Heads up from Tony Cornish - Update from Author of Castle

[Aceq2jot]

And dont forget to arrange parking and permits as if you park in the wrong place it is a state issued parking fine for $20 so you may want to check on parking. And Btw if you look at the sears lot you will see white lines paint over most of it saying "state parking" as the state leases parking from sears. But there are some area's where you can purchase parking by the hour.

[JohninMinnesota]

Here's a quick shot at a flyer.
http://plblark.pihost.us/tcc/Castle%20Meeting%2020080314.pdf

Excellent! Thank you.

Here's a message I sent out to about 50 people - let's get the word out and see how many people we can get to show up! I included the list of contacts that was in an earlier post here. I will now follow up with your flyer as a reminder tomorrow evening.

Friends, neighbors,

A hearing on the "castle doctrine" bill is scheduled at the state capitol this Thursday March 13th at 12:30 pm - Room 10 of the State Office Building, the big brick building across from the State Capitol. Many other states have already adopted this legislation because they understood the need and usefulness of giving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. Representative Tony Cornish, author of the bill, says he needs some citizens to attend this hearing so there is a show of support. Those who oppose it are going to be there showing their opposition.

We are coordinating a caravan to the capitol to show support. If you can make it please email me and let's make use of the car pooling lanes we've paid so much for.

Here is a link to the house file: http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0498.0.pdf


Sometimes called the "Shoot First" bill, this legislation is opposed by people who are afraid to have citizens defending themselves. They mistakenly think that it will turn our cities and state into the wild west - just as they thought the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (permit to carry a pistol) would. The fact is, nothing like that has or will happen. Law abiding citizens are least likely to use violence, and in cases where they could, it means that a criminal is about to do "substantial bodily harm"! As it stands, before a citizen can use lethal force they must determine that their life is in jeoprody or that they risk "great bodily harm" - as opposed to "substantial bodily harm"... you tell me the difference?

Existing laws don't protect the citizen from being arrested, hauled off in handcuffs, and booked for a crime (like discharge of a firearm in city limits...). The new law requires an initial investigation to determine if the citizen was acting in self defense before the citizen is arrested. Existing laws do nothing to protect citizens from civil litigation by the perpetrator or their family, and most unjust, from prosecution by a District Attorney without just cause. In any event, as it stands, a citizen is required to hire an attorney and defend themselves from the outset, leaving their ultimate fate in the hands of a jury who may or may not understand the logistics of a violent encounter - the split second decisions, the distance a person can travel in under 2 seconds, and the harrowing fear that grips most people when they are in such a situation (all brought on by a violent criminal who doesn't care about your life or well being).



From: National Center For Policy Analysis: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/



Despite some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, mostly at the state and local levels, there is little evidence that any but the most weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership. And there is no evidence that these gun control laws have made a dent in the crime rate.

Over the years, police and other experts have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In the early and middle 1970s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, some who gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguided. They now urge resistance in selected instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense.




I urge you to get involved in this process. If you can't make the hearing, please notify the legislators below via email or telephone to support this bill and get it approved by the house and senate so we can protect ourselves wherever we may be.

SEND THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS SO THEY CAN CHIME IN!

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

Could this hearing be the reason the BCA report is late? Up to date proof that WE are law abiding!!

I got No response from the BCA, as to a reason for it being late.

Who would we complain to that the BCA is NOT abiding by State law?

[ttousi]

my letter............shamelessly picked bits and pieces from others here and there..........better late than never.

Dear Rep. Johnson,

I am a longtime resident of 67B and have been following the “castle doctrine” HF 498/SF446 put forth by Rep. Cornish.

I would like share my thoughts with you and also would like to know your position on this.

I support the Castle Doctrine Bill and urge you to support it as well. Rather than be prosecuted for using lethal force in response to a threat on one’s life, law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves. I believe that you, as my representative in government, have a responsibility to objectively view and hopefully support this legislation.

Before the passage of the MCPPA in 2003, anti-gun groups said that there would be widespread bloodshed by permit holders. As you are no doubt aware, this has not happened. No blood in the streets etc. Permit holders have proven themselves to be very responsible and law abiding. Most would rather retreat and save themselves from the horror of shooting someone and the resulting consequences.

