URGENT: Hunter "convenience" bill SCREWS metro gun owners

[princewally]

This bill must be stopped.

In the last two weeks while the bill was "hidden" in committee, Rep. Dill's uncased, unloaded CONVENIENCE BILL for shotgun hunters has morphed into a monstrosity that does the following:

1. Recognizes that the 7-county Metro area is "different" from the rest of the state, that the metro area needs "more stringent" gun laws, and makes metro gun owners into second-class gun owners,

2. Identifies handgun hunters as second-class hunters,

3. automatically bans firearm discharge in cities of 2500 population irrespective of the city's desire with no exceptions possible,

4. automatically bans firearm discharge on all "school grounds" including off-campus open fields, owned by a school district, where hunting has always been allowed with no exceptions possible, and

5. continues the ban on carry of long guns in a vehicle under a carry permit.

This bill does nothing of significant value, provides a minor convenience to a few group hunters and sporting clay shooters, and ACCEPTS the policy that METRO AREAS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF MINNESOTA AND NEED MORE STRINGENT GUN LAWS.

If you live in the metro area, rural "pro-gun" legislators just agreed with the most virulent anti-gunners that YOU are the problem and that SECOND-CLASS GUN OWNERS like YOU need to be subject to MORE STRINGENT gun prohibitions. Yup, they sold you out for a golf cart ride!

The antis are getting, courtesy of some narrow-minded, politically insensitive, "pro-gun" legislators their most prized desire. A POLICY THAT TREATS THE METRO AREA AS A DANGEROUS PLACE TO ALLOW GUNS. They couldn't get this in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (they tried to add it to the Carry Bill but lost big), 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008. But they are getting it now!

Either this provision must be KILLED in its entirely or the "unless" clauses stripped out (which will probably kill it). The bill is now in the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division. The offending provisions should come out in that committee.

It is time to HAMMER on RepDavid.Dill@house.mn, on Rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn, and on Rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn.
Senator list to come later.

Here is HF128 which is now on page 15-16 of a larger game and fish bill (HF)1238:

15.10 Sec. 31. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 97B.045, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
15.11 Subdivision 1. Restrictions. (a) A person may not transport a firearm in a motor
15.12vehicle unless the firearm is:
15.13(1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case
15.14fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened,
15.15and without any portion of the firearm exposed;
15.16(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle; or
15.17(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715.
15.18(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a person may transport an unloaded, uncased
15.19firearm, excluding a pistol as defined in paragraph (c), in a motor vehicle while at a
15.20shooting range, as defined under section 87A.01, subdivision 3, where the person has
15.21received permission from the lawful owner or possessor to discharge firearms; lawfully
15.22hunting on private or public land; or travelling to or from a site the person intends to hunt
15.23lawfully that day or has hunted lawfully that day, unless:
15.24(1) within the seven-county metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121,
15.25subdivision 4;
15.26(2) within an area where the discharge of a firearm has been prohibited under section
15.27471.633;
15.28(3) within the boundaries of a home rule charter or statutory city with a population
15.29of 2,500 or more;
15.30(4) on school grounds as regulated under section 609.66, subdivision 1d; or
15.31(5) otherwise restricted under section 97A.091, 97B.081, or 97B.086.
15.32(c) For the purposes of this section, a "pistol" includes a weapon designed to be fired
15.33by the use of a single hand and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a
15.34barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case of a shotgun or having a barrel
15.35of a length less than 16 inches in the case of a rifle:
16.1(1) from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means
16.2of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or
16.3explosive substances; or
16.4(2) for which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air or
16.5other gas, or vapor.
16.6"Pistol" does not include a device firing or ejecting a shot measuring .18 of an inch, or
16.7less, in diameter and commonly known as a "BB gun," a scuba gun, a stud gun, or nail gun
16.8used in the construction industry or children's pop guns or toys.

To understand the above you need to know about this existing statute:

473.121 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1.Terms.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them in this section, except as otherwise expressly provided or indicated by the context.
Subd. 4.Metropolitan county.
"Metropolitan county" means any one of the following counties: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott or Washington.

[plblark]

Rep.David.Dill@house.mn,
Rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn,
Rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn
date Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM
subject Modifications to proposed Casing requirements change sell Metro residents short and create a BAD precedent


Gentlemen,

while your aims may be pure with respect to HF128 which is now on page 15-16 of a larger game and fish bill (HF)1238, I am greatly concerned by precedent and unintentional consequences of this bill.

I am particularly disturbed by the following concessions:
unless:
15.24(1) within the seven-county metropolitan area as defined in section 473.121,
15.25subdivision 4;
15.26(2) within an area where the discharge of a firearm has been prohibited under section
15.27471.633;
15.28(3) within the boundaries of a home rule charter or statutory city with a population
15.29of 2,500 or more;
15.30(4) on school grounds as regulated under section 609.66, subdivision 1d; or
15.31(5) otherwise restricted under section 97A.091, 97B.081, or 97B.086.

In essence, you're setting up two types of places in respect to firearm regulation: Rural and Urban. There are plenty of legal places to hunt within the Metro counties. Hennepin is huge and Washington County goes all the way to Wisconsin. Dakota has some large areas and there's a lot of private land to hunt.

State gun laws, which pre-empt municipalities, should be targeted but not overly specific and not based on arbitrary factors which the law abiding gun owner could suddenly find him or herself in violation. The population issue is such an issue. one single birth or death could change the population after all.

