MNGunTalk.com

ex-LT wrote:

Maniac117 wrote:What was the word on this? Did it look like anything will change? I just saw this post today..

Made it through committee on a nearly unanimous vote. Hasn't been heard by the full house yet.

I don't think it has been introduced in the Senate yet. If/when it gets introduced, it has to pass anti-2A Sen. Latz's committee to be heard by the full Senate.

If it makes it out of the House and Senate, it goes to Governor Dayton, who has all but said he will veto it.

It's been introduced in the Senate - it has not been called to a hearing.

, it goes to Governor Dayton, who has all but said he will veto it.

Lazy here... veto as in stop the ok for folks to get supressors?

edit: thanks Brad.____ durn it some guy in charge can still just veto stuff right?

Nougat wrote:, it goes to Governor Dayton, who has all but said he will veto it.

Lazy here... veto as in stop the ok for folks to get supressors?

This was in the Star tribune a couple of weeks ago:

It heads next to the House floor for a vote, but it’s uncertain whether gun-related legislation will gain traction in the Senate, while Gov. Mark Dayton said he has no interest in changing the state’s existing gun laws.

A lot of people read the Governors comment differently than I do. He was most likely asked a very general "do you think we need to change our gun laws?" question, to which he replied No. Given what happened in the aftermath of the aftermath of Sandy Hook (the huge gun control grab) he's likely avoiding the 3rd rail, and not wanting to get into the hornets nest of gun issues.

However, that statement may have been made from the point of view of gun control, and not necessarily gun rights. He did veto the SYG bill a couple years ago, but that was a time that feels very distant after Sandy Hook. Considering the majority of GOCRA supported bills have passed out of committee either unanimously or with only one dissenting vote, there doesn't seem to be much opposition to them. Heather Martens opening statement in opposition to the suppressor bill was "I recognize that suppressors aren't used in crime to any significant degree...". The anti's actually made one of our best points for us. You can't get much more non-controversial than that.

I can't say for certain, I've never personally met the guy, but I don't think that the quote in the Star Trib necessarily means what many people think it means, and that he will veto any gun bill that hits his desk regardless of what it is, or how bipartisan the support for it was. I'm hopeful that he'll make an informed decision on most if not all of the pro-gun bills that hit his desk, recognize the will of the legislature and of the people they represent, and allow them to be passed into law.

Is it time to start contacting senators and representatives again? I'm not sure I understand the next steps.