Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:15 am

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




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 NRA Statement regarding Hunter's "Convenience" bil 
Author Message
 Post subject: NRA Statement regarding Hunter's "Convenience" bil
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:48 pm 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
From: Darren La Sorte at NRA-ILA executive offices in Fairfax, Virginia.

Quote:
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:43:18

Chris Cox was planning on responding to you today but he had to run out of the office to do a last minute interview on CNN regarding the most recent fun coming from the Administration. We appreciate your passing along Joe Olson's concerns.

There is a bill pending in Minnesota right now that would allow the vast majority of hunters in the state to carry uncased, unloaded rifles and bows in their vehicles while hunting. There is currently as 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 Joe is concerned that this will lead to a "second class" of gun owners in the state and possible precedent for future gun issues.

We view the cased gun and bow bill differently than he does because it is an issue entirely incidental to the act of hunting and target shooting. If this were a fundamental issue related to the right to self-defense or general gun ownership/possession, rest assured that we'd fight to the last man to see the bill die.

While certainly not perfect, this bill does not create a second-class of gun owners any more than existing laws do 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.

We have 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 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 same argument that Joe makes with regard to the Minnesota bill - that it creates second-class gun owners. We would disagree here too.

He suggests that this bill is solely serving the convenience of a few lazy hunters. I 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, those of us 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. We know 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 we 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. I would suggest that this is the situation in Minnesota. The bill, as it stands now, is the best that we can get. Tim Grant's quote in Joe's email to you seems to confirm this. 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. We will use this experience in the future to work to apply the provision state-wide.

Finally, because this urban/rural distinction is being made only incidental to hunting, we do 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.

P. S. I'm sure there will be some responses and those should be directed to Chris Rager [the ILA state lobbyist for Minnesota] at crager@nrahq.org


Last edited by kimberman on Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:03 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:54 am
Posts: 1242
Constructive comments only, please.

Thank you.

Kimberman
:roll:

_________________
\|/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:36 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
This is offered in the most constructive and positive manner possible:

Quote:
"While certainly not perfect …"


That seems to encapsulate the issue quite nicely.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:18 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:09 am
Posts: 983
Location: Brewster
We lose incrementally because the anti gunners go for it all. The compromise position is then less than complete loss of our gun rights. The NRA is self serving to say the least. If we win the battle what to hell do we need them for?

To make it plain:
Joe is Right
NRA is wrong.

_________________
Professional Firearms Training. LLC.
http://www.mngunclass.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:23 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
To paraphrase a very wise man: Jaysong's right; let's settle it that way.

Chris Rager? You probably ought to comment on this. Trust me.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:03 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:14 pm
Posts: 203
Sigh... Very sad. If I were an anti, this is exactly what I would want. It doesn't get much better than watching your opponent capitulate and try to convince their supporters that it is a win-win situation.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:56 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:55 pm
Posts: 742
Location: Twin Cities
Nice. :cry: This particular 5% of the state's land mass is, what, ~50% of the state's population?

An incremental firearms law improvement that incidentally props the door open for balkanization of our state's firearms laws is one step forward and several back.

More emails sent.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:59 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
On the nosie.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:55 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
So, .... The NRA represents "land mass" not gun owners.

There are more gun owners in Hennepin and Ramsey counties than in the rest of the state. But, I'll grant, relatively fewer hunters.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:14 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:32 pm
Posts: 180
Location: St. Paul
My response from the local NRA-ILA rep. I am not going to vilify him since this is not his area but here is the email. (I do think we should contact Mr. Rager crager@nrahq.org)

Quote:
Thank you for your inquiry, I really appreciate it.

FYI - I don't do policy, I just do activity on policy advanced or approved by NRA ILA HQ.

The NRA is well aware of this legislation and the issues being raised.

My understanding is that the NRA is neutral on this legislation that would permit uncased guns in or on vehicles except in the seven county metro area and cities over 2500 population. If the exception were not there, the NRA would be lobbying for the legislation. The HF 128 - HF 1238 legislation is not pre emption, per se, in that it does not allow cities to make laws stricter than state law.

As it is, hunters and gun owners are getting something they have not had before. Nobody is losing anything. This legislation primarily has to do with hunters. More than 70% of MN’s 70,000 NRA dues paying members are hunters who benefit by this legislation. 200,000 Minnesotans say they are NRA members and I am sure that a super majoity of them will benefit by this both short term and long term.

My experience is that generally speaking, when we can not get everything we want, we are better off to get some relief from gun control laws than none. It has been clearly demonstrated in many states, that after they got what they could in one legislative session they can go back in a year or two and get more.

MN was 38th to get shall issue permit to carry and 45th to get Range Protection. We did not get Range Protection until we got the Gun Owners, etc., all or nothing approach, out of the legislative efforts. My opinion is that we would have gotten the shall issue permit to carry, that the NRA finally helped us get, long before we did if there had been less of an all or nothing combative approach in prior years.

Renegade gun rights outfits can only justify their existence by disagreeing with the NRA.
If the Gun Owners of America had their way Gun Manufacturers would not have the federal law suit protection they do. Gun Owners, etc. lobbied against the legislation because of an innocuous amendment in the senate file.
If the Gun Owner’s etc. had their way we would not have gotten the National Instant Check System Improvement Act that we got because they could not get everything they wanted. Gun Owner/purchasers are better off to have gotten what we did than nothing.

I am sorry about the delay responding to you inquiry, I was busy with a NRA table at the MWCA gun show this past weekend. More than 5000 attended and no one asked me about this issue. They asked about other issues, but not this one.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:18 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Just to be clear, before I (metaphorically, and publicly) rip the writer a new one: what is that name of acephalic moron of improbabe ancestry (strong language to follow) who wrote that ignorant bit of emailage that you posted?

