Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

Upcoming Legislative Session
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11279
Page 1 of 1

Author:  inspyrd [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Upcoming Legislative Session

Are there any upcoming Bills we should be watching? Committee meetings that should be attended?

Thanks,
Jeff

Author:  kimberman [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes. They aren't public yet but we expect to see at least these.

Rep. Paymar: CSM's Universal Background Check (and state Registration) bill. May hide intentions in a so-called Gun Show bill. Opens up everything to amendments.

Rep. Thissen: Additional "mental health" disqualifications bill. Ever been prescribed Valium? You're in. NOTE: The feds took care of the Va. Tech. "problem" last year so this is unnecessary.

Rep. Mullery: Something, always something. Maybe a state Assault Weapon BAN. Opens up everything to amendment. CSM would like that.

Mn. Cities: Local power to ban guns (everywhere, meetings, public property ???). Opens up preemption law. Could open up everything to amendment.

All will have Senate counterparts. As usual, sponsors are all metro DFL'ers.

Author:  SultanOfBrunei [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

So what are we putting on the table?

Author:  Scott Hughes [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

SultanOfBrunei wrote:
So what are we putting on the table?


Maybe their JOBS in the next election cycle :!:

Author:  Dick Unger [ Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've heard several members of public boards express dismay that "People can bring guns to our meetings and there is noting we can do about it."

I've told them that "their meetings" are really everybody's meetings and that people with permits have passed extensive background checks.

But someone has stirrred up this issue at very many city and county council meetings, it seems. At least, that's my feeling. On person said the League ofCities has informed their members about the matter.

I'm just guesssing, but this is probably how the stage would be set. The legislature would not want to refuse to hear a bill requested by the League of Minnesota Cities for political reason. They'll start with council chambers, then parks and community centers, then anywhere the city council designates, maybe bars, school areas and day care centers.

Lots of folks thing "local control" is a good thing. :roll:

Author:  kimberman [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:56 am ]
Post subject: 

Here's an example (from today's Duluth Herald)

Quote:
Protect Minnesota bill would prevent gun deaths


Russ Stewart’s Dec. 28 commentary (Local view: “Firearms prohibitionists take their meddling to people’s living rooms”) suggested that a Protect Minnesota bill requiring background checks on sales of guns at gun shows would prohibit Stewart’s father from gifting him a hunting gun. He was wrong. The bill would allow family members to give guns to other family members without background checks.

Stewart wrote that Protect Minnesota, a coalition of groups, including the Million Mom chapters of the Brady Campaign are “prohibitionists” who would come in to people’s homes and take their guns away. Actually, the Protect Minnesota campaign is about keeping guns away from dangerous or irresponsible people, with no ulterior motives concerning confiscation of legal guns.

Stemming the flow of illegal guns must begin somewhere. Guns start out legally purchased but become illegal through private purchases without background checks at gun shows or elsewhere or when they are stolen or sold in “straw purchases.” They’re often sold on streets by those who gained them through one of the above-mentioned means.

Our bill would require all gun purchasers at gun shows to undergo national instant background checks and that all purchasers of pistols and assault weapons [watch it grow to include ALL firearms] statewide undergo local background checks in addition to the federal instant check or have a one-year transferee permit. This has minimal effect on lawful gun purchasers but would begin stopping the flow of illegal guns upstream of the illicit street market, thus making gun registration unnecessary. {Note: She hides the state REGISTRATION scheme contained in the bill}

Again, the bill would exempt transfers of guns among family members from background checks.

It would not stop all gun deaths and injuries but would prevent many [there is NO proof of this in the criminological literature]. (It’s still up to lawful gun owners to make sure guns are safely stored and that they are not used in cases of suicide, domestic homicide, accidental shootings, or are stolen.)

What is the problem with that?

Joan A. Peterson

Duluth

The writer is president of the Minnesota Million Mom chapters of the Brady Campaign, is a board member of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and is a member of the steering committee for the Protect Minnesota Campaign to prevent gun injuries and deaths.

Author:  joelr [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:01 am ]
Post subject: 

Quick show of hands: who wants to respond to Joan's letter?

Author:  westhope [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

As I referenced in another thread here:

DOJ "Firearms Use by Offenders"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf


table 8: Source of Firearm 1997 / 1991

Guns Shows 0.7 % / 0.6%

Friends or Family 39.6 % / 33.8 %

Street / Illegal Source 39.2 % / 40.8 %


The percentage of criminals that obtained firearms from a gun show is less that the error estimate of the study. (page 14)

Author:  DeanC [ Thu Jan 01, 2009 8:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Here comes one: Minn. lawmakers mulls lead bullet ban

Author:  sigman [ Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:44 am ]
Post subject: 

You would think the legislature would have their hands full with the budget, but they still seem to find time to attack the RKBA.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/