I’m a big fan of every Minnesotan who turns out to protect the Second Amendment.  While I quibble about some peoples’ motivations, let’s face it; the more people the DFL see arrayed against them, the better.

But while some Minnesota Second Amendment groups bellow about “no compromise!”, the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance shows the benefit of working across the aisle at a time when the DFL and its gun-grabber allies are in complete control of Minnesota’s state government.

As we noted last week, Senator Ron Latz introduced an utterly intolerable bill that would have utterly gang-raped due process. 

Minnesota’s Second Amendment groups responded.  Despite Latz’s making the Real Americans wait six hours for the hearing, representatives from the Civil Rights community stuck it out, and stuck it to the gun-grabbers in the hearings. 

And then, since talk is cheap and easy,  they got down to the real work:

Following GOCRA attorney David Gross’s testimony, and after discussion with the committee’s legal counsel, Sen. Latz inserted clarifying language that limited the order for transfer to parties who had received due process of law, not just an accusation.

As a result of our discussions, Sen. Latz also testified to the committee that he intended to support House amendments allowing for “third parties,” such as friends or family, to take physical possession of the guns ordered removed from the accused, providing an alternative to the forced confiscation and imposition of “reasonable” fees that would quickly exceed the value of the guns.

While we’re not a big fan of “we had to pass it to see what’s (going to be) in it,” Sen. Latz’s comments on the record were a good sign that there would actually be material improvements to the bill. Because lawmakers rarely make promises like this, on the record, without following through, we expect that Sen. Latz will keep the promises he made to the committee.

Of course, forcing them to keep their promises is part of the deal:

There’s another hearing Wednesday at 2:15 in Room 10 of the State Office Building, and if you can come to show your support for civil rights, we’d love to see you there.

I can’t make it this time – mid-days during the week are just not do-able.  But if you can, please do; the DFL Metrocrats need to know that Real America is out there watching.

7 thoughts on “Progress

  1. I read somewhere yesterday, the PiPress it was, I think, that persons served with restraining orders would also required to surrender their arms. Given that such orders are pro-forma tactics in divorce, custody proceedings and delusional episodes from insane University of Minnesota Professors, I hope this requirement is removed for temporary orders.

  2. swifr, that is what I was thinking. At first, I thought that maybe people accused of these crimes maybe should have their firearms removed. But I used to go out witha gal who worked in a law office. She woiuld tell me about what goes on in divorce cases. It gets pretty nasty, what soon-to-be ex’s do to each other via the legal system.
    One tip…..if you ever think there is any chance at all you may be in a custody battle, never use a credit card at a liqour store. A slick lawyer will say you have an alcohol problem and therefore not fit to raise kids.

  3. My first thought when I heard the testimony about “only after due process,” was the first service of the Order For Protection (OFP). That is, most OFPs are served on the respondent right after the OFP has been signed by a judge. This temporary OFP stays in effect for about ten days, when a hearing is held and the respondent can contest the it. There is no due process for the first ten days the order is in effect.The respondent is served, gather belongings, and is escorted from the premises.

    There was good testimony from the MN Sheriff’s Assoc. The rep. brought up the logistical nightmare that law enforcement agencies will face if ordered to accept temporary custody of seized weapons. That had not been considered by either side. However,they agreed that a LE agency didn’t have to do it if they didn’t want to. But where does that leave the defendant? They also included, “a reasonable storage fee” for the agency.

    There was powerful testimony given by a Ms. Zappa, an abuse survivor who is pro-second amendment. She clearly out-gunned the pretty, freshly graduated, young ladies who testified for the other side. I was able to have a conversation with Ms. Zappa after the hearing. She is truly a strong, intelligent, credible woman who has truly “been there”, unlike those who gained their expertise via textbook. I hope she stays in the process.

    Chuck, I would also avoid liquor stores that “card” everyone. These places usually scan your DL and record the customer’s data via the magnetic strip on the card. I was once told by someone who sold the scanners that they can be used to determine their customers’ preferences. If the data is collected, it can be retrieved. I will not do business with them anyways since I object to being carded when I am clearly well over 21YOA. Just a suggestion …

  4. There is also the question of whether the bill would do any good. It sounds crass to talk about it, but when you spend a few million bucks to confiscate (even temporarily) firearms, you have effectively killed a taxpayer just as certainly as an enraged ex-spouse could do so.

    And then you’ve got the secondary question of whether we might clean up family courts instead and do a whole lot more good…..

  5. The time period before which a hearing will be scheduled is 14 days. The temporary OFP which is in effect until the hearing is called the “ex-parte,” or emergency, order. It is issued by court only upon the word of the petitioner and cannot be disputed for two weeks, unless the petitioner, “victim”, asks that it be dropped. Judges seem quite reluctant to NOT issue an OFP for fear of consequences if they guessed wrong.

    Sorry for the misinformation.

  6. bikebubba – Even if the proposal were completely “effective”, a significant problem would still remain. By her own testimony, one of the book smart young ladies who opposed the second amendment acknowledged that firearms only accounted for approx. 25% of all domestic abuse-related fatalities.

    After all the “even one is too many” qualifications, I wonder why they are trying to remedy such a small percentage of causal factors? Of course, the “if it saves just one life” mantra probably then comes into play.

    Still, one would think they’d strive for a more holistic approach. I’d be willing to bet that a vast majority of the incidents involve alcohol, drugs, or both. I guess that’s been done before …

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.