_________________
Just a guy.


Last edited by joelr on Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:18 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:46 pm
Posts: 845
Location: Saint Paul
realtor_packing_heat wrote:
My response from the local NRA-ILA rep. I am not going to vilify him since this is not his area but here is the email. (I do think we should contact Mr. Rager crager@nrahq.org)

Quote:
Thank you for your inquiry, I really appreciate it.

FYI - I don't do policy, I just do activity on policy advanced or approved by NRA ILA HQ.

The NRA is well aware of this legislation and the issues being raised.

My understanding is that the NRA is neutral on this legislation that would permit uncased guns in or on vehicles except in the seven county metro area and cities over 2500 population. If the exception were not there, the NRA would be lobbying for the legislation. The HF 128 - HF 1238 legislation is not pre emption, per se, in that it does not allow cities to make laws stricter than state law.

As it is, hunters and gun owners are getting something they have not had before. Nobody is losing anything. This legislation primarily has to do with hunters. More than 70% of MN’s 70,000 NRA dues paying members are hunters who benefit by this legislation. 200,000 Minnesotans say they are NRA members and I am sure that a super majoity of them will benefit by this both short term and long term.

My experience is that generally speaking, when we can not get everything we want, we are better off to get some relief from gun control laws than none. It has been clearly demonstrated in many states, that after they got what they could in one legislative session they can go back in a year or two and get more.

MN was 38th to get shall issue permit to carry and 45th to get Range Protection. We did not get Range Protection until we got the Gun Owners, etc., all or nothing approach, out of the legislative efforts. My opinion is that we would have gotten the shall issue permit to carry, that the NRA finally helped us get, long before we did if there had been less of an all or nothing combative approach in prior years.

Renegade gun rights outfits can only justify their existence by disagreeing with the NRA.
If the Gun Owners of America had their way Gun Manufacturers would not have the federal law suit protection they do. Gun Owners, etc. lobbied against the legislation because of an innocuous amendment in the senate file.
If the Gun Owner’s etc. had their way we would not have gotten the National Instant Check System Improvement Act that we got because they could not get everything they wanted. Gun Owner/purchasers are better off to have gotten what we did than nothing.

I am sorry about the delay responding to you inquiry, I was busy with a NRA table at the MWCA gun show this past weekend. More than 5000 attended and no one asked me about this issue. They asked about other issues, but not this one.


What a very nice way to say "eat these crumbs and be happy about it". I am truly impressed. Never before has a partial loaf looked so attractive to me.

:?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:30 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
realtor_packing_heat wrote:
My response from the local NRA-ILA rep. I am not going to vilify him since this is not his area but here is the email. (I do think we should contact Mr. Rager crager@nrahq.org)

Quote:
Thank you for your inquiry, I really appreciate it.

FYI - I don't do policy, I just do activity on policy advanced or approved by NRA ILA HQ.

The NRA is well aware of this legislation and the issues being raised.

My understanding is that the NRA is neutral on this legislation that would permit uncased guns in or on vehicles except in the seven county metro area and cities over 2500 population. If the exception were not there, the NRA would be lobbying for the legislation. The HF 128 - HF 1238 legislation is not pre emption, per se, in that it does not allow cities to make laws stricter than state law.

As it is, hunters and gun owners are getting something they have not had before. Nobody is losing anything. This legislation primarily has to do with hunters. More than 70% of MN’s 70,000 NRA dues paying members are hunters who benefit by this legislation. 200,000 Minnesotans say they are NRA members and I am sure that a super majoity of them will benefit by this both short term and long term.

My experience is that generally speaking, when we can not get everything we want, we are better off to get some relief from gun control laws than none. It has been clearly demonstrated in many states, that after they got what they could in one legislative session they can go back in a year or two and get more.

MN was 38th to get shall issue permit to carry and 45th to get Range Protection. We did not get Range Protection until we got the Gun Owners, etc., all or nothing approach, out of the legislative efforts. My opinion is that we would have gotten the shall issue permit to carry, that the NRA finally helped us get, long before we did if there had been less of an all or nothing combative approach in prior years.

Renegade gun rights outfits can only justify their existence by disagreeing with the NRA.
If the Gun Owners of America had their way Gun Manufacturers would not have the federal law suit protection they do. Gun Owners, etc. lobbied against the legislation because of an innocuous amendment in the senate file.
If the Gun Owner’s etc. had their way we would not have gotten the National Instant Check System Improvement Act that we got because they could not get everything they wanted. Gun Owner/purchasers are better off to have gotten what we did than nothing.

I am sorry about the delay responding to you inquiry, I was busy with a NRA table at the MWCA gun show this past weekend. More than 5000 attended and no one asked me about this issue. They asked about other issues, but not this one.


Image

I'm going to have that steaming pile of crap printed on my toilet paper.

Gee, it's ok to give away SOME of my rights, as long as I don't give away all of them.

:bang:

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:07 am 
Wise Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm
Posts: 2782
Location: St. Paul
[quote="realtor_packing_heat"]My response from the local NRA-ILA rep. I am not going to vilify him since this is not his area but here is the email. (I do think we should contact Mr. Rager crager@nrahq.org)

Just to be CLEAR. This response in NOT from Mr. Chris Rager, the NRA-ILA employee who is the registered lobbyist working at the state capitol, but from one of the volunteer "election coordinators" listed earlier in this thread. It represents one person's LIMITED view since this individual wasn't involved at the Capitol in either the Carry Permit Reform effort, in the Range Protection effort, or in any other lobbying effort.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:16 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
But he sure seems to think that he knows a lot, eh? :roll:

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

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


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group