As I understand it the purpose of Castle Doctrine is to remove any ambiguous interpretations that prosecutors can make with regard to the actions taken by the victim
in protecting himself from a criminal. It also gives notice to would-be burglars, rapists and other criminals that it is the resident/homeowner/citizen that has the support of the law. This is not about guns but about the right to self defense.

With that in mind, I ask that you support this legislation that protects law abiding citizens from unfair prosecution and civil lawsuits that could arise from the defensive use of any type of force. This is not “shoot first” legislation and the sky is not going to fall when it is enacted, as the anti-gunners want us to believe. This legislation merely prevents law abiding citizens from further victimization. It is time to stop protecting criminals!

I would appreciate knowing your position.

Thank You,
me

[JohninMinnesota]

A friend who is knowledgeable about the process tells me we need to get to there early and plan on staying a while as it is the last bill to be heard that day, and all the GOP reps are already on board.

Do we have anyone here who can make some phone calls and sell this to those who aren't on board yet?

We'll need to convince some DFL'ers to get on board as well - below is from my friend:

Your bill is at the very bottom of the list so it will definitely not be at 12:30pm sharp. Depending on how many people show up to argue and testify for the previous bills, it could be much later and apparently, in a different room in the same building. If there are a lot of people expected to show up, there is very limited seating so if you want to sit or even get in to the room, it may be a good idea to get there early although if they switch the room, it is first come first serve. If you are not testifying and there are no identifying characteristics of your supporters, there is no way for the committee to know who is there for which side except when you cheer and boo the testifiers. The chairman might get a little annoyed but they are only one vote and they give numerous warnings. There are 19 members of this committee and the bill has 8 co-authors on the committee (7 GOP, 1 DFL) so you need to only convince 2 more to get it through committee which is the good news, the bad news is that you already have the support of every Republican on the committee so that leaves no rational thinkers left and the one DFL on your side is in his first term and thus has no power so you will need some luck. You should be focusing on the remaining DFL members on the committee and finding people in their district to call on behalf of the bill (I listed them below, the ones with a star you have as co-authors). Not having the support of the chairman can be sort of rough as they decide how long people testify and make the rules. This especially sucks because it is the end of their day and they want to leave. When I was testifying, we had the support of the chairman and we were the last on the list and she kept them there hearing our testimony for hours. Just because members are not co-authors doesn’t mean they are against you, I was surprised a few times when we picked up staunch supporters on the committee that were not co-authors. I am not sure I will be able to go as it could take lots of time but I am intrigued to hear the testimony for and against so I will have to see.



THURSDAY, March 13, 2008
12:30 PM
Meeting Time Note: The committee will recess at 2 p.m. and reconvene if necessary immediately thereafter in 500S State Office Building.
Committee: Public Safety and Civil Justice
Room: 10 State Office Building
Chair: Rep. Joe Mullery
*** Note: *** Change in Agenda
Bill(s) Added
Agenda: HF2095 (Eastlund) Peace officer reciprocity licensing exam eligibility criteria modified to include persons in active military service;
SF2379 (Dill) Reestablishment cost limit provisions amended;
HF2955 (Simon) School background check requirements modified;
HF2970 (Drazkowski) Motorists required to move to far left of roadway before passing road maintenance workers;
HF3101 (Bigham) Domestic abuse no contact order violations criminal penalty increased;
HF3281 (Dill) Snowmobile training provisions modified;
HF3367 (Pelowski) Relating to data practices; specifying access to disputed data; requiring closed meetings to be recorded; granting attorney fees in certain cases;
HF3396 (Simon) Hearing time requirements modified and clarified, prehearing discharge exception provided for commitment petitions involving mentally ill or sexually dangerous persons;
HF3441 (Bigham) Civil immunity extended to municipalities that donate public safety equipment;
HF3456 (Tschumper) Local government interstate assistance authorized for emergency services;
HF3521 (Loeffler) Independent living goals court findings required for children age 16 or older who are in an out-of-home placement;
HF3767 (Olin) Predatory offender written verification permitted for residence in another state;
HF3793 (Davnie) Student cooperation with educators policy clarified;
HF3974 (Dominguez) Domestic fatality review team continuation authorized;
HF3900 (Mullery) Misdemeanor penalty increase provided;
HF3995 (Mullery) Creating a gross misdemeanor for assaulting a utility employee or contractor;
HF699 (Nornes) Adult certification for juvenile violent offenses lowered to age 13;
HF498 (Cornish) Self-defense; use of force in defense of home and person laws clarified, self-defense and defense of home laws extended and codified, and common law duty to retreat eliminated.

