Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic

Lady Glock wrote:

OK, I have to admit...I'm confused.

Andrew Rothman wrote:

JimC wrote:

It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney

...who represents the city, not the taxpayer.

Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

JimC wrote:

I meant it should be brought to the city attornery instead of the chief of police.
If brought to the city council, they'll recommend getting a opinion from the city attorney before they do anything about it

Andrew Rothman wrote:

JimC wrote:

It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney

...who represents the city, not the taxpayer.

Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

DeanC wrote:

Quote:

Tommy: Hey, I'll tell you what. You can take a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it?

Mr. Brady: What? I'm failing to make the connection here son.

Tommy: No, I mean, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass, but then..no. It's gotta be your bull.

Richard: Wow.

Tommy: Here's the deal. If I want you..

Richard: You have derailed.

Tommy: Shut up Richard.

Mr. Brady: Boy, I'm really at a loss for words here.

Tommy: Forget it, I quit, I can't do this anymore, man. My head's about to explode. My whole life sucks. I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know where I'm going. My dad just died. We just killed Bambi. I'm out here getting my ass kicked and every time I drive down the road I wanna jerk the wheel INTO A BRIDGE ABUTMENT.

Andrew Rothman wrote:

You're missing the point. The city attorney doesn't work for or answer to you. The city council does.

JimC wrote:

Andrew Rothman wrote:

JimC wrote:

It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney

...who represents the city, not the taxpayer.

Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

plblark wrote:

I believe he meant that the Council should take it to the City Attorney for a reading of the law. I think that's a slikely as the Police Chief to go our way but wierder things have happened.

Of course, I could be worng. If JimC had posted his complete thought we wouldn't have to guess.

montana_redneck wrote:

The Chief replied, "Because they went through the trouble to get training and get a background check, they must have a good reason for having a permit."

Quote:

609.66 subd 1d 4 iv: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... num=609.66
(iv) that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use.

Author:	DeanC [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:00 am ]
Post subject:
Lady Glock wrote: OK, I have to admit...I'm confused. You're supposed to be

Author:	JimC [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
I meant it should be brought to the city attornery instead of the chief of police. If brought to the city council, they'll recommend getting a opinion from the city attorney before they do anything about it Andrew Rothman wrote: JimC wrote: It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney ...who represents the city, not the taxpayer. Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

Author:	Andrew Rothman [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:
You're missing the point. The city attorney doesn't work for or answer to you. The city council does. JimC wrote: I meant it should be brought to the city attornery instead of the chief of police. If brought to the city council, they'll recommend getting a opinion from the city attorney before they do anything about it Andrew Rothman wrote: JimC wrote: It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney ...who represents the city, not the taxpayer. Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

Author:	plblark [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:
I believe he meant that the Council should take it to the City Attorney for a reading of the law. I think that's a slikely as the Police Chief to go our way but wierder things have happened. Of course, I could be worng. If JimC had posted his complete thought we wouldn't have to guess.

Author:	montana_redneck [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Thanks for the laugh Dean!! Definitely a lot of good one-liners in that movie... DeanC wrote: Quote: Tommy: Hey, I'll tell you what. You can take a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it? Mr. Brady: What? I'm failing to make the connection here son. Tommy: No, I mean, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass, but then..no. It's gotta be your bull. Richard: Wow. Tommy: Here's the deal. If I want you.. Richard: You have derailed. Tommy: Shut up Richard. Mr. Brady: Boy, I'm really at a loss for words here. Tommy: Forget it, I quit, I can't do this anymore, man. My head's about to explode. My whole life sucks. I don't know what I'm doing, I don't know where I'm going. My dad just died. We just killed Bambi. I'm out here getting my ass kicked and every time I drive down the road I wanna jerk the wheel INTO A BRIDGE ABUTMENT.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://www.ellegon.com/forum/

Becker Community Center http://www.ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9079	Page 2 of 2

Author:	JimC [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:48 am ]
Post subject:
I realize that, but City Councils won't do anything without consulting their City attorney when it comes to law issues. That's how they think & work. I've had personal experiences dealing with them Andrew Rothman wrote: You're missing the point. The city attorney doesn't work for or answer to you. The city council does. JimC wrote: I meant it should be brought to the city attornery instead of the chief of police. If brought to the city council, they'll recommend getting a opinion from the city attorney before they do anything about it Andrew Rothman wrote: JimC wrote: It should be brought to the attention of the city attorney ...who represents the city, not the taxpayer. Better to go to the city attorney's bosses: the city council. They answer to voters.

Author:	Andrew Rothman [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:08 am ]
Post subject:
You're STILL missing the point. YOU can't make the City Attorney take any action. You CAN make the city council want to take action. The council CAN make the city attorney want to take action.

Author:	JimC [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!! I understand that!!

Author:	JimC [ Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Send me some perfect pills then. If you can spare any plblark wrote: I believe he meant that the Council should take it to the City Attorney for a reading of the law. I think that's a slikely as the Police Chief to go our way but wierder things have happened. Of course, I could be worng. If JimC had posted his complete thought we wouldn't have to guess.

Author:	montana_redneck [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, I got a phone call from the Becker Police Chief last week. He was actually very friendly and thanked me for bringing the issue up. He started by saying that he had discussions with the Sherburne County attorney. Their concern was in regards to the occasional school sponsored events that were held there. The county attorney said it was legal for them to post when those events were being held. The Chief said that the sign would most likely be coming down. I'm not holding my breath, since as of Thursday night @ 7:30pm it was still up. I will keep checking back to see if it really does. There was some strange conversation in the middle though... Chief: Why were you inquiring about this? Me: I have a permit to carry and I found the sign confusing. Chief: A general permit or a conceal carry permit? Me: A permit to carry. <Pause> Overall, it was a very good experience. He also mentioned that he learned a few things and he was going to share it with his officers. So mission accomplished from the teaching opportunity aspect. I think it was an eye opener for the manager of the community center, as the Chief told me he asked him "Why would anyone need to bring a gun in here?" The Chief replied, "Because they went through the trouble to get training and get a background check, they must have a good reason for having a permit."

Author:	Dave Pendleton [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd like to think there's a "hearts and minds" opportunity here, but I suspect I'll be lambasted as part of the anti problem, or worse. You've initiated a very constructive dialog, with a LE official who is obviously a bit confused. This is a perfect opportunity to bring a leadership figure in Law Enforcement over to our side or...

Author:	plblark [ Mon Jul 07, 2008 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:
montana_redneck wrote: The Chief replied, "Because they went through the trouble to get training and get a background check, they must have a good reason for having a permit." Sounds like education and a calm honest approach have paid dividends. Well done. Quote: 609.66 subd 1d 4 iv: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... num=609.66 (iv) that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use. Sounds like only the specific portion under exclusive control or use, and temporary signs would work.

Page 2 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/