Listening to HF 372 testimoney now.  

https://events.qwikcast.tv/QwikCast/QwikCastEventById?eventKey=56ec96c7-941e-4bbb-a2c4-fd790b514e1f&eventPageId=1366

HF1434 starting now at 1055.

Randy

Dehn is a royal dick.
 





ETA: Oh Lord, Heather Martens is back! (And has no argument!! LOL)






 



ETA: The old man says that quieter guns don't help protect hearing



 


ETA: The opposition is 2 paid shrills and a senile old man


 

ETA: Why do these morons come out and bitch about guns in general?

The derp with that "physician"...

and the DERP with this lady...
"the days of elliot ness"

wtf

oh and this "protect minnesota" group can go fuck themselves. deep and hard.

EDIT: and anyone who gets up to speak and starts off with "i own guns" or anything similar and then goes on to oppose this stuff, should promptly have their guns removed.

"Actually, we are in recess"!!!

Go TONY!

Just as I supected, those opposing the bill used hate, fear and uncertainty instead of facts.  One of the aniti's did have a good point.  Only two people who supported the bill were private individuals while the rest may have something to gain from the bill.  How many private individuals showed up at the hearing?

Randy

No can do.  This is still the USA.

Randy

lol, good point.

oh and if you want to raise your blood pressure a little today, go check out the facebook page for this "protect minnesota" brady northern chapter.

Looked like dozens. Did you miss all the maroon shirts?

Yes I did.  I spent most of the time listening and typing what I heard into a text document so I could refer back to it later instead of watching the whole thing again later.  The only time I looked at the screen was to get the names of the people speaking.

Does the committee keep sign-in sheets so people can sign in for or against the bills?  As far as I know the WA legislature committees only publish records of those who speak although I think they keep the sign-in sheets for a while.

Randy

Prediction: Dies with gov Dingbat

 

The room was packed.  Lots of GOCRA maroon t-shirts, in addition to other observers.  I would think that to most casual observers it was a pro-gun majority in the gallery by a large margin.

I was a bit surprised that the opposition chose time and again to go with the 'no one should have guns' position instead of 'we should continue to ban supressors' which is what the topic really was about.  Simply put, they continued to argue the wrong point, which is not part of this bill at all.  

They'll reconvene 15 min after session ends today, which should be around 4:15 if everything stays on schedule.  I plan to get back there to hear how it wraps up, in hopes of it going to vote.

In the end, I think its fair to say that the committee is pretty squarely in favor of it going to the house floor.  What I'm not sure of is how we can guage support in the general house.  If there was some decent way to identify the reps expected to oppose it (same thing for the Senate), then we could collectively seek out those people to educate and discuss prior to it going to a larger vote.

Anyone have any experience here, beyond calling just your local legislator?

I wanted to get up and speak but the opposition was called up.  I am proud to say though that I sold the Axiom suppressor to the dealer that spoke and was using it for demo.  

I saw a link on the GOCRA page where the hearings were being streamed online, but too busy at work so I couldn't watch Anybody know where a guy could see the video later??

what was the final vote?

Vote is coming later.

I honestly hope it's ammended and they drop the hunting part. Or allow small game or pest control.  People get touchy about deer.

That's a smaller battle that can be fought down the road.

will it be aired online and what time?

Hopefully this passes, IMO one of the best parts of the currently proposed bill is the language on CLEO signatures and as written appears to apply to ALL NFA applications...

Sec. 3.  Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 609.66, is amended by adding a subdivision
to read:

Subd. 1i. new text end  new text begin Chief law enforcement officer certification; certain firearms. new text end  new text begin (a) As
used in this subdivision:


(1) "chief law enforcement officer" means any official or designee; the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or any successor agency, identified by
regulation or otherwise as eligible to provide any required certification for the making
or transfer of a firearm;

(2) "certification" means the participation and assent of the chief law enforcement
officer necessary under federal law for the approval of the application to transfer or make
a firearm; and

(3) "firearm" has the meaning given in the National Firearms Act, United States
Code, title 26, section 5845(a).