For comparison, I urge you to look at North Dakota's Carry permit laws. With the inclusion of "public gatherings" and its definition by possible crowd size, they have place a large burden of doubt over whether carry anywhere is legal and opened a Pandora box for anti-gun legislation (which is thankfully rare in ND) ..

I urge you to insist that these camel's nose under the tent flap type modifications be removed. I realize that could kill this bill. But this bill and its unintended consequences could lead us farther down the road to divide, regulate, and conquer.

Respectfully,

Paul Bxxxxxx

As Rep Cornish is aware, Gun rights are not a strictly hunting or sporting issue for me and many of the gun rights crowd.

--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

[princewally]

Liberally borrowed from Paul:

To: RepDavid.Dill@house.mn,Rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn,Rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn
Dear Representatives,
Subject: Modifications to proposed firearm casing requirements change sell Metro residents short and create a BAD precedent


While your intentions may be good with respect to HF128 (which is now on
page 15-16 of a larger game and fish bill (HF)1238), you know what they
say about paving the road to hell.

I am greatly concerned by the unintended consequences of this bill.

I am particularly disturbed by the following concessions:
unless:
15.24(1) within the seven-county metropolitan area as defined in section
473.121,
15.25subdivision 4;
15.26(2) within an area where the discharge of a firearm has been
prohibited under section
15.27471.633;
15.28(3) within the boundaries of a home rule charter or statutory city
with a population
15.29of 2,500 or more;
15.30(4) on school grounds as regulated under section 609.66, subdivision
1d; or
15.31(5) otherwise restricted under section 97A.091, 97B.081, or 97B.086.

#1 forces tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of metropolitan gun owners
into "second class citizen" status. There are numerous places to hunt in
the metro area, and many hunters originate in the metro.

#2 creates a situation where hunters will have to know the city ordinances
of every organized city or village through which they may pass. There are
many hunters who pass through small towns between hunting locations, and
many others who stop in the same small towns for gas, or unforeseen
emergencies. Do you intend to require that hunters plan their emergencies
far enough our to check on city ordinances during business hours?

#3 creates the same issues as #2, addressed above.

Please rethink this bill. It leaves too many questions and will cause too
many problems. As I am sure you are aware, gun rights are about more than
just hunting.

Sincerely,

[plblark]

You are completely wrong on this bill and take a chance of killing it. It does not take away anything you had before. It's the best attempt we can make to get the better deal for hunters statewide.

It was not hidden by any sense. It was on line and in the files for review. Nothing was hidden. There has always been a provision in there for some exceptions. There is a rifle / shotgun zone in the state. WE can't fire rifles in deer season down here, but we don't scream discrimination. We have cities where you can archery hunt but not with rilfes or shotguns. SOmetimes there are differences and this is one of them. But it benefits the vast majority of hunters. It's not a "rights" thing. It's a geographical thing

Rep Cornish

Rep Cornish,

I had to go and re-read my original e-mail . When I did so, I found some embarrassing typos but nowhere did I say anything about bad intentions or agendas on the part of the authors of this bill.

Quite frankly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Liberal Metro DFL anti-gunners and the Joyce Foundation funded Citizens for a Safer Minnesota have been trying to convince the public that the Metro counties are "specially" dangerous because of law-abiding people with guns for years. It has been their Golden Fleece since Howard Orenstein and Wes Skoglund first got elected. They have tried to add it as an amendment to every gun bill since 1989

Now we have Pro-gun legislation paving their path for them. I think that's a very poor concession to make and an expensive trade-off. I realize that risks killing bill and I don't make these comments lightly.

Thank you for your continued attention to our rights,

[plblark]

Liberally borrowed from Paul:

That's the purpose of posting them. It's not about getting credit for doing it, it's about each off us helping others send the message. Hell, I borrowed a lot of mine and my reply from Joe Olson but I meant every word of it and realize what it will likely cost in terms of the uncased portion of the bill.

[Pat]

Liberally borrowed from Paul:

I didn't realize Paul was a Liberal. Cool

[mnglocker]

Liberally borrowed from Paul:

I didn't realize Paul was a Liberal. Cool

Classically speaking. Otherwise it's probably a good thing you're "up der in the woods".

[DeanC]

Have you guys sent your e-mails yet?

They are really pushing to do this.

If they succeed with this bill, it will put a stake into the heart of the state's preemption law and we risk having a patchwork of carry laws for each municipality in the state which will effectively end the realistic practice of carry in Minnesota.

[nyffman]

Who are the most importants targets right now? I see this has been refered to Public Safety Policy and Oversight.

[DeanC]

Who are the most importants targets right now? I see this has been refered to Public Safety Policy and Oversight.

Rep.David.Dill@house.mn,
Rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn,
Rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn

[nyffman]

Ok, thanks. Actually, as part of HF 1238, it is now in the Environment and Natural Resources Finance Division.

[Pat]

I called both Rep. Dill and our district's rep.

[Stradawhovious]

Have you guys sent your e-mails yet?

Done.

[xd9]

e-mails sent.

[WWJD]

Liberally borrowed from Paul:

I didn't realize Paul was a Liberal. Cool

Classically speaking. Otherwise it's probably a good thing you're "up der in the woods".

Pat picked up a Moose at the bar last night

AND SCORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You go boy!!

Whats next for a notch on the bed post, I've heard Does don;t put out on a first date, unlike the slut Moose :