I sent all the listed representatives this:


and received two emails back from Tony:



and about two hours later:



Apparently he's rather adamant...

It's just a little frustrating that he continues to deny that this could cause problems for gun owners in the future.

These amendments should NOT, Not, not be implemented, at LEAST as it mentions transporting an uncased firearm on a rifle range BECAUSE

1) rifle range activities have NOTHING to do with the activity of "hunting," the ONLY thing regulated by (scope and nature of conduct) the "fair chase" and "hunting" regs. The hunting regs ONLY apply to hunting activities and not to the general criminal law.

97A.021 CONSTRUCTION.
Subdivision 1.Code of Criminal Procedure.
A provision of the game and fish laws that is inconsistent with the Code of Criminal Procedure or of penal law is only effective under the game and fish laws.
Subd. 2.Authority of commissioner.
A provision of the game and fish laws is subject to, and does not change or modify the authority of the commissioner to delegate powers, duties, and functions under section 84.083.
Subd. 3.Parts of wild animals.
A provision relating to a wild animal applies in the same manner to a part of the wild animal.
Subd. 4.Dates and open seasons.
The dates specified in the game and fish laws and time periods prescribed for certain activities or as open season are inclusive, unless otherwise specified.
History:
1986 c 386 art 1 s 3; 1987 c 384 art 2 s 17

2) The uncased provisions in the criminal law, 624.7181, refer ONLY to "public places" as defined therein.


624.7181 RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES.
Subdivision 1.Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them.
(a) "BB gun" means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter.
(b) "Carry" does not include:
(1) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun to, from, or at a place where firearms are repaired, bought, sold, traded, or displayed, or where hunting, target shooting, or other lawful activity involving firearms occurs, or at funerals, parades, or other lawful ceremonies;
(2) the carrying by a person of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun that is unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, if the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and no portion of the firearm is exposed;
(3) the carrying of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun by a person who has a permit under section 624.714;
(4) the carrying of an antique firearm as a curiosity or for its historical significance or value; or
(5) the transporting of a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in compliance with section 97B.045.
(c) "Public place" means property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public in sufficient numbers to give clear notice of the property's current dedication to public use but does not include: a person's dwelling house or premises, the place of business owned or managed by the person, or land possessed by the person; a gun show, gun shop, or hunting or target shooting facility; or the woods, fields, or waters of this state where the person is present lawfully for the purpose of hunting or target shooting or other lawful activity involving firearms.
Subd. 2.Penalties.
Whoever carries a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun on or about the person in a public place is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. A person under the age of 21 who carries a semiautomatic military-style assault weapon, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 7, on or about the person in a public place is guilty of a felony.
Subd. 3.Exceptions.
This section does not apply to officers, employees, or agents of law enforcement agencies or the armed forces of this state or the United States, or private detectives or protective agents, to the extent that these persons are authorized by law to carry firearms and are acting in the scope of their official duties.
History:
1993 c 326 art 1 s 34; 1994 c 576 s 58; 1994 c 636 art 3 s 42


THEREFORE, adding any sort of "permission" in the hunting law creates a fissure in the "public place" scope of the general "case" requirements. Shooting ranges, by and large, are PRIVATE property. You do NOT need express permission to do that which you already can do, because it is not expressly prohibited.

These regs would create a situation whereby the latest enactment on a subject, impliedly overrules, or carves out an exception to the already established (previously) general rule through "the specific enactment, and later enactment, controls the general." STOP IT! THINK about what you are doing! You've bought into the idea that we are fighting, that "geography" is a valid issue, by trying to carve out unnecessary exceptions. Oh, My, God!!

DO NOT GO THERE, PLEASE! It is so totally unnecessary. You are reacting to an incredibly inept interpretation.

David Gross

The fact that Cornish is sending emails to citizens saying they are wrong is the part that disturbs me.

Mr Cornish is a REPRESENTATIVE. His job as an elected representative is to serve the Will Of The People. I don't care if this is his pet project.
When he starts getting the volume of email, letters and phone calls that it would appear he's getting in opposition to a particular piece of legislation it is incumbent upon him to oppose that legislation on behalf of the people he serves. If Mr Cornish has received more correspondence in support of this than against it then he should say so-he has not. He only says that we, the people are wrong and that regardless of what the citizens of this State want, he is going to oppose us and vote for the bill.
That is government imposing it's will on the people.

I'm sorry but I think Mr Cornish needs a civics class.

Senators and Representatives, either on the state or national level, normally run on their own views and expect voters to cast their ballots for them based on what they believe the said Senator or Representative will do. Almost as an afterthought does the electorate believe that the politician will respond to their wishes. This concept is the basis for politicians pandering during their speeches to all sorts of constituent views, many of them conflicting: You know, a little anti-abortion here, a little pro-abortion there. Prevailing winds seem to have an important place here. Consistency and ethics are no impediment to becoming either a Senator or Representative.

There is not a politician anywhere on the face of the earth that does not politically "owe" something to someone. The "someone" is very rarely, if ever, the electorate as a whole. The "someone" is more likely an individual or small group.

In short, my belief is that it is never to anyone's advantage to label any politician as one of the "good" guys. They need to be watched and monitored just as one would watch and monitor a rattlesnake in the same room.

Politicians are frustrating, but that's part of a republican form of democracy. I will say, that if you treat all politicans like rattlesnakes, you probably won't be persuasive.

It's safe to say legislators at least read this forum, I'd bet Mr. Cornish is a member.

So you suppose, that legislators ever gather in a sound proof room and express thoughts about constituents they can't satisfy? What might they actually say?

Politicians are frustrating, but that's part of a republican form of democracy. I will say, that if you treat all politicans like rattlesnakes, you probably won't be persuasive.

It's safe to say legislators at least read this forum, I'd bet Mr. Cornish is a member.

What might he think about constituents after reading your post? Do you suppose he carefully examines your analysis of his work? Or might he blow you off as a lost cause? So you suppose, that legislators ever gather in a sound proof room and express thoughts about constituents they can't satisfy? What might they actually say?

If Mr. Cornish has a problem in dealing with those who take issue with his stands on various bills then he probably should not be allowed to interface with people on any level.

Given the current language, I will vote against.

Mary

I will keep it in mind.

Thank you,

Karla