HF 1467- The most important update to MN gun law since MCPPA

[plblark]

http://www.gocra-mn.org/news/2011/04/the-most-important-update-to-minnesota-gun-law-since-the-mcppa/

“The most important update to Minnesota gun law since the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act.”

That’s what GOCRA president Joseph E. Olson had to say about a sweeping set of reforms introduced today in the Minnesota House.

Please contact the members of the House public safety committee and encourage them to support this bill. Their contact information is at the end of this email.

HR1467, authored by long-time gun rights advocate Representative Tony Cornish (R – Good Thunder), expands our rights in many ways. The full text of the bill can be found here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.0.html&session=ls87

Here’s an overview:

Adds Stand Your Ground
The bill brings “Stand Your Ground” protections to Minnesota, removing the requirement that an intended victim of violent crime must retreat from a place where he has a right to be before using deadly force in self defense. A majority of states do not require retreat.

Enhances Castle Doctrine
The bill also strengthens Minnesota’s “Castle Doctrine”, clarifying when and under what circumstances an individual may use deadly force to protect themselves and their homes and vehicles. In addition, it creates a presumption that, when faced with an apparent home invasion or kidnapping attempt, a person may use deadly force in self defense.

Prevents Gun Seizures During a State of Emergency
Taking a lesson from the problems in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the bill also bans government agencies from seizing guns or ammo, revoking permits to purchase or carry, or closing gun shops, during a civil emergency or for any other reason. It also prohibits law enforcement officers from seizing a person’s gun, unless for the person is arrested, or the gun is evidence of a crime.

Extends Purchase Permits to Five Years
The bill also extends the validity of handgun purchase permits from one to five years, adds an annual background check for people holding those five-year permits. It requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services and state courts to make their background check records available electronically to authorized agencies, including the National Instant Background Check system (NICS) — a process that was supposed to have been in place 16 years ago! This should reduce purchasing delays as well as ensuring that state and federal checks produce the same results.

The bill also borrows a page from the Permit to Carry law, providing a more robust appeal process for denied purchase permits, and requiring that police chiefs and sheriffs whose purchase permit denials are overturned must pay the applicants’ legal costs.

Adds Universal Carry Permit Reciprocity

Of particular interest to carry permit holders, the final article of the bill updates our carry permit reciprocity standards, allowing people holding carry permits from any other state to carry in Minnesota (under Minnesota law, of course). An out-of-state permit holder who can not possess firearms under Minnesota law, can not legally carry here either. This should result in a large increase in the number of states where Minnesota permit holders can carry, since many states allow other states’ permit holders to carry on a reciprocal basis.

GOCRA is proud to have worked with Representative Cornish in the creation and polishing of this bill. Joined by the NRA, we shared our advice and experience, lending a historical perspective and suggesting beneficial statutory language. This bill is an excellent example of cooperation between legislators, local activists, and our national partners to support and extend our civil rights.

We’ll be talking much more about the details of the bill in the coming days, but for now, can you help us get this bill passed?

Please phone and email the members of the House Public Safety committee and urge them to support this bill and oppose any amendments not authored by Rep. Cornish.

They are:

Representative Kelby Woodard (Vice Chair)
651-296-7065
E-mail: rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn

Representative Joe Mullery (DFL Lead)
651-296-4262
E-mail: rep.joe.mullery@house.mn

Representative Kerry Gauthier (DFL)
651-296-4246
E-mail: rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn

Representative Glenn Gruenhagen (R)
651-296-4229
E-mail: rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn

Representative Bill Hilty (DFL)
651-296-4308
E-mail: rep.bill.hilty@house.mn

Representative Sheldon Johnson (DFL)
651-296-4201
E-mail: rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn

Representative Tim Kelly (R)
651-296-8635
E-mail: rep.tim.kelly@house.mn

Representative Andrea Kieffer (R)
651-296-1147
E-mail: rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn

Representative John Kriesel (R)
651-296-4342
E-mail: rep.john.kriesel@house.mn

Representative Ernie Leidiger (R)
651-296-4282
E-mail: rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn

