User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:00:32 PM EDT
[#1]
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread."
They keep beating around the bush - hope they get around to discussing the omnibus / suppressor bill! Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:06:53 PM EDT
[#2]
From Kevin Vick owner of Crucible Arms: ALERT! I was told by the Governor's office today that they are receiving a large volume of calls asking the Governor to VETO the bill supporting your 2nd Amendment rights. We need to step up to the plate on this folks. Email and call 651 201 3400 Governor Dayton's office and urge him to SIGN SF878/HF849 when it reaches his desk! Don't assume "the other person" is going to do it for you! - Crucible Arms
I have heard the same from a few others. I think Dayton's staffers are lying to the public about the number of people opposed to it, but we should still call and be heard. 651 201 3400 I have some new data found by Sarah Cade on facebook. I copied it into my running thread on APS concerning suppressor and hearing loss research. It's a study proving that suppressors are better for hearing protection than ear plugs and muffs. http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47539.msg979741#new |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:21:13 PM EDT
[#3]
I just called to voice my support. The very pleasant woman answering the phone said she has received a LOT of calls today voicing SUPPORT for the bills, and will make sure the governor gets my message to SIGN.
Keep it up everyone - YOUR VOICE MATTERS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:22:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... Don't interstate transport rules apply in this case (i.e you can travel THROUGH a state where an item is not allowed but not making a planned stop in that state)? If that's not the case, you'll have to go south of Iowa as suppressors are not allowed there either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:50:42 PM EDT
[#5]
SF 1238 passes. On to the BIG bill.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:51:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Finally they are starting on our bill.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:04:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread." Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread." What does this mean? Suppressor thread? .... I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... The Iowa can bill passed? Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:17:26 PM EDT
[#8]
So with SF 878 amended it goes back to the Senate for another vote?
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:41:04 PM EDT
[#9]
From GOCRA April 23rd:
Here's the likely process: * The House will pass their public safety policy-and-finance omnibus bill, maybe next week. (Dustin's comment: Edit: Not sure when this is scheduled to happen.) * The Senate will send their public safety policy omnibus and public safety finance omnibus bills over to the House. (Already done.) * The House will substitute their own bill and send it back. (Dustin's comment: I think they did that earlier when this was brought up.) * The Senate will reject the House replacement * The House GOP and Senate DFL leaders will each appoint 5 members (with a majority of 3 or 4 from their own party) to the committee. We'll keep you up to date. WE REALLY NEED CONSTITUENTS to write their own reps and senators. If you haven't signed up for our GOCRA emails, we don;t know who represents you, and we can't send you specific info. -------- Edit update: from Revisor: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=HF849&b=house&y=2015&ssn=0 04/24/2015 Referred to Chief Clerk for comparison with SF878 pg. 3254 04/25/2015 Bills not identical, SF substituted on General Register pg. 3298 04/25/2015 HF indefinitely postponed pg. 3298 See Senate file in House SF878 ---- http://gocra.mn/mps A .pdf about police use of suppressors and their opinions in MN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 5:33:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Running commentary for April 28th House bills. Guns should be up soon, maybe 3:00pm or so. Update: All of the pro gun bills are intact, none of the anti gun amendments passed.
2:25 Alcohol omnibus bill being considered. Drinking under age 21 when accompanied by a parent was rejected on a voice vote. Lots of BS arguments against Sunday sales, store hours, and so on. 2:50 Guns are up. Cornish speaking. Senate version of the omnibus being considered. 2:51 SF was amended to match the HF version, unanimous voice vote in favor. 3:13 Roll call, mostly green. 3:15 Stolen valor amendment. Would add Sgt Major (and all enlisted men) to the stolen valor law which currently only goes after those impersonating officers. 3:17 Lesch (D) wants to give that amendment a "haircut" and not have it apply to the lowest enlisted classes. 3:20-3:25 Debate on rules or order, and if the amendment is legal. 3:40 Amendment passed. Lots of angry acrimony. 3:42 Anti gun amendments up, these will be voted down. 3:43 Universal registration. 3:4X Rep. Schoen is trying to remove the capitol carry bill THAT HE VOTED FOR, both in committee, and on the floor of the House. 3:52 Debating if anti gun amendment is out of order. 3:57 Speaker ruled against the amendment as out of order. Rep. Schoen is trying to override the speaker. Over ride is under vote, everyone required to vote. 81-50 speaker won, amendment dead. "Since we don't want to make it safer for school kids Nash withdraws the amendment" He is refering to the ban on Capitol carry when a single school kid is present. 4:00 Cornish is for an amendment by Rep Wrinkler (R) anti rape amendment, unanimous. 4:05 Hmong community, anti rape and domestic abuse. 4:10 Youth intervention funding. 4:25 Amendment would treat child prostitutes as victims and not perpetrators of crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 5:34:22 PM EDT
[#11]
[
Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side you sure about this? when i took a carbine class in a different state i brought my SBR. I filled out the proper ATF form for transporting C3 items and was gtg when they returned it to me. I called and double checked about driving through non SBR states and was told as long as I wasn't using it until I reached my destination I was fine. things may have changed or I may have been misinformed, as this was a few years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 6:21:03 PM EDT
[#12]
GOCRA update: www.facebook.com/gocra/photos Urging us to contact Dayton and tell him to support gun owners and suppressors. Information at the link.
