URGENT: Hunter "convenience" bill SCREWS metro gun owners

[Pat]

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 :[/quote]

Gentlemen don't tell.

[plblark]

Back on Topic:

Here's the list of NRA A through C graded Reps. I think we want to hit them instead of giving the antis a hint at what they stand to gain:

rep.Dave.Olin@house.mn, rep.Bernie.Lieder@house.mn, rep.Kent.Eken@house.mn, rep.Brita.Sailer@house.mn, rep.Tom.Anzelc@house.mn, rep.Loren.Solberg@house.mn, rep.John.Persell@house.mn, rep.Larry.Howes@house.mn, rep.Tom.Rukavina@house.mn, rep.Tony.Sertich@house.mn, rep.David.Dill@house.mn, rep.Mary.Murphy@house.mn, rep.Paul.Marquart@house.mn, rep.Bud.Nornes@house.mn, rep.Mark.Murdock@house.mn, rep.Torrey.Westrom@house.mn, rep.MaryEllen.Otremba@house.mn, rep.Al.Doty@house.mn, rep.Al.Juhnke@house.mn, rep.Dan.Severson@house.mn, rep.Larry.Hosch@house.mn, rep.Larry.Haws@house.mn, rep.Mary.Kiffmeyer@house.mn, rep.Jeremy.Kalin@house.mn, rep.Ron.Shimanski@house.mn, rep.Dean.Urdahl@house.mn, rep.Bruce.Anderson@house.mn, rep.Tom.Emmer@house.mn, rep.Lyle.Koenen@house.mn, rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn, rep.Paul.Torkelson@house.mn, rep.Doug.Magnus@house.mn, rep.Bob.Gunther@house.mn, rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn, rep.Laura.Brod@house.mn, rep.Robin.Brown@house.mn, rep.Jeanne.Poppe@house.mn, rep.Steve.Drazkowski@house.mn, rep.Randy.Demmer@house.mn, rep.Joyce.Peppin@house.mn, rep.Steve.Smith@house.mn, rep.Paul.Kohls@house.mn, rep.Joe.Hoppe@house.mn, rep.Mike.Beard@house.mn, rep.Mark.Buesgens@house.mn, rep.Mary Liz.Holberg@house.mn, rep.Pat.Garofalo@house.mn, rep.Joe.Atkins@house.mn, rep.Michael.Nelson@house.mn, rep.Denise.Dittrich@house.mn, rep.Tom.Hackbarth@house.mn, rep.Jim.Abeler@house.mn, rep.Peggy.Scott@house.mn, rep.Jerry.Newton@house.mn, rep.Tim.Sanders@house.mn, rep.Bob.Dettmer@house.mn, rep.Julie.Bunn@house.mn

Here's close to what I sent:

I've been watching with some interest and more than a little trepidation as HF 128 was amended and made part of HF 1238. This bill started out as a good bill but has become tainted by poison pills in the process.

In correspondence, another long time gun rights advocate put it this way:

"A good way to think about this bill, might be to imagine how the new"gun case law" would be explained in the Hunting Regulations, and Firearms Safety Training.

The regs would explain and define the "Seven County Metro" area as a special area. Probably, there would be a map showing the precise boundaries of the "Metro Gun Transport Zone" along with a description of the boundaries. Minnesota gun owners would learn the concept of gun laws being different in the Metro vs " Greater(?) Minnesota".

The law would, naturally enough, have to be covered in Firearms Training, so youngsters would be taught that the Metro Gun Transport Zone is "special". The instructors would, of course, have to justify the rule; imagine the discussion in these classes. Firearms Safety Instructors would be teaching the benefits of gun control laws.

Next session Duluth and Rochester will want to be special as well. The session after that, every hamlet will want to decide for themselves whether or not they are "special". And it won't be limited to gun transport, they'll be special in other ways as well. "

The amendments to this bill have become poison pills which take more than this minor convenience bill would give.It needs to be stopped. We will, eventually, be able to get the Hunters' Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act passed -- but when we do, it needs to be done for all Minnesota gun owners, not leaving those in the metro as second-class citizens.


Please contact Rep Dill and convince him to pull this poison pill of a bill!

Thank you,

Paul Bxxxxxx

[princewally]

Here's mine:

Dear Representatives,

While the 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.

