Mn bills introduced

HF0238 – Alters language of 609.66
This bill makes it a felony to carry a firearm on school property for persons who have a permit to carry a pistol. Currently it is a misdemeanor for someone who has a permit to carry. The question is why? Is there a problem where permit holders are carrying illegally on school property now? If not why change the law and target ONLY carry permit holders?

HF239 – Posted businesses (establishments)
Currently it is a petty misdemeanor and a $25 fine and your gun cannot be confiscated and you cannot be arrested if you are asked to leave a posted establishment and do not. The proposed law HF0239 changes existing law and provides for a GROSS Misdemeanor for the first time and a felony for the second and subsequent occurrences if a permit holder does not leave when asked.
Again, has there been a problem with permit holders being asked to leave who don’t leave? If not what is the purpose of this law other than to step on the necks of lawful carry permit holders?

HF-0240 – Sheriffs can require a mental health professional sign off on someone in order for that person to get a permit to carry.
The proposed law is so broadly worded it could be ripe for abuse. It is neither a good law nor a well written law.

HR-0241 – Assault Weapons
This bill bans from ownership any firearm that accepts detachable magazines and fixed magazines (of a specified size) and also includes shotguns and pistols.
This is a total rewrite of 624.712 Subdivision 7. And adds a prohibited section 624.7133 making it “unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, transfer, or possess an assault weapon. (624.7133 Subd. 2)
The bill requires current owners (if eligible) to register their firearms by September 1 2013, remove them from the state of Minnesota, or turn them into a law enforcement agency for destruction.
This is such an overreaching bill it is difficult to know where to begin. It ushers in gun registration for virtually all semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns in use today. It also deprives Minnesotans of their property through forced surrender of their firearms to law enforcement.
We have had our current “assault Weapons” bill on the books for years and it has worked well. There is not a big problem with semi-automatic rifles in Minnesota.
On a national scale, rifles account for approx. 350 deaths a year compared to nearly 500 deaths a year from hammers. Our legislature in all their wisdom should be looking at Home Depot and not Colt. Doctors account for over 195,000 accidental deaths annually. Far more than all firearms combined.
The question again is why is this bill even being suggested when military style rifles (aka assault rifles) are not a problem in Minnesota?
In the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Miller, the high court ruled that firearms in common use and having some utility to a military purpose would be protected by the 2nd Amendment. It is precisely these firearms that the legislature is considering banning that the high court said would be protected.

HF 241 – Ban on high capacity magazines
This bill would ban any magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds.
This is an arbitrary number driven by politics and not by science or study. The Minnesota legislature has decided to dictate to law abiding men and women what some bureaucrat believes is sufficient firepower to be used in self-defense. Ten rounds may not be enough if one is faced with multiple attackers. And yet, these legislators believe they have some mystical crystal ball that would otherwise guarantee your safety and ours.

The panacea at long last!

Here is a text list of reps to contact:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Just highlight, copy and paste. Please remind these folks they took an oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution.

If this B.S. passes I guess I will be moving across the river.

This is [censored]. I work within site of an elementary school. This would virtually guarantee I cannot help those kids in a dire emergency. Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

Before you could disarm in the parking lost. I wonder if law abiding CC parents will have to drop off their kids in the street off school property? Stupid mutha #^%#&(*

There isnt one part of this bill that makes sense. Can you imagine what the Ex sheriff Jim Frank would have done with the mental health clause. That was the guy that put graffit on my first carry permit because he didnt believe in it.

I cant remember the last business I saw a no weapons sign. I always just ignored them the first time then never went back. With stiffer penalties I would avoid them altogether.

The more I type the more I see this bill as ludicrous with no chance of passing. Hopefully.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, I do believe this ninnyhammer group has blindly stumbled across the ultimate elixir!

I agree Mike. It’s such a pain to carry now days since I pick kids up at two different schools. I can’t see most of this content passing. I’m guessing the left is primarily going after the gun show loophole and all this other stuff is distractionary in the hopes of a settlement in the “middle” somewhere.

I’ve been coaching the kids to never talk about guns with anyone at school. My kids appear to be smart because they both asked me, “what if the teacher says I have to tell them?” I said your only response should be I’m not comfortable with this subject and I want my parents involved. I have NO reason to believe our district would pull any lefty liberal junk, but I also don’t need my kids being harassed.

If a teacher said that to my kid I would come unhinged. I’m sure I would get my kid kicked out of that school and possibly arrested for my actions. My blood pressure just went up reading your post.

I’m going to play devils advocate on the first 2.
1. It’s a misdemeanor now. So you don’t do it right? So what’s the big deal if they change it to a felony? If you don’t do it now, you don’t do it then. If there is some “dire emergency” that you feel compelled to run onto school property, you’re either going to take off your gun, or deal with the heat later. You’re not a law enforcement officer, so I’m not sure what good you’d do there anyway. Your life isn’t in danger.
2. If you go into a place and are asked to leave because you are carrying, you leave without incident right? So again, what’s the difference?

The later proposals I’m vehemently opposed to.

To flip that on you Crossineyes….I think a person could easily argue that the first 2 should be eliminated altogether because a criminal going to a school or place of business to use a gun isn’t going to care whether it’s a misdemeanor, felony or the death penalty.

Law abiding citizens aren’t the problem so gun control laws restricting the people that will actually follow the law doesn’t do anything to make schools, theaters, business, us and our families any safer.

I have said this over and over…..I am waiting to hear a single valid argument as to how new gun control laws are going to make the world safer.

To Crossin Eyes, I’d say first that we need to ask what data supports the NEED to change these laws? Is there some huge problem with CC permit holders bringing guns where they aren’t allowed? I haven’t heard of this being a problem so if there isn’t a problem, why do we need this “solution”?

The proposed changes are quite obviously designed to make CC more inconvenient by declaring more and more “no go” zones and draconian penalties for running afoul of the rules, the antis are trying to create a defacto backdoor ban. To me this is the same tactic as many European countries have used, by constantly creating harassing legislation layers, they make owning a gun so inconvenient and so burdensome, they they end up with a ban that was smuggled through the back door.

Grouse

Agreed. There cannot be any reason to change the business access from what it is now. None whatsoever. Its change for the sake of change and once again not in the best interest of good citizens safety. I think the antis want us disarmed so we stand the same chance of getting hurt as they do. Its beyond selfishness. Its vindictive.

Good news everyone. The President is here today to tell us all how we in Minnesota should solve our gun crime problem.

The irony of President Obama flying directly over his home town of Chicago as it struggles with an average of over 1 murder per day so far this year is not lost on us.

Mr. President, please tell us this: At what point do more laws piled on top of more laws begin NOT to make sense? Since Chichago ALREADY has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, when do we see proposals to reduce rampant gang and drug violence that contain something beyond just “more gun laws”?

Oh the bitter irony. Flying over Chicago to tell Minnesota how to solve its gun problem.

Grouse

Quote:

---

Agreed. There cannot be any reason to change the business access from what it is now. None whatsoever. Its change for the sake of change and once again not in the best interest of good citizens safety. I think the antis want us disarmed so we stand the same chance of getting hurt as they do. Its beyond selfishness. Its vindictive.

---

Far to often that which flies under the banner of progress is merely circular motion!

These big government types, believe they can legislate a superior way to live your lives, than you are capable of managing them. And it is far safer for these father figures to force the kids to eat the hated vegetables if they don’t have a loaded Glock sitting next to their dinner plate!