***PROPOSED GUN CONTROL IN ST PAUL YOU WONT BELIEVE IT***

[JJ]

Even the DFL knows this can't pass.

What they do know, is they have a big bad moonbat proposal hanging out there, that can be used a leverage tool. Expect to see them offer lees burdensome (yet still horrible) bills, as a compromise.

i.e. If you swallow this UBC bill, we won't try and push HF3022 forward.

[Holland&Holland]

Done compromising. Common sense gun control is hitting your intended target.

[MJY65]

Done compromising. Common sense gun control is hitting your intended target.

Here's a compromise: We'll take your UBC in exchange for not bringing up any further gun control in any form for 50 years.

[Ghost]

Done compromising. Common sense gun control is hitting your intended target.

Here's a compromise: We'll take your UBC in exchange for not bringing up any further gun control in any form for 50 years.

Lol. Thou doth trust too much, methinks

[bstrawse]

Done compromising. Common sense gun control is hitting your intended target.

Amen to that. We're not compromising on anything.

[MJY65]

Lol. Thou doth trust too much, methinks

Yeah, I don't think there's any way to insure that.

[Bearcatrp]

Done compromising. Common sense gun control is hitting your intended target.

Amen to that. We're not compromising on anything.

AMEN! When this crap gets shut down, hope the republicans point to the wasted tax payer time and money on a useless effort! Think we need a weekend protest though, legally and peacefully! Thousands on the lawn of the capital. Let the news folks interview us to point out the dumb knee jerk reactions of the democrats trying to ram through BS legislation instead of a bipartisan effort for sensible gun control to stop folks who shouldn't have access to weapons.

[yukonjasper]

Why are we even discussing negotiating modifications an Amendment to the Constitution?

[Ghost]

Why are we even discussing negotiating modifications an Amendment to the Constitution?

Because, “We The People” let them

[2in2out]

It's amazing how well they have driven the conversation in their favor.

I'm also amazed at how well their little army of robots mobilized this time. Kind of like a science fiction movie, where all of these people/machines/aliens live among us and then rise up at once to take over the world. I did't fully appreciate how well schools have been indoctrinating kids to be anti gun until two weeks ago, and I didn't realize how many people on the fence have been swept away by the rising tide of anti-gun, anti-2A cries to do something - do anything.

At least, HF3022 makes it clear that they want all the semi-autos, no matter how long the barrel is or how many hands it takes to hold one. The problem I have is trying to figure out what the game is. I honestly think Rep. Slocum is serious, but it doesn't make any sense why she'd be that bold. There must be another angle. I don't think HF3022 is the only card they've got.

[Holland&Holland]

It's amazing how well they have driven the conversation in their favor.

I'm also amazed at how well their little army of robots mobilized this time. Kind of like a science fiction movie, where all of these people/machines/aliens live among us and then rise up at once to take over the world. I did't fully appreciate how well schools have been indoctrinating kids to be anti gun until two weeks ago, and I didn't realize how many people on the fence have been swept away by the rising tide of anti-gun, anti-2A cries to do something - do anything.

At least, HF3022 makes it clear that they want all the semi-autos, no matter how long the barrel is or how many hands it takes to hold one. The problem I have is trying to figure out what the game is. I honestly think Rep. Slocum is serious, but it doesn't make any sense why she'd be that bold. There must be another angle. I don't think HF3022 is the only card they've got.

If you think it is just the semiautos the want, you are mistaken unfortunately. They want them all.

[Jackpine Savage]

It's amazing how well they have driven the conversation in their favor.

I'm also amazed at how well their little army of robots mobilized this time. Kind of like a science fiction movie, where all of these people/machines/aliens live among us and then rise up at once to take over the world. I did't fully appreciate how well schools have been indoctrinating kids to be anti gun until two weeks ago, and I didn't realize how many people on the fence have been swept away by the rising tide of anti-gun, anti-2A cries to do something - do anything.

At least, HF3022 makes it clear that they want all the semi-autos, no matter how long the barrel is or how many hands it takes to hold one. The problem I have is trying to figure out what the game is. I honestly think Rep. Slocum is serious, but it doesn't make any sense why she'd be that bold. There must be another angle. I don't think HF3022 is the only card they've got.

If you think it is just the semiautos the want, you are mistaken unfortunately. They want them all.

Yep, back in the 70's and 80's their goal was to outlaw handguns. When that didn't appear feasible they made up the term 'assault weapons'. They're just trying to find a place to start.

[yukonjasper]

Here is the exchange with one of my Representatives. I give her credit, she actually responded. Jason Lewis did also, but it was a canned answer that really didn't address my email.

To the extent this gives you a feel for where their heads are at, I share it below.

