Time To Turn Out

DFL Rep.  Dave PInto abused a House rule to get Linda Slocum’s “Give Up Your Guns” Act to a publc hearing.

The hearing is tomorrow morning at the State Office Building, kitty-corner southwest of the Capitol.

The Dreamsicles are going to try to pack the chamber – and given the money they spend on profesisonal organization, they’ll make a good run at it.

The good guys have to beat the Orcs.   While the bill likely isn’t going anywhere (not this session, anyway), it is out there to froth up the Metro DFL base for an election where they’ve got some challenges.  The optics of having a GOP-controlled Public Safety Commttee faciong a roomful of ELCA-haired duffers and hissing hipsters and Edina yentas in orange would be propaganda gold come election time.

So it’s time for Real Americans to come out.

MNGOC has the details here:

Thursday at 10:15 AM – 12:45 PM
100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, St Paul, MN 55155-1200, United States

Come down as early as you can – 8AM isn’t out of line, earlier is better.  Of course it’s short notice; I’m 50-50 at best, myself, and that’s if things go well today.

But every warm body we can get into a seat in that chamber – hopefully wearing one of the classic GOCRA or new Gun Owners Caucus t-shirts – will be a win over Michael Bloomberg’s propaganda machine.

This won’t be the last time we’ll have to try to turn out the troops – but it’s an important one.

Please give it  your best shot.

11 thoughts on “Time To Turn Out

  1. My boss derailed me for most of the morning, so I’ll do the next best thing. I’m calling both my state rep, Paul Rosenthal and Senator Melisa Franzen. Both are Dems, with heavy Edina influence, but they are more reasonable than most. During a door knocking during her campaign, I spoke to her about gun rights. She informed me that her husband’s family are farmers, so she would likely get disowned by them if she voted against guns.

  2. I think it’s a good thing that this is getting a hearing. Let them know that every gun with a detachable magazine and a stock would be banned. Let the DFL try to explain that outstate. This is golden if we work it well.

  3. HF 1669 – the universal background check bill – is the same tired idea, nothing new, same objections.

    Background checks work only if the parties are law-abiding to begin with. Drug dealers buying guns out of the trunks of Buicks, or the Sandy Hook shooter who stole his weapon, won’t obey this law any more than they obey drug laws or gun-free-school-zone laws. The Florida school shooter passed a background check because the go-easy discipline policy imposed by Liberals kept him out of the system. This law wouldn’t have prevented those crimes. The law is ineffective.

    The bill does not apply to transfers between family members including “domestic partner” which is not defined in the bill but in domestic assault cases generally means a live-in girlfriend and in gay marriage cases means a same-sex live-in. A girlfriend could buy a gun and give it to her felon boyfriend without violating this law (lots of other laws, but not this law) so this law won’t stop straw purchases, which the a prime source of weapons for ineligible persons. The law is ineffective.

    The bill doesn’t apply to probate and trust transfers that occur because of the death of the firearm owner. Gun owners who can afford a lawyer can create a Gun Trust to circumvent this law, which means this law has a disparate impact on wealthy Minnesotans who tend to be minorities. The law is racist.

    The bill does not prohibit lending a gun to someone who’s pinned down in a firefight, IF that person is legal to possess it. Which, as a practical matter, you won’t know during the firefight; you must run the background check to find out if the person is legal to possess the gun. So basically no – you can’t lend a gun to someone whose life is in danger. The law is dangerous, to those in danger and to those trying to help.

    The bill does not prohibit lending a gun to someone at a shooting range or competition IF you have no reason to believe the borrower intends to use it in commission of a crime. A prohibited person who touches a weapon commits a crime just by touching it and he knows it. Asking to borrow your gun automatically means he intends to commit a crime. If you have “reason to believe” that him touching it will be a crime, then you violated this law. What kind of evidence would give you “reason to believe?” The bill is silent. Is your failure to demand a background check sufficient evidence to convict you? Go ahead and try it, I’ll wait for the court to decide before I stick my neck out. The law is ambiguous.

    The bill does not prohibit lending a gun to a person to go hunting IF that person has all the required licenses and is hunting on land where it’s legal for him to hunt. As a practical matter, before you lend the gun, you must inspect the hunting license, check the dates, review the lease or check the title to the land to ensure it’s public and not posted . . . and if you fail to do so, then you broke this law even if the borrower was eligible to possess the firearm and never fired a shot. The law is over-reaching.

    The proponents make this bill sound like a sensible, reasonable, common-sense bill. It won’t stop people who ignore the law or people who aren’t in the system, but it imposes expense and lays traps for law-abiding citizens. The law is a bad idea all around.

  4. Geez, gotta proofread better.

    Straw purchases are A prime source of guns, along with stealing them.
    The law has a disparate impact on NON-wealthy Minnesotans.

  5. “Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early.”~ DJ Trump

    Imagine the reaction if Barack Obama said on national television that the 2nd Amendment should be ignored and the government can confiscate a citizen’s gun without due process. Just imagine the blow-back.

  6. Pingback: Late Night With In The Mailbox: 02.28.18 : The Other McCain

  7. Wow. #3. Shvonder-eTASS is really, really focused on threadjacking each and every thread. Looks like he is going for the record. Let me scroll down a bit more.

  8. It’s one of Trump’s standard tricks we ought to recognize by now: propose something ludicrous so even Democrats disagree, then change your mind and take the complete opposite position, talk it to death, do nothing.

    This used to be known as rope-a-dope.

  9. And now we see why Trump uses it. His standard trick roped another dope who has thread-jacked about it all day long. Clever boy, The Donald.

  10. People misunderstand Trump by interpreting his comments literally, They are instead, more akin to a sonar: sending out pings to a world he only narrowly views through a lens of popularity and power.

    He is constantly probing, sensing, for always one thing: What’s good for Trump?

Leave a Reply

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