http://gocra.mn/mps .pdf about police use of suppressors and their opinions in MN. I have some new data found by Sarah Cade on facebook. I copied it into my running thread on APS concerning suppressor and hearing loss research. It's a study proving that suppressors are better for hearing protection than ear plugs and muffs. http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=47539.msg979741#new MGR (MN Gun Rights) a phoney gun rights group that exists solely to swindle money, and occasionally hinders actual gun rights is actually IGO (Iowa Gun Owners) that does the same crap over there. They are "both" run by the same people and affiliated with NAGR which is also a financial scam. They are taking credit for work they didn't do, and will likely do the same in MN right after we win. http://iagunowners.com/content/gunowners/hf384hf2381-suppressors probably going to happen to GOCRA soon. http://iagunowners.com/content/gunowners/igo-legislative-schemes |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 6:44:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread." They keep beating around the bush - hope they get around to discussing the omnibus / suppressor bill! Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... You are allowed safe passage, so you can drive through the state just don't stop and use it |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 6:48:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are allowed safe passage, so you can drive through the state just don't stop and use it Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread."
They keep beating around the bush - hope they get around to discussing the omnibus / suppressor bill! Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... You are allowed safe passage, so you can drive through the state just don't stop and use it is that covered under the firearm owners protection act from 1986? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 7:37:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
is that covered under the firearm owners protection act from 1986? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread."
They keep beating around the bush - hope they get around to discussing the omnibus / suppressor bill! Would be nice to be able to bring a suppressor into / across Minnesota, or even to Wisconsin. As it stands, if I wanted to bring a can to visit family in Sconny, I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... You are allowed safe passage, so you can drive through the state just don't stop and use it is that covered under the firearm owners protection act from 1986? Yep. If the firearm is legal at the origin and destination, it's safe to drive it there. One of the reasons it was passed was because if a guy wanted to drive from NH or Maine to Virgina with his NFA items locked in his trunk...he couldn't, legally. Not until FOPA was passed. (Either that, or unless they took a ship...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 9:35:46 AM EDT
[#16]
The final vote yesterday was 115 to 19, outstanding! Now hopefully there will be no funny business by the conference committee.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 11:02:43 AM EDT
[#17]
I'm not familiar with how things go now.
SF 878 status 04/29/2015 Senate not concur, conference committee of 5 requested How a Bill Becomes Law Conference
If the House and Senate versions of the bill are different, they go to a conference committee. In the House, the speaker appoints three or five representatives, and in the Senate, the Subcommittee on Committees of the Committee on Rules and Administration selects the same number of senators to form the committee. The committee meets to work out differences in the two bills and to reach a compromise. Floor The conference committee's compromise bill then goes back to the House and the Senate for another vote. If both bodies pass the bill in this form, it is sent to the governor for his or her approval or disapproval. (If one or both bodies reject the report, it goes back to the conference committee for further consideration.) So it is back to the Senate and the House for a vote I suppose? Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 11:41:45 AM EDT
[#18]
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF878&version=2&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0 Instead, the language addresses penalties for unlawful possession of a suppressor, and crosses out the words silencers prohibited (see line 4.32), and a few things of the like. (do a document search for the words silencer, suppressor, or firearms and you'll see what I mean) I'm just having trouble reading the language in a way that now makes the suppressor use and possession legal in MN. The only place I could make the connection would be on line 4.32 where they cross out the words 'silencers prohibited'. Anyone else better versed in the lingo here that can weigh in on the issue? The paranoid part of me is hoping that no one pulled a quick 'switcheroo' in the language at the request of the governor. Not trying to be an alarmist at all, just looking for a little education and clarity on the matter. Call and email Dayton's office today to urge him to support SF878!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 11:43:27 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does this mean? Suppressor thread? The Iowa can bill passed? Randy Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys realize that if this doesn't pass, we're instantly locking this thread, and issuing warnings to everyone involved for "Suppressor Thread." What does this mean? Suppressor thread? .... I'd have to drive south of MN, across Iowa, and back up the WI side... The Iowa can bill passed? Randy Good point... I thought it did, but I'm probably wrong... Usually am...