

Fast forward to 03:12:45 to see David Gross getting kicked off the mic.

[Randygmn]

They're talking about the carpet bagger from Iowa...Minnesota Gun Rights.

I swear MGR could be a false-flag operation secretly run by gun-control advocates. For example, they are obsessed with promoting constitutional carry- the least of gun owners' worries considering that MN doesn't even have a state protection for gun ownership.

Good point. Why aren't we infiltrating these anti-groups, btw?

[gunsmith]

So....what's the Cliff's Notes version?

Gun possession (long or short) can be prohibited when any kind of domestic violence order is in place.

What changed unexpectedly last night, on the spot was:

Senator Lutz, The sponsor, agreed to allow a friend or relative to 'hold' the weapons for the individual. This friend or relative must sign an affidavit that the guns will not be given to the banned party until the order is vacated.

The FFL or police requirement (which would have been expensive) for storage is eliminated.

True or False and does this satisfy GOCRA.

Thanks again to the Midnight Volunteers.

[jshuberg]

There was another thing as well. There was an ambiguity whether an order of protection issued *prior* to someone going before a judge would result in becoming a prohibited person. Gross and the committee council discussed the matter briefly off camera, and council made a recommendation that Latz adopted as an amendment to clarify the question. I believe that this corrected the due process problem.

I would expect an email blast from GOCRA once they have a chance to see the actual wording, since none of the amendments, or promised changes were provided in writing. I left with the impression that Latz was willing to amend the bill to satisfy the concerns of GOCRA. Until they publish the changes though, we don't know for certain whether the bill is actually fixed or not.

For the record, I don't enjoy the idea of having to stand up for the rights of someone who is likely to be a wife or child abuser. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Even dirtbags have constitutional rights that must be protected though. For me, the purpose for correcting the bill is so that someone who is innocent of the charges doesn't get railroaded into becoming a prohibited person, and having law enforcement confiscate his firearms.

The actual domestic abuser, he can rot in hell for the rest of his life, without firearms or any other other rights as far as I'm concerned.

[BigBlue]

For me, the purpose for correcting the bill is so that someone who is innocent of the charges doesn't get railroaded into becoming a prohibited person, and having law enforcement confiscate his firearms.

That's the real, possibly unintended, consequence of the proposed bill. It would turn someone into a prohibited person far too quickly and easily and without due process. I could see that being used by unhappy, bitter ex's to really wreck the life of their ex and/or extort them. "Hey, if you don't do xyz for me I'm going to file for a order of protection and you'll lose all your guns." Can you imagine how someone could use that to force compromises during divorce proceedings? I've seen crazy ex's before and if they knew about this leverage they would use it. It's called 'got you over a barrel.'

BB

[Stugotz]

I would expect an email blast from GOCRA once they have a chance to see the actual wording,

Just Received The Following:

ALERT: House Bloomberg bill hearing Tuesday morning

The House version of Michael Bloomberg's unconstitutional gun grab bill, HF3238, will be heard Tuesday morning in Rep. Paymar's Public Safety committee.

As GOCRA testified to last night, the bill strips accused individuals of fundamental Second Amendment and property rights without due process, and imposes, practically, a gun forfeiture on such accused individuals. We will be posting a detailed critique on our web site this weekend, and will email you an update when it is ready.

In the Senate, bill author Ron Latz successfully urged his fellow DFLers on the committee to pass the bill, promising that the bill would be fixed after it was passed out of committee. This is, in the words of GOCRA co-founder and attorney David M. Gross, "backwards, upside-down, and inside out": bills are supposed to be voted upon based on their actual, current form, not vague promises of future amendment.

Once again, we are asking you to wear maroon (preferably a GOCRA shirt!), and show up to show your support your support for all civil rights, including due process, property, and Second Amendment rights.

The hearing starts at 10 a.m. in Room 10 of the State Office Building, next to the capitol. We recommend arriving by 7 to help guarantee a seat in the hearing room.

If you have not yet, please remember that you must notify the Commissioner of Public Safety if you intend to carry inside the Capitol complex. (Just click the link to do it!)



If you can come, please help us plan by letting us know: I'm coming!



Please ask gun owners and civil rights supporters to sign up for these alerts at http://www.gocra.org/join.html

Donate - Twitter - Facebook

GOCRA - P. O. Box 131254 - St. Paul, MN 55113

[jshuberg]

That's the real, possibly unintended, consequence of the proposed bill.

I think that most of us here realize that, but I just wanted to clarify for anyone lurking or visiting the forum wanting to get the pulse of what we're about here. Unlike the bills last year, in theory this bill should only effect those people who genuinely shouldn't be allowed to posses firearms. The unfortunate reality is that the system isn't perfect, and the falsely accused person needs to have his rights preserved.

While completely ridiculous, the antis might try to frame us as "firearms supporters want to arm domestic abusers", which couldn't be further from the truth. What we want is the preservation of the rights of the accused, and the ability for an individual the choice of how to transfer his property should he become prohibited.

[2in2out]

One of Mr. Gross' s points last night was that what this bill is supposed to do is already covered in existing statutes. Isn't that right?

Is it going to do any better job protecting those who need protecting?

In my mind, the "unintended consequences" are INTENDED by this bill. If protecting the abused and the threatened, then maybe they should start with what's wrong with the existing laws. But, I don't think that's the point.

Maybe this is a way that they can chip away at the RTKBA. Or, maybe they're testing the waters to see how we'll react and what they can get away with. Either way, I think this is just the first step in a much bigger plan.

The other thing that really bothers me is that Lutz isn't even hiding the fact that he's basically doing what Bloomberg wants him to. I think we need to find a better way to exploit that.

[photogpat]

This is a Bloomberg sponsored bill...and its deliberately written to frame opposition as appearing to be "supporting wife beaters". None of us believe that an adjudicated wife/child/partner abuser should be able to possess firearms...and in fact, Federal law already exists stripping them of this right.

Mr. Gross was right in his assertions that we don't remove rights w/o due process, regardless of the circumstances. Hasten the due process...bring it to hearing faster...but respect the law and people's rights.

[bstrawse]

They're talking about the carpet bagger from Iowa...Minnesota Gun Rights.

I swear MGR could be a false-flag operation secretly run by gun-control advocates. For example, they are obsessed with promoting constitutional carry- the least of gun owners' worries considering that MN doesn't even have a state protection for gun ownership.

Their promotion of constitutional carry is simply a way to get folks to sign their petition in order to capture their e-mail address & mailing address - to use for e-mail and direct mail fundraising.

That's it. The petition itself will never be delivered or acted upon.
b