MNGunTalk.com

This from GOCRA and MN GO Caucus:

Tuesday, April 26 at 8:30AM

Under Legislative rules, it's too late for any new pro- or anti-gun bills to move forward. Even knowing this, anti-2A Senator Ron Latz is holding a hearing on two DEAD gun control bills...and he's doing it on the day that the anti-gunners are having their day on the hill.

Why would he waste everyone's time, and your tax dollars, on this stunt?

1. The Bloomberg gun control gang told him to.
2. He wants it to look like there are big crowds to support gun control.
3. He can.

Whenever gun control rears its ugly, racist, elitist head, we'll be there.

If you can possibly arrange it, please meet us at the State Senate Building at 7:30 a.m, wearing your GOCRA shirt, so we can show the Senate, the media, and the state that Minnesotans don't support gun control.
Please let us know by clicking here: Can you come?

Thanks,

GOCRA has a creative graphic on their Facebook page that's mildly entertaining, if you need extra motivation.

Pretty good crowd at the senate office building. And Everytown has more than a handful.

http://www.startribune.com/background-c ... 377138831/

Background check bill riles both sides of gun debate

Sounds like more saber rattling from Ron Latz. The anti gunners all have the same message. They use these phrases:

1. I have no interest in taking the shotgun your grandpa gave you.
2. I have no interest in taking the old Winchester deer rifle that your grandpa gave you.
3. I come from a family of hunters.
4. I'm a bug supporter of the Second Amendment.
5. I have a lot of guns. So many of them that I do not know where they all are. Tommy Bakk said that a few years ago and no one called him on it.
6. My grandpa taught me to shoot when I was young.

This guy has a law degree from Harvard and can't do any better than being a state legislator? Hell. the guy who graduates last in his class can get a way better job than that.

Someone needs to find out the money wasted so when re election comes around, show how much tax payer money he pissed away.

Bearcatrp wrote:Someone needs to find out the money wasted so when re election comes around, show how much tax payer money he pissed away.

His supporters don't pay taxes, and don't care.

I was reading an article on the events at the capitol, and came across this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/27/gu ... on-likely/

Joe Olson, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said he would personally support a background check as long as it didn’t link to — or record — specific information about gun sales.

i know this is a dog and pony show, but WTF? UBC is just the next step in a full blown registration. There is no way the gun grabbers in St Paul would stick to this. Even if it passed in that magical format, two years later they would be knocking on the door to repeal the sections that prevented that data collection. They still want to open up the MPPA and amend it at every turn.

Tanfoglio wrote:I was reading an article on the events at the capitol, and came across this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/27/gu ... on-likely/

Joe Olson, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said he would personally support a background check as long as it didn’t link to — or record — specific information about gun sales.

i know this is a dog and pony show, but WTF? UBC is just the next step in a full blown registration. There is no way the gun grabbers in St Paul would stick to this. Even if it passed in that magical format, two years later they would be knocking on the door to repeal the sections that prevented that data collection. They still want to open up the MPPA and amend it at every turn.

He spoke about this at the gun owners lobby day rally. Essentially what he's saying is a background check should be as simple as call in to somewhere and ask if this is a good person and they say yes or no, zero mention of what you're asking for. Could be used for anything even hiring a baby sitter. At least that's how I understood it.

Ghost wrote:He spoke about this at the gun owners lobby day rally. Essentially what he's saying is a background check should be as simple as call in to somewhere and ask if this is a good person and they say yes or no, zero mention of what you're asking for. Could be used for anything even hiring a baby sitter. At least that's how I understood it.

http://mnsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... lip_id=522

The question as presented to Prof. Olson is at 1.29:45

The man has done wonders for our movement, but i have concerns when he's testifying in committee on behalf of GOCRA and comes out in favor of requiring a PTP/PTC for any gun transfer.

Tanfoglio wrote:

Ghost wrote:He spoke about this at the gun owners lobby day rally. Essentially what he's saying is a background check should be as simple as call in to somewhere and ask if this is a good person and they say yes or no, zero mention of what you're asking for. Could be used for anything even hiring a baby sitter. At least that's how I understood it.

http://mnsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... lip_id=522

The question as presented to Prof. Olson is at 1.29:45

The man has done wonders for our movement, but i have concerns when he's testifying in committee on behalf of GOCRA and comes out in favor of requiring a PTP/PTC for any gun transfer.

Can't get it to play.