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:05:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF878&version=2&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0 Instead, the language addresses penalties for unlawful possession of a suppressor, and crosses out the words silencers prohibited (see line 4.32), and a few things of the like. (do a document search for the words silencer, suppressor, or firearms and you'll see what I mean) I'm just having trouble reading the language in a way that now makes the suppressor use and possession legal in MN. The only place I could make the connection would be on line 4.32 where they cross out the words 'silencers prohibited'. Anyone else better versed in the lingo here that can weigh in on the issue? The paranoid part of me is hoping that no one pulled a quick 'switcheroo' in the language at the request of the governor. Not trying to be an alarmist at all, just looking for a little education and clarity on the matter. Call and email Dayton's office today to urge him to support SF878!! In lines 5.1 & 5.2 , where it says "sells or has in possession a suppressor that is not lawfully possessed under federal law;" states that possession of a suppressor with the approved tax stamp is lawful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:06:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF878&version=2&session=ls89&session_year=2015&session_number=0 Instead, the language addresses penalties for unlawful possession of a suppressor, and crosses out the words silencers prohibited (see line 4.32), and a few things of the like. (do a document search for the words silencer, suppressor, or firearms and you'll see what I mean) I'm just having trouble reading the language in a way that now makes the suppressor use and possession legal in MN. The only place I could make the connection would be on line 4.32 where they cross out the words 'silencers prohibited'. Anyone else better versed in the lingo here that can weigh in on the issue? The paranoid part of me is hoping that no one pulled a quick 'switcheroo' in the language at the request of the governor. Not trying to be an alarmist at all, just looking for a little education and clarity on the matter. Call and email Dayton's office today to urge him to support SF878!! Laws don't make things legal, they make things illegal. Simply removing any law that says suppressors are prohibited makes them allowed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:13:01 PM EDT
[#22]
So despite the previous bill language that was more explicit about saying 'Repeal of the ban on suppressors', you're saying that in the end all we really need is to cross out those two little words?
I'm good with that, it just felt like a very abrupt change in the language used to achieve the objective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:19:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'. The bill currently reads; Sec. 7.
Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 609.66, subdivision 1a, is amended to read: Subd. 1a. Felony crimes; silencers prohibited suppressors; reckless discharge. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b): (1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm a suppressor that is not lawfully possessed under federal law; As you can see it replaces "silencer" with "suppressor" and strikes out the words making them illegal unless exempted (like the police, FFL/SOT's and DNR enjoy now) and adds in the requirement to have them registered. In other words it is simply bringing state law into line with federal law. Further down it says; Sec. 24. REPEALER.
Minnesota Statutes 2014, sections 97B.031, subdivision 4; and 609.66, subdivision 1h, are repealed. Repeals 97B.031 that made it a crime to "own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached"; as well as the stupid restrictions on police use of silencers contained in 609.66, subdivision 1h. The police need to show this bill more love. 609.66 currently says in part; licensed peace officers may use devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for tactical emergency response operations. Tactical emergency response operations include execution of high risk search and arrest warrants, incidents of terrorism, hostage rescue, and any other tactical deployments involving high risk circumstances. The chief law enforcement officer of a law enforcement agency that has the need to use silencing devices must establish and enforce a written policy governing the use of the devices. The law currently says it is a crime for the police to use a silencer for anything other than tactical emergency response; I don't think any written policy is going to make a training exercise into a tactical deployment. I've been told by MN police that they do in fact train with suppressed firearms which is clearly a violation of the law in MN. The WA police and military ignored the law (prior to 2011) banning all silencer use; just another type of corruption that nearly everyone was willing to ignore. Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:23:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Ah - I missed the repealer section completely. Thanks Randy!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:23:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The bill currently reads; As you can see it replaces "silencer" with "suppressor" and strikes out the words making them illegal unless exempted (like the police, FFL/SOT's and DNR enjoy now) and adds in the requirement to have them registered. In other words it is simply bringing state law into line with federal law. Further down it says; Repeals 97B.031 that made it a crime to "own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached"; as well as the stupid restrictions on police use of silencers contained in 609.66, subdivision 1h. The police need to show this bill more love. The law currently says it is a crime for the police to use a silencer for anything other than tactical emergency response. I've been told by MN police that they do in fact train with suppressed firearms which is clearly a violation of the law in MN. Randy Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought I'd look through the current language of the bill to see how our suppressor details are stated. I'm sure I'm just not reading this right so I hope someone can clarify further, but I no longer see the language that we saw in earlier drafts that discusses the 'repeal of the ban on firearms supporessors'. The bill currently reads; Sec. 7.
Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 609.66, subdivision 1a, is amended to read: Subd. 1a. Felony crimes; silencers prohibited suppressors; reckless discharge. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 1h, Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced as provided in paragraph (b): (1) sells or has in possession any device designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm a suppressor that is not lawfully possessed under federal law; As you can see it replaces "silencer" with "suppressor" and strikes out the words making them illegal unless exempted (like the police, FFL/SOT's and DNR enjoy now) and adds in the requirement to have them registered. In other words it is simply bringing state law into line with federal law. Further down it says; Sec. 24. REPEALER.
Minnesota Statutes 2014, sections 97B.031, subdivision 4; and 609.66, subdivision 1h, are repealed. Repeals 97B.031 that made it a crime to "own or possess a silencer for a firearm or a firearm equipped to have a silencer attached"; as well as the stupid restrictions on police use of silencers contained in 609.66, subdivision 1h. The police need to show this bill more love. The law currently says it is a crime for the police to use a silencer for anything other than tactical emergency response. I've been told by MN police that they do in fact train with suppressed firearms which is clearly a violation of the law in MN. Randy Doesn't state law need to define what a "suppressor" is? I thought we were using silencer because that's what that law defines the device as |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 12:35:58 PM EDT
[#26]
As far as I know MN law never defined silencer either. I don't think it stopped law enforcement from prosecuting anyone for silencer possession though. If SF 878 passes and you have a silencer (or a suppressor) in your possession, it is legal if registered IAW the NFA of 1934 and illegal otherwise.
In the future if someone is arrested for what the police think might be an unregistered silencer, then the state might need to defined those terms. For example, the MetroGun device is a six foot long tube attached to the barrel of a shotgun to reduce noise. Metro Gun It is intended to reduce gun noise, but the BATFE says it is not a silencer. Would it be considered a silencer in MN? Who knows? Want to be the test case? Anyone know of any of these devise in MN right now? Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 4:11:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Didn't see this before:
Also included in SF 1435 and HF 1434 is a “shall sign” provision, requiring that certification by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), when a signoff is required for the transfer of a firearm or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), be provided within 15 days as long as the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving it. Under current law, a CLEO may refuse to sign off for any reason, including their own personal feelings toward NFA-related items, which has created issues for law-abiding citizens. By removing any possibility of personal bias, which may reside behind many CLEO's refusing to sign off, and creating a statewide standard, SF 1435 and HF 1434 protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners across Minnesota. Awesome! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 4:38:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't see this before: Awesome! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't see this before: Also included in SF 1435 and HF 1434 is a “shall sign” provision, requiring that certification by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), when a signoff is required for the transfer of a firearm or other item regulated by the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), be provided within 15 days as long as the applicant is not prohibited by law from receiving it. Under current law, a CLEO may refuse to sign off for any reason, including their own personal feelings toward NFA-related items, which has created issues for law-abiding citizens. By removing any possibility of personal bias, which may reside behind many CLEO's refusing to sign off, and creating a statewide standard, SF 1435 and HF 1434 protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners across Minnesota. Awesome! Just watch, someone will either slow roll his signature or write sub recuso next to it. As is the history here in MN in situations where CLEOs are involved. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 5:01:13 PM EDT
[#29]
I was pleasantly surprised earlier this year when I went to file my Form 1 for a SBR I needed my CLEO (Maplewood police chief) to sign and it was simple as could be. He had two copies ready for me to pickup in a couple days when he was back in the office, and when I asked for a third original signature for my own file he didn't blink an eye and signed it again on the spot.
