Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Page / 3
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 1:02:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2013 1:03:09 AM EDT by minnesotagunner]
Thanks used this to send as both an email and letter via the NRA-ILA's site at NRA-ILA: Write Your Representatives.

Its good to see people posting their own letters as it seems to allow those who normally couldnt/wouldnt take the time to sit down and wright a bit more motivation to get involved. Thanks again, WE need to get this stopped!
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 4:51:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NDT3:
Originally Posted By bigbad401:
I am noticing that any response we get is from a Republican rep. Interesting. Anyone hear from a Dem yet??


I have received noting positive from a single democrat. Reublicans, YES.




I e-mailed everyone on the Public Safety Committee on Friday and so far have only received 3 reply's from Democrats. Each one has been an auto reply form letter basically stating to come to the hearings if I'd like to make a public statement. They have been very non-committal typical politician answers.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 6:28:41 AM EDT
Sent emails this morning to my Senator & Representative and then to all members of the committee. Received three auto responses so far.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 10:10:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2013 10:11:51 AM EDT by Christhelaborer]
Here is what i have sent to all my Rep.'s. This is the reply I recieved from Kurt Daudt. The rest were cookie cutter responses.








Rep. Daudt<br /><br /> I am writing you to let you know that I oppose any Bill that institutes more gun control laws. I am a Veteran of the Persian Gulf War, a married father of three children, a taxpayer, and a voter. If you bring forward or vote for any new gun control laws, I will make it my priority to make sure that you are voted out. I swore an Oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foriegn and domestic. In my eyes, it is treason to pass laws that would go against our right to bear arms. I urge you to remember your Oath !

Oathkeeper, Chris the Laborer



Christopher,

Thanks for taking the time to contact me. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment, I appreciate hearing your thoughts and will certainly keep them in mind this session.

If you are interested in attending the Public Safety Committee hearing on Tues. Feb 5th ~
Interested 2nd amendment supporters are meeting in 400S of the State Office Building from 8:30-9:30 and then will go down to Room 10 for the committee hearing.

Information regarding parking around the MN State Capitol is available on the following link
http://www.admin.state.mn.us/pmd/4-2_public_parking.htm#metered_lot_parking

Sincerely,



Link Posted: 2/4/2013 1:20:16 PM EDT
David Bly written - waiting on response. Not holding my breath.....
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 5:33:39 PM EDT
Dear Dan,
 
Thanks for taking the time to email me. I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment with an “A” rating from the NRA; I appreciate hearing your thoughts and will certainly keep them in mind.
 
 
If you are interested in attending the Public Safety Committee hearing on Tues. Feb 5th ~
Interested 2nd amendment supporters are meeting in 400S of the State Office Building from 8:30-9:30 and then will go down to Room 10 for the committee hearing.
 
 
Information regarding parking around the MN State Capitol is available on the following link
http://www.admin.state.mn.us/pmd/4-2_public_parking.htm#metered_lot_parking
 
 
In addition, the Committee Administrator emailed this information:
All hearings will be in SOB 10 with overflow seating available in SOB 181.
If people want to testify, they do not need to sign up ahead of time; they do not need to contact the committee administrator. They need to show up to SOB 10 to sign in on which bill they want to testify on. There will be no general testimony from the public. It must be related to a specific bill. All bills should be available on the website.
The Chair will be laying over all bills for consideration into an omnibus bill which will be the Gun Violence Prevention Act. This means that there will be no voting on any bills, only testimony.
 
Sincerely,
 
Andrea


 
 
Representative Andrea Kieffer (53B)
213 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
651.296.1147
Please sign up to receive my email updates! http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/join.asp?id=15352
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 6:49:10 PM EDT
Update: Additional bills introduced 2/4/13

HF 307: 1/2 of the end of "shall issue": Adds the chief of police to authorities that can grant permits to carry, and requires you to go to your chief of police if you have one, instead of to the sheriff. Working with HF 294, this will end the "shall issue" permit system in Minnesota. The sole author is Rep. Simonson out of Duluth.

HF294: The other 1/2 of the end of "shall issue" On the face of it, this bill would make it more difficult for felons to have their right to own firearms restored. But is also lowers the bar for denying a permit to carry. Currently, a permit must be granted if the applicant is qualified, unless there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public. This bill removes the word "substantial," thereby lowering the showing that has to be made for an issuing authority to deny a permit. If you appeal the denial, the burden of proof on the denying authority would be lowered from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of the evidence." In lawyer-speak, that is a HUGE change. Also, incidents of alleged criminal misconduct that have never even been investigated or documented can be used against you in the appeal hearing. The end result is a system where you could be denied a permit to carry because the issuing authority says "well, we heard...but we didn't document or investigate" or "well, we think...but we didn't document or investigate." When combined with HF307, this is the end of the carry permit for many Minnesotans.

