I just got back from meeting with the mayor, and want to write this update while my memory is still fresh.

Met with the mayor for ~40 minutes. He was very cordial and polite, as was I. I thought things went very smoothly.

He told me that I was welcome to make a presentation about the signs at the next council listening session, but thought that I wouldn't change minds about removing the signs. He didn't seem to care too much either way about the idea of removing them, his issue was security in the council chambers, as there are contentious issues resolved there, and people can get emotional. I told him that I could totally understand his view about that, but said that "nuts" and criminals wouldn't pay attention to the signs anyway, and that the signs are in more places than just City Hall (community center, ice rink, etc.) I told him my opinion that the signs are intimidating and misleading to the average law abiding permit holder, and he seemed to see my point. I told him that I expected this kind of shenanigan from folks like the Minneapolis city council, but that Eagan has always been very professional and I didn't think the sign issue was up to their usual standards (and I meant it).

He did raise the point that the media tends to cover city council meetings, Eagan more than most because of Pawlenty, and that one of the council members works for Sviggum, and that if I stir things up, the Legislature might be asked to revisit the issue of city hall bans. I don't think it was a "veiled threat", just something for me to chew on, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because he was very honest with me.

I asked him what he thought about the shall issue law, and he said "I was against it, but I don't lose any sleep over it". I then asked him if I had applied pre-MPPA when he was chief would I have gotten a permit and he replied "no". He then qualified that with the safety issue and employment requirements, neither if which I have, so the answer would still have been no in my case.

Interesting tidbit: At the meeting where I open carried, apparently one of the city council members told him that she wasn't going to go to her seat and participate in the meeting because I was there. He told her that I wasn't doing anything wrong, and that she had to go up there and do her job. I told him that I appreciated that a lot, so "big props" to him for that.

I told him that even if they put up signs by the council chambers saying to please leave firearms outside out of respect for the council, such as they do for cell phones, I could live with that, but the "official" unofficial signs skate really close to deception.

We ended up our meeting very friendly, I think we each learned a lot and saw something of the others' position. Overall, I think it was really productive and I'm glad people suggested that I meet with him first.

Now, the question is where do I go from here? The way I see it, my options are:

1. Drop it and leave well enough alone.

2. Make the best presentation I can and hope for the best, even if they don't change their mind my objection will be on the record.

3. Suggest a compromise such as the "please" sign above.

4. Offer to take them to the pistol range at my expense to meet people and get some education, to reduce their fear and ignorance of the issues.

I don't think the nuclear option (mass open carry) is indicated here, because the chief and mayor have been so nice, and based on what he told me about the other council members, will just lock their minds in the other direction.

Again, all suggestions are welcome, and thanks for the previous ones, they were very helpful.

p.s. the mayor really seemed to care that I was passionate about this issue, and really seemed to listen to me and not just dismiss me out of hand. That was nice, and I appreciated it.

Sounds like a nice meeting.

Questions for you, if you know:

How were the signs put up? I mean, did the council vote on whether or not to put them up?
Did the mayor say anything to the effect of "I would tear them down right now, but it has to go through the council"?

Question for anyone:
If these were put up without a vote from the council, is it defacing public property to just tear them down yourself?

As for the next step.... I don't know. He brings up a point to think about, do you want that issue to be in people's mind where they could modify it to include a ban on governmental buildings?... As much as the democrates bitched about this law in the first place, they didn't introduce any bills to reduce or repeal the law, did they.?.

The council voted 5-0 (including the mayor) to put them up. He claims to not even have much memory of doing so, and I believe him, since it was 2 + years ago and he obviously has much other stuff on his mind, and because I am the first person to complain about the signs.

I would say he isn't of the "tear it up" now temperament, but could be persuaded with a good, reasoned argument. He seems like a pragmatic guy, unlike some of the other council members, who seem a little knee-jerk.

I suggest that you offer to have the mayor and any city council person who is willing to sit in on a carry class.

I am sure that some instructor would be willing. We could even get up a collection to help out.

I think education would be a wonderful next move. You just need one of them to “get it” as far as the knowledge of what permit holders know about when to and the consequences of banishing a handgun, let alone firing one.

There are a couple of things that bug me about this, 1.) an illegal sign, not in compliance with state law, & 2.) people seem to think that us permit holders are the "bad guys".

The first complaint should be addressed as either post it properly or take it down. Period. I don't see how hard that can be.

The second issue needs to be addressed, IMHO, as an educational opportunity. We permit holders MUST have background checks, are typically law abiding citizens, and if anything we are the "sheepdogs" for society. I will post that story on it's own thread, as it is on another computer in the house that's "locked down" on my network. It could even be on this board already, buried deep in the back pages.

All in all, as you said, the criminals aren't going to pay attention to any signage and if they are want to do evil, they will. Personally, I would rather have a good guy/gal in my audience, carrying a gun than to be left totally defenseless and at the mercy of some half-crazed criminal.

For some reason, I felt like being Don Quixote tonight and tilting against some windmills, so I showed up at the Eagan City Council "listening session" (informal meeting before the official meeting) to see if I could get removing the signs put on the council agenda. This was not a response to the events of yesterday, as I had been planning this for awhile. I had actually shown up at the last meeting, but it had been rescheduled.

I brought a Powerpoint presentation that I had printed out, including the chart provided here by MNTactics (if that's a problem, please let me know. I did give full credit). I can send a copy to anyone who's interested.

I spoke for about ten minutes, outlining my reasons for removing the signs. Briefly, they were:

1. It's not good government to try to intimidate or trick people into not exercising their legal rights.

2. The city could be exposed to liability suits if someone were to be falsely arrested due to city employees or police mistakenly believing that the signs carry legal authority.

3. Criminals don't pay attention to signs in any event.

To their credit, the council listened attentively, and read through my handouts as I went along. When I was finished, the mayor (different mayor than last time) did most of the responding. He admitted that the signs were a political statement, but argued that since they don't actually ban guns, they don't expose the city to any liability. His other arguments were mainly of the "we have to protect the children" variety. Amazingly, no one brought up yesterday's events as a reason to leave the signs up. He asked all of the council members in turn, but I didn't get two votes (the minimum needed to put something on the official agenda).

The council was friendly and accommodating to me, they just weren't persuaded by my argument. I guess the best description is that it was one of those "agree to disagree" moments. The result is that they are not going to revisit the sign issue anytime soon. I at least got to let them know that not everyone is pleased with their policy.

I guess the issue is put to rest until the next time the council or mayor changes. I will keep everyone updated.

Great attempt Reaver! Keep up the good work.

Thank you and keep up the hard work!

The obvious reaver move is to open carry at places with the signs, and see if the police think the same way as the city council.

The mayor can say they don't actually ban guns all he wants, but he's not the enforcement. If it were something to go to court over, he can't say "Like I told Mr reaver, we don't really mean what those signs say".

Hey Doug,

Sorry I hadn't noticed your earlier post about using one of my charts during your meeting at the Eagan city council meeting. Not only do I have no problem with it, I'm happy that you were able to take advantage of it. In case you'd like another, here's one more chart that I use in my classes:

http://mntactics.com/KidsandAccidentalFirearmDeaths.jpg

I use it to dispel the myth that hundreds or thousands of kids are killed each year in firearm accidents. The numbers that I use come from the CDC which would seem to be a pretty trusted source.

I'm happy to hear that you're shaking the trees in Eagan - I grew up in Eagan (live in Woodbury now), and have my company's headquarters in Eagan.

Please feel free to share those charts far and wide.

Regards,

Michael