This bill will repeal the cased requirements for long guns except:
(1) within the seven-county metropolitan area;
(2) within an area where the discharge of a firearm has been prohibited(any city can do this);
(3) within the boundaries of a home rule charter or statutory city with a population of 2,500 or more;
(4) on school grounds; or
(5) otherwise restricted under section 97A.091, 97B.081, or 97B.086

Simple, right? Harmless, right? Not quite.

This is a bill designed solely to remove a minor inconvenience for outstate hunters, while at the same time, setting a precedent that metro-area gun owners are second-class citizens. There are a million of us, hardly a group to make "second class". There are even numerous places to hunt in the metro area, and many hunters originate in the metro.


It creates a massively tangled mess of city ordinances that will force any hunter to know not only exactly where the invisible line defining counties is located, but also which individual cities and small towns have restrictions. 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 they intend to require that hunters plan their emergencies far enough out to check on city ordinances during business hours?

All that, just to remove a minor inconvenience.

Please block the "the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009" in HF 1238, because metro-area Minnesotans should not be second-class citizens; rights don't have zip codes. People do.

Sincerely,
me

[princewally]

That was quick. A bunch of auto-responders and a couple that have apparently already been read, for real.

Thank you for contacting me in regard to splitting gun rights based on region.

This is the first time that I've seen this language and certainly want to work with the author of this legislation to make sure gun rights are protected for everyone.

I appreciate your comments and concerns and will track down the authors to find out what is going on.

Sincerely,

Rep. Marty Seifert

and

Hear! Hear!

I agree.

ML


Representative Mary Liz Holberg

[nyffman]

Here's the list of NRA A through C graded Reps. I think we want to hit them instead of giving the antis a hint at what they stand to gain:

Paul, where did you get that list? After checking it twice, I did not see my Rep, Carol McFarlane on it. I checked the NRA site and she was rated "B" in the last election. What's up with that?

[plblark]

I will check my list again. I took the NRA grade list from 2008 and crossed it with active REps. Please send me any further errors and I will fix it ASAP!

[plblark]

Crap. The file I was using listed 2008 specific grades and then earlier grades seperately. I see she is indeed listed as a B Let me work on a workaround. (I'm trying to create a system to get reps and senators by grade along with their contact info)

[plblark]

Where is the NRA in this Hunters' Convenience bill that is turning into just another compromise at the expense of Gun Rights?

Perhaps they're hoping to play good cop to our bad cop and depending on the hard work of GOCRA and the many diligent Activists in MN to get the hard work done.

Perhaps they're trying to reserve their political capital for bigger fish.

But what they may not realize is that by bypassing THIS particular iceberg, they're setting us ALL up for a much harder battle when what's hidden just below the surface of the bill comes back to bite us.

After all, if government can discriminate by zip code (see the latest nightmare from Chicago), then why not by city, by street, or even by house number?

You'd think it would be simple for the NRA to point out to a local legislator that while they appreciate his diligence and spirit, the current bill is just too much risk for the small reward.

I urge you to contact the local NRA-ILA liaison and convince him to get the NRA in the game and on the side of ALL gun owners.

Or is the NRA now willing to accept, by default, the creation of two different classes of gun owners?

[Pat]

I am more comfortable getting on the phone and speaking to our representatives personally. Surprisingly, at least half the time the Rep. him/herself will actually answer the phone. And they are usually eager to speak with me, though I live in a relatively small legislative district in Mille Lacs County.

An email is too easily circle filed. Thoughts? Phone calls are cheap, especially when calling from a cell phone.

[plblark]

Good point Pat. The leg has a great list of phone numbers. I'm working on compiling it and correcting (expanding) my NRA ranked mailing list for the benefit of all.

Thank you for doing what you can. a personal touch is much more effective. Have you by chance gotten through to Rep Dill?

[Pat]

Good point Pat. The leg has a great list of phone numbers. I'm working on compiling it and correcting (expanding) my NRA ranked mailing list for the benefit of all.

Thank you for doing what you can. a personal touch is much more effective. Have you by chance gotten through to Rep Dill?

I left a phone message for Rep. Dill. I think that the legislature is on some kind of hiatus.

When calling a representative, I always mention that I am a registered Democrat. I think we had the better part of 65 Dem's voting with us during this last legislative battle. This is by no means a one party battle.