(b) If a chief law enforcement officer's certification is required by federal law or
regulation for the transfer or making of a firearm, the chief law enforcement officer must,
within 15 days of receipt of a request for certification, provide the certification if the
applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm or is not the
subject of a proceeding that could result in the applicant being prohibited by law from
receiving or possessing the firearm. If the chief law enforcement officer is unable to make
a certification as required by this section, the chief law enforcement officer must provide
the applicant a written notification of the denial and the reason for the determination.

(c) In making the certification required by paragraph (b), a chief law enforcement
officer or designee may require the applicant to provide only the information that is
required by federal or state law to identify the applicant and conduct a criminal history
background check, including a check of the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, or to determine the disposition of an arrest or proceeding relevant to the
applicant's eligibility to lawfully possess or receive a firearm. A person who possesses
a valid carry permit is presumed to be qualified to receive certification. A chief law
enforcement officer may not require access to or consent for an inspection of any private
premises as a condition of making a certification under this section.

(d) A chief law enforcement officer is not required to make any certification under
this section known to be untrue, but the officer may not refuse to provide certification based
on a generalized objection to private persons or entities making, possessing, or receiving
firearms or any certain type of firearm, the possession of which is not prohibited by law.

(e) Chief law enforcement officers and their employees who act in good faith are
immune from liability arising from any act or omission in making a certification as
required by this section.

(f) An applicant whose request for certification is denied may appeal the chief law
enforcement officer's decision to the district court that is located in the city or county in
which the applicant resides or maintains an address of record. The court must review the
chief law enforcement officer's decision to deny the certification de novo. The court must
order the chief law enforcement officer to issue the certification and award court costs and
reasonable attorney fees to the applicant, if the court finds that: (1) the applicant is not
prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm; (2) the applicant is not the
subject of a proceeding that could result in a prohibition; or (3) no substantial evidence
supports the chief law enforcement officer's determination that the chief law enforcement
officer cannot truthfully make the certification.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=89&event_id=881927


http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/liveweb.htm

Sounds like it will be 4:15 or thereabouts.

I've done it for a few topics essentially, identify the ones who may be swing people and get appointments with them and educate. The lost causes are a waste of time, but not a waste of mailing information etc. Need to hit the northern dems hard, and Senate lobbying needs to start RFN, dems control the Senate and will be a more challenging.


I'm getting married and can't devote the time but I will say, make appointments, don't lie about what you intend on talking about. Show up dressed appropriately, speak apppropreately, use real data numbers and facts.  You will be the image of the end-user of a suppressor. Act like some poaching hick, and that's what they will associate with this bill.

Bring literature they can keep, multiple copies, if an LA wants one cool hand them out like candy.

The biggest question that will be faced is the hunting part.  You or the group you represent needs to be able to have a stance on how you feel on the subject and if your group is adamant about it or is willing to make a concession on it.

We won't all agree amongst ourselves just make sure that you represent yourself the way you believe or if you are there on behalf of a group, you represent that groups interests even if they aren't in line with your own.

Did Heather Martens make an appearance?

Yes...

Ms. MarTENS was indeed there derping her usual derp.

I'm not shitting you; she actually said this...and got some well-deserved laughs from the gallery...

I posted on the protect MN page and promptly got banned. Apparently a Minnesotan temporarily living 500'  from the border in ND is ND deciding MN politics..... I wonder how much money she's gotten from bloomturd

That's not true.  Dugan Ashley taught me so.


B_Saan, it appears as though the language in that bill makes LEO Sign-offs the same as "shall-issue" in that if the person is not a felon and legally eligible, they will receive a CLEO sign-off.  Is that correct?

That's the way I read it.

I wonder if that would also carry forward to SBRs.

Someone should have stood up and asked that bitch if she believes soldiers and cops who use silencers to do there jobs are murderers too?

According to GOPAC HF1434 has passed.

...committee. Let's not get too carried away yet.

