Agreed.

Instead of blaming Tony for this, we should be blaming the anti-gun metro legislators who insist on adding this B.S. to the bill. Usually, they are sticking it to rural Minnesotans, this time it is their own constituents. Hopefully, the gun rights community can stay unified and defeat this bill. I would rather case my gun than see the camel's nose under the tent.

Cornish is one of the good guys. He's trying to fix the gun case law; he can get it done for hunters in hunting situations and the "metro exception" appears like a reasonable and inocuous amendment , because otherwise the Metro legislators will block the bill.

The problem is not Cornish's "logic", it's that the anti's will be able to use the Metro exception as a starting point to divide and conquer the gun lobby in the future. We'd rather have gun laws consistant through out the state. Cornish didn't see that coming and 95% of gunnies would not have seen that coming either.

These knee jerk personal attacks on friendly politicos are not helpful to the cause. It makes us all sound like gun issues belong to right wing crazies, who are currently being ignored by all politicos.

If you don't like Cornish, fine. Me, I think over all he's too conservative. But he's a logical guy, dedicated to his work, and has good will toward everyone in the State. If he only worried about himself, he'd stay a mile away from a gun law change, just like 95% of the politicos.

We're damn lucky to have him in the legislature and he deserves polite treatment.

You're right. I was just pissed off, and spouting off at the mouth a little there.

My emails to all three were very respectful.

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.

Hi Dean,

Thank you for contacting me in regard to splitting gun rights based on region.

This is the first time that I've seen this language and certainly want to work with the author of this legislation to make sure gun rights are protected for everyone.

There's a dead pheasant that looks great just a few feet from this computer and I'd like to know that people's rights are protected, regardless of where they live or hunt.

I appreciate your comments and concerns and will track down the authors to find out what is going on.

Sincerely,

Rep. Marty Seifert

Representative Marty Seifert
Minority Leader
267 State Office Building
100 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

Got a response from Seifert just now:

Hear! Hear!

I agree.

ML


Representative Mary Liz Holberg

Paul,

Thanks for your detailed email and you do make some significant points.. I will keep your email in mind if HF 128 bill reaches the floor for a vote..Larry Haws