Note: According to NRA's 2005 filing with the state Campaign Finance Board, NRA spent not a penny on lobbying in Minnesota in 2005, the year in which GOCRA/CCRN alone got the Carry Permit bill re-enacted in less than five weeks. The professional lobbyists at the capitol still refer to this as an "amazing feat."

I think we were lucky the NRA wasn't involved. The result was a very good carry law. The NRA would have compromised the bill to death.

Well I would certainly like to know as the NRA is one gun group who gets some of my money and if they do not deserve it I will happily give it to another group that does.

Renegade gun rights outfits can only justify their existence by disagreeing with the NRA.

Joel. Joel! Are you forgetting this gem?:

While I, like many, have not always agreed with the NRA's position on legislation on Federal or State levels, and I do not agree with their apparent stance on this one. And the letters are going out to them in that regard. I do think that they have done allot for gun owners and are still a worthwhile organization. I also don't believe in putting all ones eggs (or ammo) in one basket. That is why I belong to and contribute to a number of gun owners rights organizations.

This is not in any way meant as a sarcastic question, just an honest inquiry, Where is the GOCRA, GOA on HF1238?

GOCRA is taking the point on this; hopefully, enough legislators will get the point to kill this bad idea. As I'd probably put it, were I being a bit crude, "Nice voting record you have here, Representative. Shame if something were to happen to it. Perfect records break, you know . . . "

Thanks. Now I have visions of two large Italian gentlemen in ill-fitting suits campaigning for gun rights...

 
As you are aware, Representatives David Dill (DFL-6A) and Tony Cornish (R-24B) have included uncased and unloaded provisions in the Omnibus Game and Fish bill (HF1238). The legislation is currently pending before the House Finance Committee. After reviewing the legislation, NRA is officially neutral on the uncased and unloaded hunting provisions.

The provisions would allow the vast majority of hunters in the state to carry uncased, unloaded rifles and bows in their vehicles while hunting.  Currently, there is a statewide casing requirement that is detrimental to all hunters.  Unfortunately, during the process, certain counties and cities were excluded from the scope of this provision (approximately 5% of the state’s land mass) and there is concern that this will lead to a “second class” of gun owners in the state and a possible precedent for future gun issues.
 
NRA views the cased gun and bow bill differently because it is an issue entirely incidental to the act of hunting and target shooting.  If the provisions focused on a fundamental issue related to the right to self-defense or general gun ownership/possession, rest assured the NRA would strongly oppose any limitation of firearm rights. 
 
While certainly not perfect, this bill does not create a second-class of gun owners any more than existing laws--as they relate to gun hunting inside and outside of urban jurisdictions in Minnesota.  A citizen walking down the streets of St. Paul with a loaded slug gun during deer season would be treated differently by the authorities than another citizen doing the same thing at the same time on public hunting grounds outside of Hibbing.
 
NRA has faced similar issues in other states.  A good example is handgun hunting.  There are a number of states that allow hunters to carry and use handguns for hunting. But, the states do not allow carry by others not engaged in the act of hunting.  Because firearms hunting in these states is generally disallowed in more densely populated areas, some could make the argument with regard to the Minnesota bill – that it creates second-class gun owners.  NRA would disagree here too.
 
Some suggest that this bill is solely serving the convenience of a few hunters.  NRA would contend that it is much more meaningful than this.  In the more rural areas of Minnesota where deer drives are common, hunting groups would be allowed to make the decision for themselves as to whether they have a cased or uncased policy while moving from one area to another in vehicles. 
 
Many hunters may, for legitimate safety reasons, choose to keep guns uncased so that the members of the group could visually determine whether the various firearms are “safe” (i.e. action open).  Also, individuals who have hunted in large groups where casing is required have all recognized that the most common instances of lost muzzle discipline are while people are going through the relatively awkward manipulation associated with casing.  This legislation could enhance safety in those areas where group/drive hunting is most prevalent by allowing hunters to keep things as simple as possible.
 
As you know, one of our recent campaigns across the country is to repeal unnecessary or harassing hunting regulations.  NRA knows that these are part of the problem associated with the decline in hunter participation.  The cased gun and bow law is certainly one of these regulations (it happens to be state law in Minnesota).  If NRA can remove this in the areas most commonly hunted, as is being done in the bill, we should.
 
Across the country, Americans have lost their rights incrementally.  NRA has taken the position that we will work to incrementally regain these rights if political circumstances prevent comprehensive action.  The fact is that no gun owner in the state is losing ground because of the bill, but the vast majority of those who hunt are gaining.  Of course, there will be no problems that are caused by allowing uncased rifles and bows in the majority of the state.  NRA will use this experience in the future to work to apply the provision state-wide.
 
Because this urban/rural distinction is being made only incidental to hunting, NRA does not believe that it will successfully be used in the future to make distinctions between the two with regard to fundamental gun ownership and self-defense rights.

The interests of NRA members, firearm owners, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts in Minnesota—and nationwide—continue to be a paramount concern to the NRA. And the NRA will continue to work with Minnesota’s legislators and constituents to enact uniform state-wide uncased and unloaded provisions.