Anti 2A commercials

[yukonjasper]

I noticed 2 commercials tonight on network television. First was three high schoolers doing there best to convey how unsafe they feel going to school with all those scary guns out there. Second was Mike Freeman and County Sheriffs and Minneapolis police chief calling for universal background checks for all purchases. All of this is "Common Sense".

What is the rebuttal from the law abiding gun owners? Who is on point to challenge these messages?

[MJY65]

I doubt our organizations have Soros cash to pay for network TV ads.

[xd ED]

Not only are the commercials playing, most local media is reporting that the commercials are playing, complete with TV news replaying the commercials as part of the 'news'.

They are aimed at getting people to call their lawmakers....so the counter is for people to contact their lawmakers.

[Rip Van Winkle]

From the MN Gun Owners Caucus yesterday.

Yesterday came the news via Minnesota Public Radio that anti-gun out-of-state group Everytown would spend more than $160,000 in television ads encouraging Minnesotans to sign over their Second Amendment rights in exchange for "Universal Background Checks".

You can view the three gun control spots here:

Law Enforcement ad featuring Ramsey County Sheriff Jack Serier, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, and Inver Grove Heights Police Chief Paul Schnell. View it here.

Students Demand Action ad featuring high school students demanding action on gun control. View it here.

Moms Demand Action ad featuring a Mom from Isanti, MN. View it here.
This is yet another indication of just how committed Bloomberg's organization is in terms of committing significant funds and resources to institute gun control in Minnesota.

The $160,000 they will spend over the next two weeks is almost three times that gun rights groups (Caucus, our PAC, and the NRA) spent in the 2016 election cycle.

We are being outspent in a HUGE way in Minnesota. The battle lines have never been clearer.

Today's daily action is a big ask for each of us:

If you're not a member, please join us today to help counter this onslaught!

If you're already a member, please upgrade your membership or make a generous contribution of $50, $100, or even $250 or $500 towards furthering our efforts.
Maybe that's not something you can afford today, but even a contribution of $10 or $25 or $50 will go a long way towards supporting our efforts.

And if you are really feeling generous today, tick the box to make that contribution a monthly donation - that helps us build our operating budget over the long-haul and helps level out the slow times in the months ahead.

The challenge is real. While their public face is about Universal Background Checks and "Red Flag" orders - what they're really after is much more -- assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions, rollbacks on permits to carry -- Linda Slocum's HF 3022 would just be the beginning.

Bloomberg's army has spent millions in Minnesota - with a small army of lobbyists, the support from many legislators, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in election mailings and advertising.

Minnesota is their target. We need to put a stop to their efforts NOW.

Please join, upgrade, or contribute today!

Yours in Liberty,

Blue-Signature---Bryan.gif
Bryan Strawser
Chair

[Ghost]

Interesting, since I don’t get network television I’d not have known.

[Grayskies]

Interesting, since I don’t get network television I’d not have known.

Same

[jdege]

I noticed 2 commercials tonight on network television. First was three high schoolers doing there best to convey how unsafe they feel going to school with all those scary guns out there. Second was Mike Freeman and County Sheriffs and Minneapolis police chief calling for universal background checks for all purchases. All of this is "Common Sense".

What is the rebuttal from the law abiding gun owners? Who is on point to challenge these messages?

Minnesota law already requires background checks on private transfers of handguns and assault weapons.

Minn. Stat. 609

Subd. 1f. Gross misdemeanor; transferring firearm without background check. A person, other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, who transfers a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to another without complying with the transfer requirements of section 624.7132, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, and if:
(1) the transferee was prohibited from possessing the weapon under section 624.713 at the time of the transfer; or

(2) it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the transfer that the transferee was likely to use or possess the weapon in furtherance of a felony crime of violence.

[gun_fan111v2]

Only watched broadcast TV for a couple of hours and caught two of these. One starts with "nobody is coming for your guns...".

[Ghost]

Only watched broadcast TV for a couple of hours and caught two of these. One starts with "nobody is coming for your guns...".

If you like your guns, you can keep your guns

[ex-LT]

I noticed 2 commercials tonight on network television. First was three high schoolers doing there best to convey how unsafe they feel going to school with all those scary guns out there. Second was Mike Freeman and County Sheriffs and Minneapolis police chief calling for universal background checks for all purchases. All of this is "Common Sense".

What is the rebuttal from the law abiding gun owners? Who is on point to challenge these messages?

Minnesota law already requires background checks on private transfers of handguns and assault weapons.

Minn. Stat. 609

Subd. 1f. Gross misdemeanor; transferring firearm without background check. A person, other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, who transfers a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon to another without complying with the transfer requirements of section 624.7132, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, and if:
(1) the transferee was prohibited from possessing the weapon under section 624.713 at the time of the transfer; or

(2) it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the transfer that the transferee was likely to use or possess the weapon in furtherance of a felony crime of violence.

No, it doesn't require background checks on private party sales.
Nothing in the statute you quoted requires a background check. All it does is define the offense if three specific criteria are met.

[Randygmn]

Aren’t ALL of you on the Gun Owners Caucus email list????? SMH. The email went out yesterday explaining about how outside agitators were funding this assault on our rights. They linked to the commercials too.
The rebuttal to anyone who says “they aren’t coming for our guns” is to point locally towards proposed legislation (ie: Slocum’s, etc) that looks to ban “assault weapons”. ANY BAN ON ANY CLASS OF FIREARM IS “COMING FOR OUR GUNS”. Period. Nationally, however, there’s been lots of talk lately about the repeal of the 2A, most prominently by former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, who got that particular ball rolling.
The pushback this time has to be immediate, unequivocal and very, very aggressive.

[yukonjasper]

I have lost access to my Gmail (cannot keep all the password I have straight). In addition to the one time company matched donation, I am setting an ongoing payroll deduction,also matched, to the Minnesota Gun Owners Support Fund. I would encourage others to do the same.

Are there big money sources we can draw on to immediately produce a counter message? Would companies like Federal and ATK be sources of support? Who coordinates the development end/fund raising?

[photogpat]

I have lost access to my Gmail (cannot keep all the password I have straight). In addition to the one time company matched donation, I am setting an ongoing payroll deduction,also matched, to the Minnesota Gun Owners Support Fund. I would encourage others to do the same.

Are there big money sources we can draw on to immediately produce a counter message? Would companies like Federal and ATK be sources of support? Who coordinates the development end/fund raising?

Federal donates money regularly to the Caucus Support Fund....

[BC98]

I have lost access to my Gmail (cannot keep all the password I have straight). In addition to the one time company matched donation, I am setting an ongoing payroll deduction,also matched, to the Minnesota Gun Owners Support Fund. I would encourage others to do the same.

Are there big money sources we can draw on to immediately produce a counter message? Would companies like Federal and ATK be sources of support? Who coordinates the development end/fund raising?

And ATK doesn't own Federal nor will they get involved in this type of policy discussion...

If you're talking about Vista, they are headquartered in Utah and are highly unlikely to support state-level fund raising. As previously mentioned, Federal is providing support.

[yukonjasper]

Are there any sources that could step up and match Anytown's efforts?