Ramsey county sheriff's office was easy as could be too earlier this year when I submitted my app for a permit to carry. No pushback, had my permit in hand a short 3 weeks later. So depending on the CLEO, it looks like 'personal results may vary'. Hopefully more and more will continue to recognize the fact that those of us applying for permits, etc. aren't the ones to worry about. :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 5:23:29 PM EDT
[#30]
<Edited.......please choose your words or phrases a little differently ...dpmmn>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 10:11:18 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As far as I know MN law never defined silencer either. I don't think it stopped law enforcement from prosecuting anyone for silencer possession though. If SF 878 passes and you have a silencer (or a suppressor) in your possession, it is legal if registered IAW the NFA of 1934 and illegal otherwise. In the future if someone is arrested for what the police think might be an unregistered silencer, then the state might need to defined those terms. For example, the MetroGun device is a six foot long tube attached to the barrel of a shotgun to reduce noise. Metro Gun It is intended to reduce gun noise, but the BATFE says it is not a silencer. Would it be considered a silencer in MN? Who knows? Want to be the test case? Anyone know of any of these devise in MN right now? Randy I think there were a few articles in the star and sickle back when I lived down there (early 2000s) about how they were being used to cull deer in city parks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 10:12:57 PM EDT
[#32]
When does this get to the gov? I found some 17-4 stainless today for a Form 1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 10:50:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When does this get to the gov? I found some 17-4 stainless today for a Form 1 I found myself looking at things I could turn into one as well... Pretty sure I'll end up with a kit or something the price of a regular suppressor is retarded expensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 12:21:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Thank you everyone for keeping tabs on this. I know it took lots of effort. I had been unable to log in for a while so I didn't get to chime in.
Did it actually get passed? I was unable to tell on Tuesday if it made it through or not.The language and process of movement it tricky to follow. Thanks again to all who helped with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 1:18:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Why did you edit my post?
I simply said that I didn't care if my sheriff protested all day and put such on the CLEO sign off, and further, said that I wanted him to because I'd frame it. Just like I framed the Letter Of Reprimand I got from the Air Force when I got a plane full of pointy end flying in five minutes instead of having them sit on their asses in the Al Udeid heat for three hours. In fact, I got a Navy Master Chief coin for that feat. I fail to see what is wrong with my saying that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 8:12:57 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you everyone for keeping tabs on this. I know it took lots of effort. I had been unable to log in for a while so I didn't get to chime in. Did it actually get passed? I was unable to tell on Tuesday if it made it through or not.The language and process of movement it tricky to follow. Thanks again to all who helped with this. The House and the Senate each passed their version of the Omnibus public safety bill. The four pro-firearms bills within the omnibuses are the same. Now a conference committee (5 reps from the house and 5 senators) get together and come up with a compromise bill. Then that has to be voted on in both houses. Then it goes to the Gov. According to Prof. Joe Olson things are still looking good for our bills. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:09:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Per the GOCRA website, looks like the members of the conference committee have been selected.
https://www.facebook.com/gocra Does anyone know when the conference committee will convene? This would appear to be when we'll all be looking for the next burst of activity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 11:01:23 PM EDT
[#38]
sometimes the conference committee meets in "official" meetings and sometimes it's more informal, where they kinda hash out the bill and once it's finalized, they have an official conference committee meeting to "approve" the language and then it's off to the two bodies for final votes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2015 2:36:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Here are the people who will hammer out the differences in the two bills. Think they can work together?
Senate conferees Latz; Champion; Dibble; Eaton; Senjem
House conferees Cornish; Johnson, B; Lohmer; Hertaus; and Hilstrom. Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2015 3:25:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Are the files still the same titles?
Thanks for the updates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2015 3:40:50 PM EDT
[#41]
So what is the latest word with gov mumbles?
I have been squeaking a lot, but is there any chance of change in his views? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2015 6:17:10 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are the files still the same titles? Everything is still the same. I'm getting my info from here; SF878 Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2015 7:03:17 PM EDT
[#43]
Thanks for the link. I hate face book so this helps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2015 1:59:34 PM EDT
[#44]
From MNGOPAC's Facebook page...
Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee
7 mins · MN Gun Owners PAC Executive Director Bryan Strawser will be on the Northern Alliance Radio Network with Mitch Berg at around 1:30pm today to talk about the pro-gun legislation that will head to the Governor's desk shortly - and about our petition launch today. Listen in at AM1280 or online at http://www.am1280thepatriot.com |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 1:09:10 AM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2015 10:40:13 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2015 1:03:42 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2015 2:25:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Done deal
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2015 12:58:35 PM EDT
[#49]
The petition should mention that the bill will ease restrictions on the MN police. While the police are allowed to possess silencers, they are only permitted to use them for "tactical emergency response". Any other use including training is a felony according to 609.66.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2015 1:08:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Anyone that thinks gov marble mouth cares about petitions supporting pro gun bills doesn't have a grasp on reality.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