According to the plain language in that clause, it specifically applies to all "firearms" not just suppressors so by my reading yes it would require sign-offs for anyone with a Permit to Carry (a PTC holder is expressly presumed to be qualified) and anyone else without any disqualifying history.  It also protects the CLEOs/sheriffs from any liability (which is their usual fall back reason for refusing to sign-off) for signing-off and expressly defines what information the CLEO may request from the applicant.

What is our next move? I don't hear much optimism for this bill actually getting passed. Email Dayton? Email representatives again? I am unfamiliar with this process, so if those of you who understand the workings could continue to advise us, that would be much appreciated.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

“Silencers are not designed for hearing protection. Silencers were designed to allow people to commit murder and get away with it,” said Heather Martens, executive director of Protect Minnesota: Working to End Gun Violence. “If there is someone that is committing a mass shooting, if they do have the benefit of a silencer, they can claim more victims before they are caught.”

I should feel angry at this....but I can't stop laughing....

We are just not the highly skilled and trained operators that they are.  Hell the last CO I had contact with was one fat lazy fuck that wouldn't even get out of his truck.  Let alone the fact that he lacked a basic understanding of the English language.

My coworker and I got there and sat down just as the committee voted for the suppressor bill. Had a nice chat with a fellow arfcommer and his wife that were sitting in front of us. Heather Martens packed her bag and left as soon it passed the committee vote.

I heard back from my representative, Dean Urdahl. It was short and sweet and read, "This legislation has my support.  Dean"

I made this post on Protect MN's facebook page;


I hope my attack was not to subtle.  hahahahaha

Randy

I heard a quick news blurb on this on WCCO radio today....pretty impartial, had a short quote from one person debating either side. Was kinda surprised it's getting such mainstream attention actually.

It does not appear that she has much for support, even amongst her own flock.

Thanks for the link!

I watched the whole thing in its entirety. I laughed. I cried. My favorite part was at the very end of the first session- one of the Representatives (forget his name, he looked a bit like Colonel Sanders) motioned to shelf the committee vote until they could hear some testimony from an audiologist.. to which Representative Cornish replied, "Actually, we're in recess.."

There are some things that can be done better at the Senate hearing when it is scheduled.  I think we need less industry representatives repeating themselves and more individuals detailing why they want to own silencers.  We need hunters and casual target shooters.

I think we need to directly challenge the claim that silencers were intended to aid murders and spree shooters in their crimes.  We need to challenge the idea that silencers would greatly aid poachers or that their use would have any significant impact on poaching at all.

Here is the link to one of the finest paper ever published on silencer crime in the USA.   Criminal Use of Silencers  Someone needs to print this out, highlight portions of the text, bring it to the hearing and held up as an example of how Protect MN is full of crap when they say silencers are a threat to the safety of MN residents.  We need to ask why MN residents can't be trust with registered silencers when people is the vast majority of other states can be trusted.

Here are some good parts of the above link to bring up at the hearing;  The document is pages 44 to 57

Page 44


Page 45


Page 46


Page 47


Page 47


Continued below.

Randy

References to Paulson are Al Paulson's reference manuals on silencers.
http://www.amazon.com/Silencer-Performance-Sporting-Tactical-Silencers/dp/0873649095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426251976&sr=8-1&keywords=al+paulson
http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Technology-Silencer-History-Performance/dp/1581603231/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

Page 47


Page 47


Page 50


Page 51


Page 51


Continued below.

Randy

Page 53


Page 57


Keep in mind this document was written in 2007 and may be obsolete in some ways.  But since then Washington State, Kansas and Missouri have eased restrictions on silencers without any effect on public safety.

Randy

All here support comes from the Joyce Foundation. I imagine Bloomberg has given them plenty of $$$

The actual committee was far from one sided though. The President of GOCRA and gentleman from the American Suppressor Association destroyed what little issues the opposition brought forward. It was pretty cool to see in person, definitely signing up for GOCRA and supporting the ASA.If you have the time, I would recommend watching the video once it shows up on the archives.

Comittee Part 1
Comittee Part 2

That gal from NRA-ILA that spoke for about ten seconds at the end of the second session...how u doin'?