Ghost wrote:

Tanfoglio wrote:I was reading an article on the events at the capitol, and came across this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/27/gu ... on-likely/

Joe Olson, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said he would personally support a background check as long as it didn’t link to — or record — specific information about gun sales.

i know this is a dog and pony show, but WTF? UBC is just the next step in a full blown registration. There is no way the gun grabbers in St Paul would stick to this. Even if it passed in that magical format, two years later they would be knocking on the door to repeal the sections that prevented that data collection. They still want to open up the MPPA and amend it at every turn.

He spoke about this at the gun owners lobby day rally. Essentially what he's saying is a background check should be as simple as call in to somewhere and ask if this is a good person and they say yes or no, zero mention of what you're asking for. Could be used for anything even hiring a baby sitter. At least that's how I understood it.

I have the greatest respect for Professor Olson.
Thus the statement in the paper really jumped out at me.
Your clarification makes some sense.
While there is logic, and reason to his proposal, I don't see that as being an end game/ accomplishment of the antis.
It's naive to believe anything other than what they want is another meaningless, unenforceable, more restrictive law that will lend itself to the passing of another meaningless, unenforceable, more restrictive law that will lend itself to ...∞

I watched about half the dog and pony show last night, and I think Latz was trying to be even more tricky and conniving than most people expect him to be. He's not actually as smart as he presents himself, so maybe he's being coached by a former mayor with a lot of money.

I think he was fishing. He drew out the gun rights people, because he knew if he had an "informational" hearing on bills that won't be heard this session, they would be compelled to testify. By getting people to testify, he can measure the strength of resistance - and the means of resistance - toward bills like that if they ever did make it to a vote.

It was good and necessary that the pro-gun people were there. However, he wanted them there. That was part of the plan.

Professor Olson's answer to the question about background checks wasn't necessarily a mistake or miscalculation. Latz will use that next session, or any chance he can get. But, it's not the kind of weakness he can take advantage of. He'll try, but he'll fail. Professor Olson has earned the respect of friends and enemies alike, because he seems to treat them with respect. That's really what he was doing by appearing to concede something.

I really thought Mr. Rothman's comments went too far. He covered the statistics well, but let himself get pulled into questions about the statistics later on, and I think he said too much. Mr. Vick did a very good job, as usual, but he went long. Ms. Cade's testimony was good, and in a way it's too bad she wasn't able to speak first.

In the broad scheme of things, I think this was a good exercise for us. Latz thinks he's being clever by drawing out the opposition and tricking them into giving away their tactics. But, I don't think he got anything he can use. The media has something to talk about, and the drama between opposing positions will be good for them. Other than that, this was just a warmup for a future session when the gun banners are better prepared.

I'm not with GOCRA so will let others comment on the hearing from their perspective but I thought both Kevin and Sarah did well.

This committee hearing was a deliberate stunt to set this up for the elections, in fact we've obtained some emails we've obtained that prove this that we will be sharing soon.

We didn't share much of our argument against and chose not to make our fact sheet against this legislation public for the very reason you cite above... This was a probe, and they'll be back in 2017 when it matters for real...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tanfoglio wrote:I was reading an article on the events at the capitol, and came across this.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/27/gu ... on-likely/

Joe Olson, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said he would personally support a background check as long as it didn’t link to — or record — specific information about gun sales.

i know this is a dog and pony show, but WTF? UBC is just the next step in a full blown registration. There is no way the gun grabbers in St Paul would stick to this. Even if it passed in that magical format, two years later they would be knocking on the door to repeal the sections that prevented that data collection. They still want to open up the MPPA and amend it at every turn.

I don't care what particular sub issue it is regarding the 2A, but IMO,there is no concession or compromise that I'm willing to make. None at all. I won't agree to giving an inch, nor a centimeter or millimeter. It is prudent to ALWAYS be working against the gun grabbers, NEVER with them on any issue. I seek their complete political destruction. They aren't our opponents. They are literally America's enemies. Any ground ceded to them today in a good faith gesture, WILL BE EXPLOITED AND EXPANDED as soon as politically possible. We must never forget that. NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH, EVER!!!!

The back ground checks are still not 100% accurate. Fix that 1st to insure all these doctors who have a lunatic patient report to whatever data base needed to get on the list. But my understanding is there is no set of rules across this country on who gets on that list from doctors due to patient/doctor privacy. Then come discuss doing a background check without the type of weapon being sold. But most folks don't trust the government. Give them an inch, bastards always come back for a mile.