Public Safety and Civil Justice
Committee Membership
2007 - 2008

Meets: Tuesdays and Thursdays at 12:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the State Office Building.


Phone Number
(651) area code
E-mail Address

Chair: Joe Mullery (DFL)
296-4262
rep.joe.mullery@house.mn

Vice Chair: Jeremy Kalin (DFL)
296-5377
rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn

Lead-GOP: Paul Kohls (R)*
296-4282
rep.paul.kohls@house.mn

Karla Bigham (DFL)
296-4342
rep.karla.bigham@house.mn

Tony Cornish (R)*
296-4240
rep.tony.cornish@house.mn

Chris DeLaForest (R)*
296-4231
rep.chris.delaforest@house.mn

Tom Emmer (R)*
296-4336
rep.tom.emmer@house.mn

Debra Hilstrom (DFL)
296-3709
rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn

Mary Liz Holberg (R)*
296-6926
rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn

Sheldon Johnson (DFL)
296-4201
rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn

Scott Kranz (DFL)
296-4226
rep.scott.kranz@house.mn

John Lesch (DFL)
296-4224
rep.john.lesch@house.mn

Leon Lillie (DFL)
296-1188
rep.leon.lillie@house.mn

Dave Olin (DFL)*
296-9635
rep.dave.olin@house.mn

Michael Paymar (DFL)
296-4199
rep.michael.paymar@house.mn

Brita Sailer (DFL)
296-4265
rep.brita.sailer@house.mn

Steve Simon (DFL)
296-9889
rep.steve.simon@house.mn

Steve Smith (R)*
296-9188
rep.steve.smith@house.mn

Torrey Westrom (R)*
296-4929
rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn

[plblark]

While many in opposition to this bill are resorting to hyperbole and absurdity, what the bill does is simple, straightforward, and reasonable.

Here is my first stab at some talking points for my phone calls.

This law is about clarifying when an innocent victim can resist a violent attack. The victim must still be a reluctant participant, not an aggressor. It clarifies issues for the law abiding and simplifies decisions when an imminent threat is present.

When you're the victim of an imminent threat, this bill:

Removes the duty to retreat from an imminent threat. When you're being attacked, Why should you have to retreat? Any conflict is best avoided but once you're attacked, turning your back on your attacker is a poor choice.

Clarifies Serious vs Gross Bodily harm. No one wants to be attacked. In the middle of a life or death attack, who has time to think of the legal hair splitting between serious and gross bodily harm? It's difficult to tell the difference until months after the fact. Gross bodily harm is harm that may never heal. Lowering the level of danger is avoiding confusion if it gets to jury trial months later.

States that you're not less able to resist a violent attack just because of where it takes place. If a criminal attacks you in your yard, how are you less at risk than in your house? You're not, except in court later. Minnesota has solid defense of dwelling laws with case law to back them. This is the logical idea that.

Assumes that Persons who enter by force or by stealth have ill intent. Criminals are the ones that force their way into your home or vehicle. Someone forcing their way into your car or house is probably not intending to sell you cookies. When was the last time a Girl scout broke in a door to sell cookies? Generally, they ring the doorbell.

Codifies the idea that If you follow the law, you're not prosecuted .This is covered in the Immunity from Prosecution and is nothing new, it's explicitly how the system works.

[hammAR]

..................and sell this to those who aren't on board yet?

Remind the RINO's of their heredity and evolution:

[Pat]

While many in opposition to this bill are resorting to hyperbole and absurdity, what the bill does is simple, straightforward, and reasonable.

Here is my first stab at some talking points for my phone calls.

This law is about clarifying when an innocent victim can resist a violent attack. The victim must still be a reluctant participant, not an aggressor. It clarifies issues for the law abiding and simplifies decisions when an imminent threat is present.

