MN Suppressors

Firearms related political discussion forum

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby LarryFlew on Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:07 pm

Grayskies wrote:I think there is something fundamentally wrong when you have to be rich to be able to sue the government to overturn an unconstitutional law. Righs should be for all not just for those that can afford them.


Have to be rich seems to be the problem all along from being able to run for office to being the guy that can afford to be involved in a law suit of any kind. Like getting a bank loan, if you don't need the money it's easy to get a loan. If you REALLY need the money you're SOL.

They screwed the pooch long before any of us were born from a need money to be anything in politics standpoint. The days of anyone can grow up to be (insert political post here) ended a long time ago.
If you're having second thoughts you're two ahead of most Democrats
User avatar
LarryFlew
 
Posts: 5136 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Hamburg, MN - CZ fan - Class of 66 - USAF 66-70 - NRA life since 1970

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Grayskies on Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:36 pm

LarryFlew wrote:
Grayskies wrote:I think there is something fundamentally wrong when you have to be rich to be able to sue the government to overturn an unconstitutional law. Righs should be for all not just for those that can afford them.


Have to be rich seems to be the problem all along from being able to run for office to being the guy that can afford to be involved in a law suit of any kind. Like getting a bank loan, if you don't need the money it's easy to get a loan. If you REALLY need the money you're SOL.

They screwed the pooch long before any of us were born from a need money to be anything in politics standpoint. The days of anyone can grow up to be (insert political post here) ended a long time ago.

I agree, you need money to do anything these days, it use to be if you didn't like things, you rounded up some supplies and walked or rode away, home steading or building a cabin someplace remote and living off the land. No taxes, so whiny libs stripping you of firearms... Closest you can get is Alaska and they still require permits to hunt and such...

It seems like you can't even breath in the US with out some kind of fee or tax, I know you can't die with out one. Maybe we need to rework how this country funtions some and while were at it evict some squaters we have too many people already.

(sorry I had some hopes that we would not be rules by rich elite aristocrats, we fought a war about that I thought.)
NRA Life Member & Certified Range Safety Officer
Honorably Discharged U.S. Army Veteran
General Class Amateur Radio Operator and ARRL VE and SkyWarn
Amateur Radio Emergency Service® (ARES)

P2C since August 2003
User avatar
Grayskies
 
Posts: 3906 [View]
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:52 am
Location: North Central MN

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby MJY65 on Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:25 pm

Grayskies wrote: Maybe we need to rework how this country funtions some and while were at it evict some squaters we have too many people already.

(sorry I had some hopes that we would not be rules by rich elite aristocrats, we fought a war about that I thought.)


Perhaps telling Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities to stop turning MN into a refugee camp would be a start.
MJY65
 
Posts: 1068 [View]
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:35 am

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Hmac on Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:09 pm

Chunkychuck wrote:
Hmac wrote:Huh? Bypass the legislature? And what does the court system have to do with it?


In the courts is where you fight issues that legislatures, city councils, etc. pass and won't budge on them. If it weren't for the courts we wouldn't have Heller or McDonald. Or the ongoing case in CA where the San Diego sheriff will most likely have to start issuing "shall issue permits" instead of his past "may issue permits. Full disclosure requires the notification that my pockets aren't deep so I will have to wait for the legislature.

Heller, McDonald, San Diego are all issues that revolve around a constitutional question regarding the 2nd Amendment. What would be the basis for your lawsuit on suppressors? Are you saying that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear suppressors? What constitutional right is being violated by Minnesota's decision not to allow suppressors?
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Chunkychuck on Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Hmac wrote:
Chunkychuck wrote:
Hmac wrote:Huh? Bypass the legislature? And what does the court system have to do with it?


In the courts is where you fight issues that legislatures, city councils, etc. pass and won't budge on them. If it weren't for the courts we wouldn't have Heller or McDonald. Or the ongoing case in CA where the San Diego sheriff will most likely have to start issuing "shall issue permits" instead of his past "may issue permits. Full disclosure requires the notification that my pockets aren't deep so I will have to wait for the legislature.

Heller, McDonald, San Diego are all issues that revolve around a constitutional question regarding the 2nd Amendment. What would be the basis for your lawsuit on suppressors? Are you saying that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear suppressors? What constitutional right is being violated by Minnesota's decision not to allow suppressors?


In my response to Mary B. I specifically said it would need to be an issue based on something other than 2A

" MaryB wrote:With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

It would have to be someone with deep pockets and a willingness to lose that fight for either issue. The suppressor issue might be doable but the fight would have to be from a personal health and safety issue rather than 2A I believe to have a chance at winning."
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 569 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Hmac on Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:26 pm

Chunkychuck wrote:
In my response to Mary B. I specifically said it would need to be an issue based on something other than 2A

" MaryB wrote:With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

It would have to be someone with deep pockets and a willingness to lose that fight for either issue. The suppressor issue might be doable but the fight would have to be from a personal health and safety issue rather than 2A I believe to have a chance at winning."


Yeah...I get the "health and welfare" thing, but I'm not clear on how that forces the legislature to make suppressors legal, or how that nullifies existing law. Whom exactly would you sue, and what exactly would you sue them for?

It's an interesting concept. I doubt it has even the remotest chance of getting anywhere in the court system no matter how deep the pockets. Have you run this by an attorney?
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Erud on Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:34 pm

bstrawse wrote:
20mm wrote:
bstrawse wrote:
I believe we'll see legislation introduced in the 2015 session to legalize suppressors. I imagine we're in for a multi-session uphill battle to make this law, however.

b



I believe you've jumped off the deep end and forgot who the senators of Minnesota are. I hope it doesn't hurt too much diving into a pool without water. Just don't ask for sponsorship.


