They are an extremely anal bunch, indeed. They managed to come up with more rules for airsoft guns than are commonly used for real firearms. They also support restrictive legislation on themselves just so they can feel loved.

+1

Inclination toward revenge and carrying a gun don't mix.

Which MAA rules do you consider superfluous?

The MAA rules are the same as taught for real firearms. We teach the NRA/Cooper "Four Rules of Gun Safety."

Our additional safety rules - for example, gameplay rules, FPS limits, eye protection and the use of barrel blockers when not on the field - are standard safety rules adopted from paintball.

Our requirement that guns be transported in a secured case is in response to Minnesota's state transportation laws.



I assume you are referring to Minneapolis and St. Paul's transportation laws.

Stupid is as stupid does, and government is as government does. St. Paul and Minneapolis, when they proposed these laws, were reacting to kids (and parents) who were thoughtlessly and irresponsibly using airsoft and other toy guns.

They were going to pass these laws with or without our input, and the early drafts of these laws placed greater restrictions on airsoft guns than on real firearms.

We worked with the cities to develop language which applied the same transportation standard to Airsoft guns that applies to real guns - "unloaded and in a case."

This had nothing to do with "feeling loved." It was about the survival of the hobby.

Anyone that points a gun at their wife should be locked up for a very long time. Most likely this guy needs to be in a padded cell.

If you have additional rules the number of them isn't really the same, is it? Which means that my statement is true - MAA has more rules for airsoft guns than are commonly used for actual guns. That said, I didn't say that safety rules were superfluous.

One thing I do dislike is the the magazine removal rule. I think it causes more problems than is solves and instills bad habits. Only some of the guns, both airsoft and otherwise, are rendered unfireable by magazine removal. Making it a universal rule gives a false sense of security.

The ordinance affects slightly more than just transportation. The language in it bans possession in places other than private residence or a specialty store.

There are two things from that episode that I remember:

I really wish you hadn't said that. Confirming fears just doesn't seem like that great of an idea. I am almost willing to bet that statement will be remembered by the antis at an inconvenient time. It also sounds like you are admitting that the prime use of guns is crime.

That really makes it look like racing to restrict yourself before the other guys get to it. It is somewhat reminiscent of some things NRA has done, but they had the full force of the Brady bunch to contend with.

(Text from here: http://www.startribune.com/local/11545101.html)


As a purely personal opinion, I don't think the strategy of making these types of compromises would help the survival of airsoft in the long run. First of all, historically making compromises has never worked well, as evidenced by gun legislation. Second, with an ordinance like that on the books I think the chances of ever coming up with a place to play in Minneapolis are close to none. What property owner not involved in airsoft himself would give permission to have things that are scary enough to be prohibited in public on his property? I am also doubtful that permission to use any public property could ever be obtained, no matter how good of an insurance policy you got. Too scary. Even the enthusiasts are on record admitting just how scary.

Removing the magazines is not the requirement; unloading guns before leaving the field is the requirement.

The magazine removal is one part of the unloading procedure (just like for real guns).

1. Remove the magazine
2. Point the gun in a safe direction
3. Fire 2 or more shots to clear the chamber
4. Put on the barrel blocker and safe the gun

I agree, removing the magazine alone does not "unload" an Airsoft - or real - gun.



The ordinance is not intended to, nor interperted as being, a restriction of airsoft (referred to as "fascimile firearms") on public property. MAA members, with appropriate permissions, have played games on both public and private property, including in state parks, with no problems.

Splatball, Inc. on University Avenue ran Airsoft games in the Minneapolis city limits until the MAA outgrew their facility. They are still legal under the new law and are still operating.

All these ordinances do is require transportation in a case (same as for a real gun). These were reduced from much more severe restrictions. The drafts were written to put Airsoft guns in the same classification as martial arts weapons, swords, throwing stars, etc.

The MAA has been active in Minnesota for almost nine years. During that time, we have successfully operated "under the radar" and preferred it that way. Unfortunately, the acts of a few irresponsible individuals and criminals who we have nothing to do with led to government attention (much the way that we as gun owners have to answer for the actions of criminals we have nothing to do with).

The city councils had already made up their mind, and fighting them head on would not have been effective. So we extended a partnership to them and came up with a law which we could both live with. What we got was the best outcome we could hope for under the circumstances.

It's easy to criticize a person or organization from outside the process. The next time this issue comes up (it will be at the state legislature, I predict), I would encourage you to participate.