Why This Battle comes down to 14 politicians

[minnhawk]

The State House is in the hands of the DFL -- these seats serve areas in population blocks of about 39,500. The Metro is stacked with House seats because of the population density per square mile. That density, coupled with the metro mindset of bigger government is better government, creates a DFL stronghold with a few Republican pockets here and there. There are 134 House seats, 74 DFL and 60 Republican. That is a 8 vote swing. Can 8 DFL Representatives from rural areas be persuaded to vote against these gun control bills? They are up for election every two years, and it doesn't take much of a memory for those of us living in the fields and the woods to remember who they are come election time.

The Senate House is also in the hands of the DFL who hold a 39 to 28 majority over Republicans. Senate seats represent population blocks of just over 79,000 people. DFL Senator Jeff Hayden's seat represents 6 square miles of Minnesota, while DFLer Thomas Bakk's seat represents 12,996 square miles of our state. Which of these two DFLer's are more likely to vote AGAINST further gun controls? Maybe neither, but Bakk's seat consists of most of the arrowhead region up North to westward to Roseau, but not the RANGE. Hayden's seat represents Mpls south of downtown along the I-35 corridor to about 50th street. Which Senator is most at risk to getting "un-elected" based on his vote on gun control? We have to go after the rural DFL Senators to convince them to stop this madness in their party.

While the DFL enjoys an 11 seat (vote) majority over the Republican senators, it only takes 6 rural DFL senators to vote against gun control laws to cause the whole mess to go down the drain.
Can 6 or more rural DFL Senators be persuaded to vote against gun control bills? Will all Republican Senators vote against gun control bills? These TWO questions will determine if further gun control laws are passed this legislative session.

RURAL DFL SENATORS and RURAL DFL REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE CONVINCED THAT A VOTE FOR FURTHER GUN CONTROL WILL MEAN THEY WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED. This is an "either-or" or "both" bodies scenario. My personal bet is in order to defeat these anti-gun bills, the fight will be in the SENATE. And remember, BOTH the House and the Senate need to agree on the bill(s) and pass them before they go to the Governor's desk for signature. And he'll sign them if he gets them........don't think for one moment this weak governor will buck his own party.

To see who represents where, go to http://www.gis.leg.mn/php/senate.php?Body=Senate

If you click on a senate district, it will download a map of that district. Numbers up to about 30 are definitely rural (with the exception of Duluth and Rochester) You can toggle between the house and senate on this page.

[JJ]

I think the out state DFL is the key. I have an ongoing conversation going with my House Rep (S. Erickson), and she said she is fairly confident they have enough of tthe outstate DFL on board to defeat these measures. But we need to keep the pressure on, and especially get our outstate members to rally to our support.

[American Capitalist]

I'd say we have a very high chance of defeating the big AW ban. Unfortunately, the smaller bills are very much threats.

[BC98]

Paymar has stated that these bills will be rolled into one "gun violence prevention" omnibus bill. I don't think it will be a matter of defeating all the bills so much as they will have to look at defeating one big bill with a lot of crap (but some perceived "good stuff") in it.

[St. Olaf]

Paymar's strategy will no doubt be to try to sneak some harmful provisions in with some that will be presented as essential to save children.

[BigBlue]

Paymar's strategy will no doubt be to try to sneak some harmful provisions in with some that will be presented as essential to save children.

And THAT will be the biggest risk. There will be a catch-all bill with a lot of bad stuff but one or two feel-good things that are hard to vote against. No pol wants to be on record voting against a topic that will be taken out of context later and used against them, even if the rest of the bill stinks.

[Thunder71]

This thing has no legs and no backbone... amplified by those who were able to attend and present in our behalf. In other words, I don't think it's going anywhere... Minnesota has 'compromised' gun laws already, and they work, there's 0 justification for any change toward more restrictions.

I really think a lot of eyes were opened the last couple of days.

[h0nest@be]

IL resident still looking to help the cause per my previous post. http://www.mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=39102

I don't like to broadcast email every member of the state house and senate as I feel it dilutes the message. Pick out some reps/senators that can be swayed and I will contact them with a pledge to financially support their next political rival if they vote to infringe on the Second Amendment. You know your elected representatives best so let me know who to contact.

Based on my research I'm thinking DFL Reps Morgan in 56B, Selcer in 48A, and McNamar in 12A are more open to persuasion as they all barely won their races. Also GOP Senator Housley in 39 may need a nudge. I have not found any published position regarding 2A from any of these candidates so I look to MNGuntalk members for guidance.

I'm ready for tasking. If you have a rep/senator you would like me to contact please respond to my original post.

[exarkun]

If you live in MN District 47, you need to put a lot of pressure on Julianne Ortman. She is going to side with the gun control proponents on this.

http://www.senate.mn/members/member_bio.php?mem_id=1044

Listen to her on Davis and Emmer this morning:
http://www.twincitiesnewstalk.com/cc-co ... _23928.mp3
Skip forward to 14:10 minutes.

[St. Olaf]

She sounds ok to me.

We need to be careful not to attack our friends.

[Dutch]

If you live in MN District 47, you need to put a lot of pressure on Julianne Ortman. She is going to side with the gun control proponents on this.

She has a NRA "A" rating.

[wrench]

I believe Karin Housley is OK, I sent her a pro 2A email a few days ago, and this is the reply I got:

Thanks for your e-mail. I completely agree with you and fully support your right to bear arms.

Contact me if you ever have any other legislative concerns.

[Dan88Iroc]

This is the strategy I have used as well. I emailed all of the pro-gun DFLers (as rated by GOCRA) and the 'wishy washy' ones. I have received responses from Atkins and Melin. They are on our side.

Response from Atkins:

Thanks Dan. As a legislator and as a gun owner myself, I support the 2nd Amendment. While I haven't looked yet at all of the various gun control measures being introduced, my general point of view is that criminals don't follow laws and will always find a way to get guns. In light of that, taking guns away from law-abiding citizens doesn't seem to make sense to me. I also believe most of the tragic shootings getting national attention are caused more by mental illness and a lack of appropriate treatment than by guns. Thanks again for your input.

Joe



Response from Melin:

Dan,



Thank you for taking the time to write me on the issue of gun control. It was good to hear from you.



I just want to let you know that I strongly support the Second Amendment. Please know, I will fight to ensure that law-abiding citizens are able to keep and bear arms.





Any new gun-control legislation will be given a thorough review by me before I would consider voting for it. There may be some common-sense solutions that may be worth considering, such as improvements to the mental health system, but keeping lawful citizens from owning guns would not get my support. While we don’t know yet what type of proposals might emerge from the committee process, you can be confident that I will make sure the voices of Minnesota’s gun owners are heard.





Again, thank you for contacting me. Please don't hesitate to contact me again on this or any other issue of interest to you. I value your input.



Sincerely,



Carly