Representative Carlos Mariani (DFL)
651-296-9714
E-mail: rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn

Representative Joe McDonald (R)
651-296-4336
E-mail: rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn

Representative Rena Moran (DFL)
651-296-5158
E-mail: rep.rena.moran@house.mn

Representative Bud Nornes (R)
651-296-4946
E-mail: rep.bud.nornes@house.mn

Representative Linda Slocum (DFL)
651-296-7158
E-mail: rep.linda.slocum@house.mn

Representative Steve Smith (R)
651-296-9188
E-mail: rep.steve.smith@house.mn

You can email them all at once by pasting this list into your email client:

rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn; rep.joe.mullery@house.mn; rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn; rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn; rep.bill.hilty@house.mn; rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn; rep.tim.kelly@house.mn; rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn; rep.john.kriesel@house.mn; rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn; rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn; rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn; rep.rena.moran@house.mn; rep.bud.nornes@house.mn; rep.linda.slocum@house.mn; rep.steve.smith@house.mn

Need that with commas instead? No problem!

rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn, rep.joe.mullery@house.mn, rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn, rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn, rep.bill.hilty@house.mn, rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn, rep.tim.kelly@house.mn, rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn, rep.john.kriesel@house.mn, rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn, rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn, rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn, rep.rena.moran@house.mn, rep.bud.nornes@house.mn, rep.linda.slocum@house.mn, rep.steve.smith@house.mn

Your voice really does matter: please call and email today. The opponents are calling.

[yukonjasper]

email sent - thanks for the heads up.

[12smile]

STAND YOUR GROUND would be big news...please elaborate.

I believe the phrase "stand your ground" comes from a Kentucky State Supreme Court decision...using those very words...stand your ground.

Dayton could just be 'stupid' enough to sign this bill for us.

My opinion of Dayton is that he needs a lot of psych-meds just to keep him from curling up on the floor all day in a puddle of his own drool.

[Heffay]

My opinion of Dayton is that he needs a lot of psych-meds just to keep him from curling up on the floor all day in a puddle of his own drool.

[plblark]

STAND YOUR GROUND would be big news...please elaborate.

Remove Duty to retreat.

See the bill.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill. ... ssion=ls87

[JustinPo]

Email Sent!

[JJ]

Sent!

Anyone eloquent enough to post a decent for letter to email off for the less than eloquent?

[mnmike59]

Awesome info. Emails on the way! Thanks Paul!

My opinion of Dayton is that he needs a lot of psych-meds just to keep him from curling up on the floor all day in a puddle of his own drool.

I was thinking something similar. A regular Robin Hood he is.

[Thunder71]

Sent as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[autobahn]

MN does not currently have a "duty to retreat" anywhere in its current statutes. This really bugs me about this debate. I like some of the provisions of this law, but I don't like how it's being sold at all.

[plblark]

Bold letter law is what the Legislature passes. Case law is what the Courts decide they MEANT in reference to a particular situation. Several cases together form precedent. The problem is that Case law doesn't always follow legislative intent and is often based upon unfortunate situations, plaintiffs, or outcomes.

Perhaps you'd like to peruse the case law which defines duty to retreat?

[autobahn]

Perhaps you'd like to peruse the case law which defines duty to retreat?

Enlighten me.

[plblark]

Of the key elements, which ARE specified in statute and which come to us in case law?
You made a statement of fact and then complained about how it was being "sold" ...
so, what's our starting point? What DO you know, and what would you like explained?

[plblark]

As a starting point:

"It is well settled that there is a duty to retreat and avoid danger if reasonably possible. State v. Johnson, 277 Minn. 368, 373, 152 N.W.2d 529, 532 (1967)"

which means it had already been established as precedent in 1967

"before you can avail yourself of self-defense, you must retreat and avoid the danger if you can reasonably do so," and that "if you can reasonably avoid it, you must retreat and avoid the danger, rather than charge into the fight and flail away," State v. Austin, 1983, 332 N.W.2d 21. Homicide 1485

[LarryFlew]

another sent. Thanks for the heads up.