HF 298: End state preemption: This would end state preemption of local gun restrictions. We would then have a patchwork of different laws from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it impossible to know all the laws and travel legally through the state with a firearm.

HF 285: This is small, but significant. It adds a definition for "ammunition" in the section of statutes that deal with firearms definitions. It goes on to make so that if you cannot possess a firearm, you also can't possess ammo. The real kicker here is more subtle; it alters the list of those that can't possess firearms or ammunition. Under current law, you cannot be denied the right to own a firearm for mental health reasons until you have been committed in Minnesota or another state. If this passes, you lose the right if you are ordered, regardless of whether the order is stayed. In other words, a court could commit someone, realize that a mistake was made, and stay the order, but it would be too late; the subject of the order couldn't own a gun or firearms until they had petitioned to have rights restored. All in all, this is probably the least concerning of the bills that has been introduced.

These representatives are trying to roll back every right we have. No more permits to carry. De facto bans on most semi-automatic guns through either the ban or the ultra-low magazine limits that make it impossible to use your gun. PLEASE STAY INVOLVED!
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 6:58:36 PM EDT
My god. We really are dealing with people that want to destroy the 2nd.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:03:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cursarius:
Update: Additional bills introduced 2/4/13

HF 307: 1/2 of the end of "shall issue": Adds the chief of police to authorities that can grant permits to carry, and requires you to go to your chief of police if you have one, instead of to the sheriff. Working with HF 294, this will end the "shall issue" permit system in Minnesota. The sole author is Rep. Simonson out of Duluth.

HF294: The other 1/2 of the end of "shall issue" On the face of it, this bill would make it more difficult for felons to have their right to own firearms restored. But is also lowers the bar for denying a permit to carry. Currently, a permit must be granted if the applicant is qualified, unless there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant is a danger to self or the public. This bill removes the word "substantial," thereby lowering the showing that has to be made for an issuing authority to deny a permit. If you appeal the denial, the burden of proof on the denying authority would be lowered from "clear and convincing" to "preponderance of the evidence." In lawyer-speak, that is a HUGE change. Also, incidents of alleged criminal misconduct that have never even been investigated or documented can be used against you in the appeal hearing. The end result is a system where you could be denied a permit to carry because the issuing authority says "well, we heard...but we didn't document or investigate" or "well, we think...but we didn't document or investigate." When combined with HF307, this is the end of the carry permit for many Minnesotans.

HF 298: End state preemption: This would end state preemption of local gun restrictions. We would then have a patchwork of different laws from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it impossible to know all the laws and travel legally through the state with a firearm.

HF 285: This is small, but significant. It adds a definition for "ammunition" in the section of statutes that deal with firearms definitions. It goes on to make so that if you cannot possess a firearm, you also can't possess ammo. The real kicker here is more subtle; it alters the list of those that can't possess firearms or ammunition. Under current law, you cannot be denied the right to own a firearm for mental health reasons until you have been committed in Minnesota or another state. If this passes, you lose the right if you are ordered, regardless of whether the order is stayed. In other words, a court could commit someone, realize that a mistake was made, and stay the order, but it would be too late; the subject of the order couldn't own a gun or firearms until they had petitioned to have rights restored. All in all, this is probably the least concerning of the bills that has been introduced.

These representatives are trying to roll back every right we have. No more permits to carry. De facto bans on most semi-automatic guns through either the ban or the ultra-low magazine limits that make it impossible to use your gun. PLEASE STAY INVOLVED!


You mind if I post this on Simonsons FB page?
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:13:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NDT3:

You mind if I post this on Simonsons FB page?


Quote away; no attribution required. Just be aware that Simonson is only the author of HF 307 off that list. But I'm sure he's working with the authors of HF 294.

He's also an author of the Assault Weapons ban and the 7-round mag limit though. Yet on his Facebook page he claims he hasn't decided what limits we should have on our "magazine clips" or what the definition of an "assault weapon" should be. And he's in favor of protecting our Constitutional rights, again according to his Facebook page.

Draw your own conclusions about his honesty.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:20:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cursarius:
Originally Posted By NDT3:

You mind if I post this on Simonsons FB page?


