Norton has enough party rank, her expressed opinion just might be the prevailing opinion, but not the official stance of the DFL.

I'll be calling in the morning although it will likely have no effect on her opinion.  It's part of advocacy though.

Got banned from her Facebook page just for asking her to define "exploding bullets"

I just commented on one of her posts of a poll she did for gun bans.

She deleted all of my comments and blocked me

 

Agreed (on both counts).

I had called and emailed last week.  Her email response was about what I expected.  Oh well.  It is important to keep up the communication though, even if it feels futile at times.  To channel Samuel Adams, we must be the irate, tireless minority, or our rights (all of them!) will be taken away.

I sent this. I am unsure if it is worded correctly but I sent it anyways.

I, as well as many, many Minnesotans take issue with your recent statement.

“Let's start by banning weapons on the grounds by all but law enforcement effective immediately.”

I personally do not carry, but if anything horrible were to happen where I may be, I would pray there were someone willing and able to take on any threat until officers arrived on the scene.

I believe you folks in (elected office) should have enough faith in the people that are issued permits to do the right thing and also take the correct course of action when officers do finally arrive.

Remember one thing, while we Minnesotans understand and realize officers try their best to arrive on scene there is a long time while unspeakable acts are being perpetrated and we have the right and duty to protect ouselves and others.

                  Thank you for your time and I hope you change your position on this matter.

Sincerely yours, concerned citizen

Her response. Help with rebuttal would be appreciated. Too tired to think.


My request is reasonable and would bring us in line with the 45 states
that have restrictions on guns in their Capitols, as does Washington DC.

We have security officers on sight, so no wait is necessary should a gun
owner discharge his weapon - but  why wait for such an occasion to
address this safety issue?

We use metal detectors for the Supreme Court when it is in session - why
not do the same for the entire building?

Kim

Link of interest

 

You're going to continue engaging her?

Heh.  Seriously -- good for you.  She needs to know more people won't stand for this stuff.

Her argument that "we should do what everyone else is doing" is mind-numbingly stupid.  Would she have argued the same way about gay marriage prior to Obergefell v. Hodges?  Over thirty states had constitutions or laws prohibiting that.  Should we have done the same, just to be like the majority?  Somehow I think she'd argue the exact opposite.  The truth is, you don't do things because they're popular, you do things because they're the right thing to do.  Even if you're the only one doing them.

I would refer her to the MN Department of Public Safety (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) annual Permit To Carry Report and tell her that permit holders are just about the furthest thing from a "public safety" risk as you can get in this state.  Permit holders are overwhelmingly well-behaved.  If she's actually in favor of public safety, she should be encouraging more people to get their permits.

I think I misunderstood the bolded comment, she meant in defense. So I just told her that was sexist and a couple of other things.

No answer back. Win??
ETA: damn! Good point on the marriage thing.

Thanks for the link. I'll whip it out if she chooses to respond.

Probably not with her. If experience is any guide, she will eventually resort to just saying her 'constituents agree with her' and she is 'sworn to represent them'. That will be her way of telling you to go away, and that she doesn't have any more interest in facts or discussion.  Sorry

All is good. I hate arguing with idiots anyway. At least I got to call her sexist. That probably hit home. Hopefully

Discussing political business on facebook and censoring your comments are not legal and a violation of your constitutional rights.

mn statutes are in place take her to court or file a complaint with the ethic's committee

13D.065 USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.
The use of social media by members of a public body does not violate this chapter so long as the social media use is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. For purposes of this section, e-mail is not considered a type of social media.
13D.06 CIVIL FINES; FORFEITURE OF OFFICE; OTHER REMEDIES.
Subdivision 1.Personal liability for $300 fine. Any person who intentionally violates this chapter shall be subject to personal liability in the form of a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $300 for a single occurrence, which may not be paid by the public body.
Subd. 2.Who may bring action; where. An action to enforce the penalty in subdivision 1 may be brought by any person in any court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the governing body is located.
Subd. 3.Forfeit office if three violations. (a) If a person has been found to have intentionally violated this chapter in three or more actions brought under this chapter involving the same governing body, such person shall forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office such person was then serving.
(b) The court determining the merits of any action in connection with any alleged third violation shall receive competent, relevant evidence in connection therewith and, upon finding as to the occurrence of a separate third violation, unrelated to the previous violations, issue its order declaring the position vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body.
(c) As soon as practicable thereafter the appointing authority or the governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy.
§Subd. 4.Costs; attorney fees; requirements; limits. (a) In addition to other remedies, the court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action under this chapter.
(b) The court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if the court finds that the action under this chapter was frivolous and without merit.
(c) A public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against any of its members in an action under this chapter.
(d) No monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member of a public body unless the court finds that there was an intent to violate this chapter.
(e) The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff who has brought an action under this section if the public body that is the defendant in the action was also the subject of a prior written opinion issued under section 13.072, and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that the public body did not act in conformity with the opinion. The court shall give deference to the opinion in a proceeding brought under this section.

 

We need to get as many people here banned, then all go file a suit at the same time.

Damn just got blocked.  Three suites and she's out.  Whos in with me?

Blocked from where? Facebook? If so I'm out

That's the sole reason to have one.  I'm not sure it violates the spirit of the open meeting anyways but I figured Id lean on her anyways.

Did some digging, looks like she can block who she wants on Facebook. Seems like a violation of 1a to me since she uses it for politics as a sitting legislative member.

 

Much better.  Now it reads like they intend.