When you're the victim of an imminent threat, this bill:

Removes the duty to retreat from an imminent threat. When you're being attacked, Why should you have to retreat? Any conflict is best avoided but once you're attacked, turning your back on your attacker is a poor choice.

Clarifies Serious vs Gross Bodily harm. No one wants to be attacked. In the middle of a life or death attack, who has time to think of the legal hair splitting between serious and gross bodily harm? It's difficult to tell the difference until months after the fact. Gross bodily harm is harm that may never heal. Lowering the level of danger is avoiding confusion if it gets to jury trial months later.

States that you're not less able to resist a violent attack just because of where it takes place. If a criminal attacks you in your yard, how are you less at risk than in your house? You're not, except in court later. Minnesota has solid defense of dwelling laws with case law to back them. This is the logical idea that.

Assumes that Persons who enter by force or by stealth have ill intent. Criminals are the ones that force their way into your home or vehicle. Someone forcing their way into your car or house is probably not intending to sell you cookies. When was the last time a Girl scout broke in a door to sell cookies? Generally, they ring the doorbell.

Codifies the idea that If you follow the law, you're not prosecuted .This is covered in the Immunity from Prosecution and is nothing new, it's explicitly how the system works.

Well done, Paul!

[cobb]

If you can attend on Thursday, please do so.

A side note that I do not think many know. Tony Cornish is the real deal, he does believe in what he is doing in the Minnesota House. I know there are a lot of dedicated politicians and they spend many hours representing their people, making phone calls and standing up in the political arena for the fight. But this past weekend Representative Tony Cornish was manning a table at the Wells Gun Show by himself when I was there, handing out info on the "Castle Doctrine" bill and answering question. Now you tell me, name one time that you have seen this from a politician, working a place to get notice to a bill or something that they thought was important, and I mean besides attending public functions to raise funds for their political needs.

I don't think you will see this happen very often with today's politician, but if you have, please feel free to point it out, but I doubt it.

Tony Cornish is asking us to attend to show support, so please do so if you can.

[mnglocker]

I just left a message for every Rep on the list without a star next to their name.

Hopefully it sinks in.

[hammAR]

If you can attend on Thursday, please do so.

A side note that I do not think many know. Tony Cornish is the real deal, he does believe in what he is doing in the Minnesota House. I know there are a lot of dedicated politicians and they spend many hours representing their people, making phone calls and standing up in the political arena for the fight. But this past weekend Representative Tony Cornish was manning a table at the Wells Gun Show by himself when I was there, handing out info on the "Castle Doctrine" bill and answering question. Now you tell me, name one time that you have seen this from a politician, working a place to get notice to a bill or something that they thought was important, and I mean besides attending public functions to raise funds for their political needs.

I don't think you will see this happen very often with today's politician, but if you have, please feel free to point it out, but I doubt it.

Tony Cornish is asking us to attend to show support, so please do so if you can.

I will be at and around the Capitol all day to support Tony...............
and do not forget Senator Pat Pariseau (R) District 36 while you are praising those on our side,
without her we would not need to be at the Capitol Thursday....................

NOTE: Not picking cobb, just reminding those younger and newer to this that there are indeed politicians on our side, that care, and will stand their ground on our behalf...................

[ttousi]

Senator Pat Pariseau (R) District 36

Too bad there aren't more like her and Tony

[plblark]

I'm going to print and hand out the talking points today. can you guys look it over and be HARSH critics. fisk it for me so we don't have antis doing that job.

Thanks in advance,

Paul

[JohninMinnesota]

How are we going to identify ourselves to one another and the legislators? I guess we could all wear blaze orange but that might give the wrong critical first impression...

I was thinking about simply printing out some of the simple messages we could "pin on" our clothing. Dang, I wish I had thought of this sooner.

Ideas?

[mnglocker]

How are we going to identify ourselves to one another and the legislators? I guess we could all wear blaze orange but that might give the wrong critical first impression...

I was thinking about simply printing out some of the simple messages we could "pin on" our clothing. Dang, I wish I had thought of this sooner.

Ideas?

I believe it's at room 10, We're suppose to have stickers that read: "self-defence is a civil right"