From: "Laurie Halverson" <Rep.Laurie.Halverson@house.mn>
Date: Mar 1, 2018 16:09
Subject: Re: 55123 Gun control legislation.
To: "yukonjasper@xxxxxxxx" <yukonjasper@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:

Dear Steven,

Thank you for contacting me in opposition to efforts to reform Minnesota’s gun laws. I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

First, I want to thank you for the respectful tone of your email and I appreciated your thoughtful, respectful approach to discussing your concern. I agree with you that quick reactions do not always lead to good public policy.

That said, I want to be candid with you and let you know that I do support reforming Minnesota’s firearms laws provided it is done in a reasonable way. Most Minnesotans, including gun owners, are in agreement that there are a limited number of people who should not have access to firearms.

I support enacting a comprehensive firearms criminal background check system. As you may know, under current law federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct background checks on potential purchasers regardless of where that sale is conducted. It could be a sale that occurs at a store, a gun show, or anywhere else. However, no such requirement exists for private sellers of firearms, including private sellers who attend gun shows. Since gun shows often attract numerous private sellers (in addition to FFLs), there is a concern that private sales conducted at those events result in firearms being purchased by people who are currently prohibited from owning a firearm. Therefore, it is argued that private sellers at gun shows should be required to abide by the same requirements that federally licensed firearm dealers must comply with, such as conducting background checks on potential buyers. This certainly sounds like a reasonable modification to make to existing law.

I can see no rational basis for drawing a distinction between gun show sales conducted by FFLs versus those conducted by private sellers. In fact, at a gun show you can have private sellers and FFLs selling their wares within feet of each other. If I buy a firearm from an FFL I have to undergo a background check, but if I step over 10 feet to buy an identical weapon from a private seller, no background check is required.

Addressing this problem is just one step I believe Minnesota could take that would make our communities safer without impeding on the 2nd Amendment.

How best to enhance public safety can often be a controversial issue, especially when it entails regulating the ownership of firearms. That is why I want to assure you that as this gun violence debate moves forward, I will be listening to the input of my constituents carefully. That is why I am glad you wrote. To effectively represent our district, it is important that I hear from constituents who hold a wide variety of perspectives. I am taking a deliberative and contemplative approach to what is clearly a vital issue to so many Minnesotans. I think it is important that I carefully review the specifics of each proposal, gather input from my constituents on their merits/demerits, and consider the long-range implications of their enactment.

I rely heavily upon the calls, letters, and emails I receive to help me understand the views of our community, which is why I value your comments and I hope you will continue to stay in touch. ¬I would welcome hearing from you anytime.

Finally, in your note, you stressed the need for public input into any measure that is considered. I agree with you. The public should have the opportunity to provide feedback on any and all bills proposed. I believe there should be a fair and open debate about how best to protect Minnesotans from gun violence and support the 2nd amendment. All ideas should be on the table for discussion with both proponents and opponents given adequate time to share their points-of-view.

I always learn a great deal by listening to my constituents. As the Greek philosopher Epictetus said, “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” I hope this assures you that I will be advocating for a deliberative process that respects all interested parties.

Again, thank you for your email.

Sincerely,

Laurie Halverson
State Representative


Representative Laurie Halverson
District 51B, Eagan
233 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4128


>>> On 2/20/2018 at 2:37 PM, <yukonjasper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rep. Halverson,
I do not support efforts to introduce legislation that would further curtail the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. Understanding the emotion around current events and the overwhelming urge to "DO SOMETHING", I do not support knee jerk legislation that does not take into account all avenues of the situation. To that end, a measured, non-emotional analysis which includes public input should be employed. Reasonable people can disagree on an issue but there needs to be the means and the time to have that discussion.

From: Steven J. XXXXXXXXXX
Email: yukonjasper@XXXXXXXXXX

Eagan
55123

[jdege]

Here's a compromise: We'll take your UBC in exchange for not bringing up any further gun control in any form for 50 years.

Once we have a requirement that every firearm transfer includes a paper trail, simple possession of a firearm become a crime for which the existence of the proper paper trail is an affirmative defense.

It reverses the peloton of innocence and makes every gun owner a criminal subject to the government not having screwed up the database.

No thanks.

Out of the many proposals floating around is the one I am most opposed to.

I'm fine with background checks so long as they don't involve an FFL or create a permanent record of which firearm has been transferred - but every bill that has been put forward does both.

[xd ED]

<<<snipped for brevity....I'm fine with background checks so long as they don't involve an FFL or create a permanent record of which firearm has been transferred - but every bill that has been put forward does both.

That is the very insidious aspect of advocating for background checks. They are impossible to confirm without a paper trail.
So we either get a govt database, and/ or getting a knock on the door demanding: your papers please, ...for something you traded away 15 years, and 3 moves ago.

How'd you like to have your liberty/ ability to avoid jail be staked to the current MN/ LARS?

I sold an old PU 2 years ago. When I called the state a few months after the fact, to confirm the transfer, they could not locate the vehicle's record, much less any transaction history.