[plblark]

Here is where the NRA is on this publicly:

Pro-Hunting Reform Advancing in Minnesota Legislature

Friday, March 13, 2009

On Thursday, March 12, House File 128 was referred to the House Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee after it successfully passed the House Environment and Policy Oversight Committee. Introduced by State Representatives David Dill (DFL-6A) and Tony Cornish (R-26B), HF 128 would allow hunters to have uncased and unloaded long guns and a bow with an unnocked arrow in a motor vehicle. Under current Minnesota law, a hunter leaving his/her deer stand cannot legally accept a ride in a motor vehicle, no matter what the circumstances may be, without his/her gun or bow in a case.

On Thursday March 5, HF 128’s companion bill, Senate File 1225, was introduced by State Senators Satveer Chaudhary (DFL-50), Tom Saxhaug (DFL-3), and Gen Olson (R-33). SF 1225 is currently pending action in the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

Please contact the members of the House Public Safety and Oversight Committee and urge them to support HF 128. Also, please contact the members of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and voice your support for SF 1225. Contact information can be found below.

WHY are they supporting different rights by zip code? didn't they just try to take credit for Heller which was essentially a location specific problem?

[Pat]

WHY are they supporting different rights by zip code? didn't they just try to take credit for Heller which was essentially a location specific problem?

That's exactly the crux of the deal. I had a short and unpleasant conversation with Tony Cornish, whom we should not try to make an enemy of. Perhaps this is not THE issue. There will be larger battles to fight, and Tony Cornish is somebody we need in our corner.

We Minnesotans have never, to my knowledge, been able to carry exposed long guns in the TC Metro area. Where I live up in the woods, it doesn't really matter anyway.

We should pick our battles judiciously, and then unleash all helll upon the anti-American sumbitches.

[plblark]

We Minnesotans have never, to my knowledge, been able to carry exposed long guns in the TC Metro area. Where I live up in the woods, it doesn't really matter anyway.

Nitpicking, It is legal under MN law to "Carry" loaded long guns. That's by virtue of 624.7181 and its odd construction. It's illegal to carry a rifle or long gun in a public place EXCEPT that

Carry" does not include:"the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person
who has a permit under section 624.714;

The issue comes in on the Transport Statute which says:

A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless [...]
(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715.

Which does NOT exempt long guns but DOES exempt handguns. This is why we can Carry AND Transport loaded handguns legally under a permit but CANNOT transport loaded long guns.

While legal, it's probably not prudent. Good luck exercising that piece of law. In the TC Metro, with a permit, it's legal but you're GOING to get attention and it's a fine point of law. You may prevail in court but I wouldn't count on the officer knowing how these laws interact and I WOULD count on needing an attorney to sort it out.

[plblark]

Here's one way to contact the NRA-ILA:
https://secure.nraila.org/Contact.aspx

You could also send an e-mail to ila-contact@nrahq.org

Here's what I sent:

I was shocked when I noticed the NRA is taking a positive position on the Pro-Hunting Reform Advancing in Minnesota Legislature

While the original intent of this Hunters' Convenience bill was noble, the authors have allowed themselves to be held hostage by Metro area anti-gun politics. They have allowed a poison pill in the form of location based laws to be entered into their bill and are being willfully ignorant of the terrible precedent this sets.

We know that outstate hunters aren't willing to turn their metro-area friends into second-class citizens for the sake of being able to leave a shotgun case at home.

This poison pill amendment is a trap. Like any trap, it's baited there is always tasty-looking cheese in it but that's small consolation when the trap is sprung.

Where is the NRA in this Hunters' Convenience bill that is turning into just another compromise at the expense of Gun Rights?

Perhaps you're hoping to play good cop to our bad cop and depending on the hard work of GOCRA and the many diligent Activists in MN to get the hard work done. Perhaps you're trying to reserve your political capital for bigger fish.

But what you may not realize is that by bypassing THIS particular iceberg, you're setting us ALL up for a much harder battle when what's hidden just below the surface of the bill comes back to bite us.

After all, if government can discriminate by zip code (see the latest nightmare from Chicago), then why not by city, by street, or even by house number?

You'd think it would be simple for the NRA to point out to a local legislator that while they appreciate his diligence and spirit, the current bill is just too much risk for the small reward.

Or is the NRA now willing to accept, or actually endorse, the creation of two different classes of gun owners?