MN Suppressors

[Grayskies]

I kimd of think this would be a hard sell to the movie watching public, I can just imagine the news coverage.

I'm sure the residents of the 39 states where they are legal watch movies too. While I'd love to be able to pin this all on the DNR, Dayton, Franken and Klobuchar, I think the bigger problem we are facing in this state is the hopelessly liberal voters that put them there.

True, MN is a very blue state, and the news media is bluer. I don't really think this will get a positive or even neutral hearing with the public especially in the metro. Heather would explode...

[Hmac]

You were talking about US Senators? We're talking about a state law, not Federal. Those two would carry no more weight on the Minnesota suppressor issue than they did on the previous "common sense gun law" attempts in Minnesota.

Look how much effort it took to try to shut that down, even without the grass roots support. You're fooling yourself if you don't think they carry weight on the issue.

Not sure which of the two of us is fooling themselves, but I think it's you.

I do think think that a state voting in in someone like Al Franken and re-electing them is indicative of a general voter mindset that wouldn't be particularly conducive to something like legalizing suppressors, but Franken has negliglible influence in that regard. Especially compared to the influence of the commisioner of the DNR or the head of the Public Safety commission. They're opposition is what's keeping this out of the legislative process, not Franken or Klobuchar.

[Grayskies]

I think most MN residents would be very surprised when that saw the map; probably many in the DNR, as well.

I am surprised! Truly!

Well I am sure this is to protect the endangered white tail deer from poaching!

[MJY65]

Well I am sure this is to protect the endangered white tail deer from poaching!

The DNR could probably actually use that one now that they've "managed" them down to the lowest number in decades all while the wolf population expands.

[Grayskies]

Well I am sure this is to protect the endangered white tail deer from poaching!

The DNR could probably actually use that one now that they've "managed" them down to the lowest number in decades all while the wolf population expands.

DNR please explain this to all the deer we have to dodge up here! Well I guess I am glad deer arn't carnivores!

[2in2out]

Heather would explode...

Kind of like the drummers in Spinal Tap?

[bstrawse]

New to MN, so can you tell me the prospects for suppressors becoming legal in this state?

MN is an outlier among the states on this topic which is clearly a matter of hearing protection.

I believe we'll see legislation introduced in the 2015 session to legalize suppressors. I imagine we're in for a multi-session uphill battle to make this law, however.

b

I believe you've jumped off the deep end and forgot who the senators of Minnesota are. I hope it doesn't hurt too much diving into a pool without water. Just don't ask for sponsorship.

I'm pretty sure I have a good handle on the political situation between the MN House & Senate when it comes to gun rights issues, but I'd love to have you educate me on what it is you think I am missing here...

B

[jshuberg]

Remember that GOCRA was able to get Stand Your Ground passed by the legislature and sent to Dayton. He did veto it, but it demonstrates how much influence they had that it actually got that far.

Suppressors in my mind should be a no-brainer. They are a valuable piece of safety equipment to prevent permanent injury for both hunters, and those that are forced to defend themselves while indoors.

If we all stand up, and let our voices be heard I believe we collectively can make extremely good progress on gaining mindshare in the legislature, if not actually getting something passed. It's all about timing, wording, and volume of support. It's also the right thing to do.

[MaryB]

With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

[Hmac]

With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

Huh? Bypass the legislature? And what does the court system have to do with it?

[Chunkychuck]

With that many states supporting it I think this could be a win in the court system and bypass the legislature... same for full auto

It would have to be someone with deep pockets and a willingness to lose that fight for either issue. The suppressor issue might be doable but the fight would have to be from a personal health and safety issue rather than 2A I believe to have a chance at winning.

[Chunkychuck]

Huh? Bypass the legislature? And what does the court system have to do with it?

In the courts is where you fight issues that legislatures, city councils, etc. pass and won't budge on them. If it weren't for the courts we wouldn't have Heller or McDonald. Or the ongoing case in CA where the San Diego sheriff will most likely have to start issuing "shall issue permits" instead of his past "may issue permits. Full disclosure requires the notification that my pockets aren't deep so I will have to wait for the legislature.

[BBeckwith]

Huh? Bypass the legislature? And what does the court system have to do with it?

my pockets aren't deep so I will have to wait for the legislature.

Ding, Ding, Ding... We have a winner.


Who wants to volunteer to get on the court docket and has the cash to fight the battle that will probably take 3+ years for working it's way up the courts.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Grayskies]

I think there is something fundamentally wrong when you have to be rich to be able to sue the government to overturn an unconstitutional law. Righs should be for all not just for those that can afford them.

[jshuberg]

The courts can't solve the suppressor problem. We need to change the law that bans them. The law is morally wrong, but it is not illegal. If challenged the courts would rule that the suppressor law stands.