Bill to remove closed case requirement for transporting
| Author |
Message |
|
Mosin
|
Post subject:  Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
 |
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Pakrat wrote: So, this bill has nothing to do with hunting? It is only meant to allow people to carry without a permit in their car? I would say no, and no. The bill is simply meant to remove the casing requirement for long guns no matter what your reason for transporting i.e. hunting, range, fun, etc.
However, since these issues came up in committee today. My concerns now are:
1. Clarify "carry" of long guns for permit holders in vehicles
2. Don't mess with current preemption
It seems this is the time to provide our input while it is committee and open to discussion.
As far as it being a trap. Dill and Cornish were authors of MCPPA. Which leads me to believe there is good to come out of this bill somewhere. Maybe?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:40 am |
|
| Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
 |
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
|
Mosin wrote: The current text of the bill is inaccurate. The bill in no way is meant to allow the transportation of loaded long guns. Mosin wrote: The bill is simply meant to remove the casing requirement for long guns no matter what your reason for transporting i.e. hunting, range, fun, etc. What you are saying is that they only are removing the case requirement? You would still have to unload it?
Is there a real bill text?
Are they trying to pull one over on anti's? "I know what the bill says, but that's not what it really says...." ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DeanC
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:19 am |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:15 am |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Pakrat wrote: What you are saying is that they only are removing the case requirement? You would still have to unload it?
Is there a real bill text?
Are they trying to pull one over on anti's? "I know what the bill says, but that's not what it really says...." ? Yea, right now it appears as though they are only going to go after removing the casing requirement. The gun will still have to be unloaded. Major disappointment...
I have had the same thought about maybe they are trying to pull one over on the antis but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:18 am |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Just received an email back from Cornish and Dill.
Quote: I do not plan on making any changes on the pistol portion. All that would do would be open up the pistol Pers Protection Act and make this bill germain (sic) for changes on the floor where enemies of the Pers Protection Act would try to change it and destroy it. We won't make any changes to pistol law with this law.
This would not be a step back. This would be a state law that would still pre empt them. If you can't discharge a firearm within a city, there's really no need to carry uncased. It would be nice, but it would make too much of a stink and cause cities to fight the bill. I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city. Meaning everything just stays the way it is now. We'll see where that goes, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:18 pm |
|
| Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
|
|
Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Pakrat wrote: Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this. I think that's where the comment Quote: I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city Comes into play. Not sure yet what will constitute a city though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kecker
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:48 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:57 am
Posts: 818
Location: Apple Valley, MN
|
DeanC wrote: Lenny7 wrote: if it's someone else's truck, find a different truck to ride in. That works great 20 miles from town and there's only one truck. It didn't happen to me, it happened to someone else in ND where it is legal. It makes for a spoiled hunting trip and bad business. It's one of those stupid things you wouldn't think you'd have to ask about before booking the trip. "Uh, by the way, are your kids going to get fidgety and ride around with one in the tube?" It's even worse when the father is a very long-time business associate and a top-notch, very responsible professional whom you pay thousands and thousands of dollars to every year. You wouldn't dream he'd permit this, but he does and it's legal. Besides, you aren't really road hunting anyhow, you are driving from field to field where you have permission to hunt. It's a no-win situation in my opinion. You are basically giving carry rights in the car to anyone 14 and up (who already has a firearm safety certificate) with no new training. I'm sure DNR instructors would add a unit on that for all of our new classes and that would help. But I see so many downsides to it. I like the freedom aspect of it, be our culture is so firearms knowledge impoverished it scares me. I see what you're saying, however, when you boil it down this situation is the same as every other situation that has been used as "evidence" of the need for nanny-state laws because people can't be parents to their kids.
_________________
http://www.eckernet.com
My mind is like a steel trap - rusty and illegal in 37 states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Rothman
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:33 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
|
Pakrat wrote: Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this. No no no no no!
Every city already regulates the discharge of firearms.
Why not just leave it as is: no casing requirement, no unloading requirement, period.
If necessary, give in on unloading, but WE DO NOT NEED the extra bullshit of trying to figure out city limits, population size, and all that nonsense.
_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MostlyHarmless
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:25 pm |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
|
|
The practical problem with a restriction in city limits is that you then have to have a case available.
People who live in states that don't require cases often don't own them. They use gun racks, especially in those states that require firearms in vehicles to be clearly visible, or nothing at all. For a utility firearm (where scratches don't really matter much) used for hunting and kept in a safe at home a case is just extra expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pakrat
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:24 am |
|
| Forum Moderator/<br>AV Geek |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:56 am
Posts: 2422
Location: Hopkins, MN
|
Andrew Rothman wrote: No no no no no!
Every city already regulates the discharge of firearms.
Why not just leave it as is: no casing requirement, no unloading requirement, period.
If necessary, give in on unloading, but WE DO NOT NEED the extra bullshit of trying to figure out city limits, population size, and all that nonsense. I agree it's safe to assume every city regulates, but that's not necessarily true.
I agree less is better, like the original text of the bill. I was addressing the modifications that the bill author seemed to want to add.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mosin
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 pm |
|
| Eagle-eyed watcher of legislation |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:34 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Bloomington
|
Pakrat wrote: I agree less is better, like the original text of the bill. I was addressing the modifications that the bill author seemed to want to add. It seems the original text (intent), which got me excited, is disappearing quickly.
I could really care less about casing the gun if I have to unload it anyhow. The only way this would benefit me now is in that I wouldn't have to worry about owning enough cases for all my long guns. And we wouldn't have to wait for a car to go get our cases from the other end of a field so we can drive to our next spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