I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on the political situation between the MN House & Senate when it comes to gun rights issues, but I'd love to have you educate me on what it is you think I am missing here...

B


He loves educating people who know more than him on stuff he doesn't know much about.



It's pretty much his jam.
User avatar
Erud
 
Posts: 2517 [View]
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:31 am
Location: SE Metro

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Erud on Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:37 pm

2in2out wrote:
Grayskies wrote:Heather would explode...


Kind of like the drummers in Spinal Tap? :lol:


To be fair, only two of their drummers died that way.
User avatar
Erud
 
Posts: 2517 [View]
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:31 am
Location: SE Metro

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Chunkychuck on Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:45 pm

Hmac wrote:
Chunkychuck wrote:
In my response to Mary B. I specifically said it would need to be an issue based on something other than 2A

" MaryB wrote:With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

It would have to be someone with deep pockets and a willingness to lose that fight for either issue. The suppressor issue might be doable but the fight would have to be from a personal health and safety issue rather than 2A I believe to have a chance at winning."


Yeah...I get the "health and welfare" thing, but I'm not clear on how that forces the legislature to make suppressors legal, or how that nullifies existing law. Whom exactly would you sue, and what exactly would you sue them for?

It's an interesting concept. I doubt it has even the remotest chance of getting anywhere in the court system no matter how deep the pockets. Have you run this by an attorney?

No, I haven't run it by an attorney. The post just came up today and I offered a response. The only way I could see it getting into the courts would be for me to be arrested for possession of a suppressor and then presenting arguments in court that would be compelling for the judge to strike down the law. But to quote Murtaugh (Danny Glover) from Lethal weapon, "Pretty thin, huh"
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 569 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Hmac on Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:28 pm

Chunkychuck wrote:No, I haven't run it by an attorney. The post just came up today and I offered a response. The only way I could see it getting into the courts would be for me to be arrested for possession of a suppressor and then presenting arguments in court that would be compelling for the judge to strike down the law. But to quote Murtaugh (Danny Glover) from Lethal weapon, "Pretty thin, huh"


Far more likely that the MN legislature will just make them legal. Not likely, but far more likely than the law being overturned by the MN Supreme Court.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Chunkychuck on Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:37 pm

Hmac wrote:
Chunkychuck wrote:No, I haven't run it by an attorney. The post just came up today and I offered a response. The only way I could see it getting into the courts would be for me to be arrested for possession of a suppressor and then presenting arguments in court that would be compelling for the judge to strike down the law. But to quote Murtaugh (Danny Glover) from Lethal weapon, "Pretty thin, huh"

,
Not to drag this out, but first you'd have to possess a suppressor, meaning you'd have to buy it and get it stamped while living in another state then bring it to Minnesota and get caught. Then you'd have to hope that the judge would rule the law unconstitutional (state constitution) on the basis of...what? Your hearing might be impaired without it? I think he'd probably follow the obvious argument about using some kind of hearing protection.


Geeze. What is going to make you happy? A confession that I don't know anything. OK, here it is, I don't know anything about laws or how courts work. I confess the opinions I was expressing will in fact never be considered by anybody in the know.
Chunkychuck
 
Posts: 569 [View]
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: SE MN

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby MaryB on Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:52 pm

I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.

Full auto would be a 2A issue and one we do need to push. Plus adding a right to keep and bear arms amendment to the MN constitution.
MaryB
 
Posts: 454 [View]
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:56 am

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Hmac on Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:00 pm

MaryB wrote:I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.


Image

"Prosecution rests, your honor"

Anyway, I can see earplugs as being Dayton's retort after vetoing the suppressor bill on the advice of the DNR.



MaryB wrote:Full auto would be a 2A issue and one we do need to push. Plus adding a right to keep and bear arms amendment to the MN constitution.


Two worthy efforts. Ain't gonna happen, but it would be nice.
User avatar
Hmac
 
Posts: 2599 [View]
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:51 am

MN Suppressors

Postby jshuberg on Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:26 pm

Not necessarily. Ever notice that elderly hunters wear hearing aids in a much higher percentage than the rest of the population (other than ex-military of course)?

The reason is that protecting the hearing canal isn't enough to prevent hearing loss. It's very effective at eliminating instantaneous damage caused by dangerous sound levels, but isn't very effective at the cumulative effect over years and decades. The reason is that conventional hearing protection doesn't protect against bone conduction of low frequencies from the jawbone into the ear canal. This is the reason even very careful sportsmen suffer hearing loss significantly more than the general population.

The only way to guarantee that a person won't suffer permanent hearing loss is to reduce the sound at its origin to safe levels.

Also, in a home invasion scenario the donning of hearing protection isn't always possible. The idea that I'm allowed to defend myself and my family against a home invasion, but must suffer permanent hearing damage in doing so is offensive.

The concerns of the DNR are unfounded and demonstratively false. The concerns of sportsmen and home owners are very real, and is backed by hard science.
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Personal Protection In The Home Instructor
NRA Life Member
MCPPA Certified Instructor
Gulf War Veteran
User avatar
jshuberg
 
Posts: 1983 [View]
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 2:35 pm

Re: MN Suppressors

Postby Grayskies on Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:48 pm

Wearing ear plugs while defending your home could put you at a severe disavantage.
NRA Life Member & Certified Range Safety Officer
Honorably Discharged U.S. Army Veteran
General Class Amateur Radio Operator and ARRL VE and SkyWarn
Amateur Radio Emergency Service® (ARES)

P2C since August 2003
User avatar
Grayskies
 
Posts: 3906 [View]
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:52 am
Location: North Central MN

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron