Now the CO's are kind of anal about that stuff.

Dear Rep. Cornish,

While I was in support of HF128 in it's ORIGINAL form, the amendments in committees were turning more and more into something I didn't like. Other gun owners/hunters I have spoken with share this opinion.
Now the latest version of this bill which has been rolled into HF1238 has become so bastardized that it is only a shadow of the original bill.

Putting restrictions on firearms law in the 7 county metro that are different from the rest of the state flies in the face of the state preemption law and is the the first step in a slippery slope of having vastly differing firearms law from county to county and city to city. Gun owners, permit to carry holders and hunters DO NOT want that.

This was a bill to ease some restrictions for hunters that has now been turned on it head by the anti gun members who have used it to try to pass things that they couldn't get passed before.

The whole idea of the State preemption law is that firearms laws are CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

I am well aware that compromises are made in legislation, but sometimes it goes to far and the original intent of the bill is lost. This is one of those times.

If we can't remove the firearms case requirement from the law then so be it.
Please do not allow this bill to go forward in it's current form. I am well aware
of your past support on gun issues and have appreciated it. However this bill
in it current form has been hijacked by those who do not support gun owners
rights and does a disservice to us all.

Respectfully,

A good way to think about this bill, might be to imagine how the new"gun case law" would be explained in the Hunting Regulations, and Firearns Safety Training.

The regs would explain and define the "Seven County Metro" area as a special area. Probably, there would be a map showing the precise boundaries of the "Metro Gun Transport Zone" along with a description of the boundaries. Minnesota gun owners would learn the concept of gun laws being different in the Metro vs " Greater(?) Minnesota".

The law would, naturally enough, have to be covered in Firearms Training, so youngsters would be taught that the Metro Gun Transport Zone is "special". The instructers would, of course, have to justify the rule; imagine the discussion in these classes. Firearms Safety Instructors would be teaching the benefits of gun conrol laws.

Next session Duluth and Rochester will want to be special as well.

The session after that, every hamlet will want to decide for themselves whether or not they are "special". And it won't be limited to gun transport, they'll be special in other ways as well.

We've got to hang together. Kimberman is really right about this, I'm pretty sure, although it took awhile for me, (a rural gun case hater), to come around.

Rep. Cornish,
Good morning. I appreciate all work and support you provide to help the citizens of MN legally exercise their second amendment rights. I also recognize the all the work you have put into HF128 which I was very excited to see get passed. All though I live in the southwest corner of the state I am very against this bill as it currently. We cannot and must not allow the antigun folks get their way and create a patchwork of different laws for different areas. A gun owner or hunter in the metro area should not be treated any differently than myself. This would set a bad precedent, be very dangerous and unwise. We must be guided by principle on this issue. I recognize that you have invested a bunch time, energy and political capital in this bill, which I appreciate, but please do not be short sighted and vote for this bill in its current form. It will only result in a short term benefit for some hunters but hurt our state as a whole.
Respestfully,

Jayson Gilbertson
Brewster, MN

The second-class citizen issue can be expanded to include the entire state as well.

The [bill's CARVE-OUT that creates second-class gun owners extends beyond the Metro area] and includes all city’s of 2,500 population or more. By my count that is approximately 256 cities in Minnesota. You can add another 57 who are at least 2,000 but less than 2,500 who could soon be large enough to fall under the ban. Of these 322 cities, 175 are not within the seven county metro area.

How many gun ranges and gun clubs does this immediately [affect], all over the state?

See for yourself http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/ ... report.php

What is with this Cornish person? His logic line just does not make it: Because I did (*) I can now do (*).

That would be very much like a teenage boy telling a neighbor father: I cut your lawn. Now I will violate your daughter.

Politicians are all cut from the same cloth. They can never, ever, be trusted.