Quote away; no attribution required. Just be aware that Simonson is only the author of HF 307 off that list. But I'm sure he's working with the authors of HF 294.

He's also an author of the Assault Weapons ban and the 7-round mag limit though. Yet on his Facebook page he claims he hasn't decided what limits we should have on our "magazine clips" or what the definition of an "assault weapon" should be. And he's in favor of protecting our Constitutional rights, again according to his Facebook page.

Draw your own conclusions about his honesty.


I posted it to my FB page. Suddenly finding out that a lot of my friends on FB are pro 2nd.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:24:43 PM EDT
Received postive responses back from Kathy Lohmer, Jim Newberger and Tony Cornish. Trying to rearrange my schedule to head to the hearings at least one day
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:36:35 PM EDT
this was my letter to them:


I'm am writing you today to ask that you reject any and all gun control measures that will be brought up in your committee in the coming days. I hunt deer with an AR10 and have participated in organized long-range rifle competitions with an AR15 for years. While I think we all agree that firearms do not belong in the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable, the existence of such persons in our society should not be used as an excuse to penalize me or any other law abiding citizen. I hope the focus is more on Mental Health and strengthening the background check process to make sure all court records/mental health records are being included and less focus is placed on banning guns/magazines and punishing law-abiding gun owners.

Thank You,
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:44:38 PM EDT
I am so disgusted right now.

I'm trying to write down my testimony in case there isn't enough time tomorrow night but the phrases "burn in hell", "I'm leaving" and "pissing on Minnesotans" keep creeping into my paragraphs.

Link Posted: 2/4/2013 7:59:44 PM EDT
I've testified multiple times for non-gun related bills.

word of advice. KEEP YOUR COOL! Make no threats, basically kill them with kindness. that doesn't mean roll over, totally point out flaws and hypocrisy, but what he anti's love are progun people being mean, bad, losing temp...so they can say "see, these people shouldn't have guns" blah, blah, blah...

I commend EVERYONE attending and/or testifying.
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 8:03:05 PM EDT
I'm trying to hammer the "don't hurt our hunters" side of the semi-auto ban. While I am not a consummate public speaker, I think I can keep my cool.

But right now there is little but seething rage...
Link Posted: 2/4/2013 8:37:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_mojo_risin:
I've testified multiple times for non-gun related bills.

word of advice. KEEP YOUR COOL! Make no threats, basically kill them with kindness. that doesn't mean roll over, totally point out flaws and hypocrisy, but what he anti's love are progun people being mean, bad, losing temp...so they can say "see, these people shouldn't have guns" blah, blah, blah...

I commend EVERYONE attending and/or testifying.


For everyone testifying as well, I thank you. This is some good advice as well. The proposed bills attack something very important to all of us and its easy to get emotional, however like the mr. Mojo said, if we lose are cool we discredited ourselves and give them fuel to add to the fire. For now let's just hope for best, present our facts and values hoping the proposed legislation doesn't make it far. Don't get me wrong we still need to let them know everything that's wrong with what they want to pass and be strong about it.
Link Posted: 2/5/2013 12:23:21 AM EDT
H.F. 308: Restrictions on Body Armor: relating to public safety; requiring a permit to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor; providing criminal penalties for purchase, ownership, possession, or use of body armor without a permit;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 609.
Link Posted: 2/5/2013 4:55:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NDT3:
My god. We really are dealing with people that want to destroy the 2nd.


This is the most open these people have been about their contempt in my memory. You really want to know what these people think of you/us? Here it is.
Link Posted: 2/5/2013 4:57:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
My god. We really are dealing with people that want to destroy the 2nd.


This is the most open these people have been about their contempt in my memory. You really want to know what these people think of you/us? Here it is.


Bingo.

We might even ask why they trust folks to vote, but not own arms?
Link Posted: 2/5/2013 6:31:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mnvwguy02:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By NDT3:
My god. We really are dealing with people that want to destroy the 2nd.


This is the most open these people have been about their contempt in my memory. You really want to know what these people think of you/us? Here it is.


Bingo.

We might even ask why they trust folks to vote, but not own arms?

First they need to take away your 2A rights, then they can take away your right to vote. The 2A protects all others!

Link Posted: 2/5/2013 6:32:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 952melvin:
H.F. 308: Restrictions on Body Armor: relating to public safety; requiring a permit to purchase, own, possess, or use body armor; providing criminal penalties for purchase, ownership, possession, or use of body armor without a permit;proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 609.

You know that body armor, its a danger to society....
Page / 3
Next Page Arrow Left
Top Top