MN Capitol Security Panel Seeking New Policy?

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

Re: MN Capitol Security Panel Seeking New Policy?

Postby bstrawse on Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:03 pm

ex-LT wrote:
jshuberg wrote:People seem to forget that we tell the government what our rights are, not the other way around. Even after thousands of people showed up at the capitol with our metaphorical torches and pitchforks, these greased weasels don't seem to get the message. We need to do everything possible to oust Paymar and send him back to the sewer he crawled out of.

I agree with everything you said up to the point of ousting Paymar. If I thought it would do a d@mn bit of good, I would donate $1000 to the campaign of whoever runs against him. Hell, if I had $1,000,000 to piss away, I'd donate it to his opponent. Unfortunately, his district (64B) is probably one of the most left leaning in the state, so you'd still end up with the same result - Rep. Paymar re-elected to his 10th term.

I've said it before, and I'll say it to my dying day; the most effective way to neutralize Rep. Paymar is to make him a member of the minority party, and THAT means electing a Republican majority.


While Paymar is not beatable - other anti-civil rights/anti-gun legislators are. Our principal goal at the MN Gun Owners Political Action Committee is a pro-second amendment legislature.

It CAN be done. You can donate at http://mngopac.org/donate ;-)

b
Chair, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus & Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee - Join the Caucus TODAY
MN Permit to Carry Instructor| NRA Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Twitter | Facebook
User avatar
bstrawse
Moderator
 
Posts: 4222 [View]
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:45 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Re: MN Capitol Security Panel Seeking New Policy?

Postby RobD on Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:40 pm

The requirement to notify the commissioner existed before shall-issue permits, when all of the data was held locally at the police departments.

Now that the DPS actually maintains the database (though they apparently didn't know that at the hearing, yesterday I literally had to show DPS legal counsel 624.714 sub. 15) there is absolutely no reason to maintain the notification process. They have the ability to reference any permit holder they find at the capitol.
RobD
 
Posts: 2846 [View]
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:22 pm

Previous

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron