Please name the names and we will talk to them too.

She was conspicuously absent.

Let's go over the possible explanations for that.

1. She suddenly needed to spend time with her family. Nope.

2. Offended by the vigorous criticism she's seen of the metro-area cutout provisions of the Mild Convenience Act, she stomped out of the room in a hissy fit. I'm going to reject that, out of hand, and do hope that nobody will suggest that.

3. She didn't want to take a position on this horrible backdoor gun registration bill. Possible, I guess. Certainly, we've seen that sort of cowardice from some legislators, and not infrequently.

4. Last, and by no means least: she thought the whole bill was a bad idea, but counted the votes, and realized that a: the Paymar amendment was going to be defeated, if she stayed and voted against it, but the underlying bill, complete with those horrible provisions that would have abused metro area gunowners and put outstate gunowners in jeopardy would go to the floor, and pass, but that Representative Dill would be so pickled if the Paymar amendment passed that he'd <s>withdraw</s> lay the bill upon the table, effectively killing the damn thing for now, and in a moment of great foresight and courage, did the only thing she could do to stop it: she walked.

I'm going with 4, at least tentatively. I wish she'd come over and explained that to us, if that's the case, but . . .

Unfortunately, Rep Seifert is ex-oficio and thus can comment but not vote.

I'm reminded again why I'm not an NRA member- in addition to their generally far-right-wing stance, they're not generally a lot of help to us here...

Yup. Here in Minnesota, we name names and talk to people.

As I just said, I'm going to -- tentatively -- praise Mary for her walk, this time, but I don't think people ought to make it a habit.

Please name the other two reps, Chris.

...

That's fine, but every person in that room knew damn well why we were all there. A little explanation doesn't seem too much to ask. She got emails from dozens of us and could have subsequently let us know that way as well. It sounds like this whole thing was planned by Mr. Dill if Paymar's amendment passed.

Well, I'm actually pleased with Steve Simon. He's the Assistant Majority Leader, and this whole backdoor gun registration nonsense is a pet project of the Speaker, and Paymar -- both pezzonovantes in the DFL, and virulently anti-Second Amendment. He's taking some political risks by not voting with the DFL metrocrat gang on this, and if he's only come so far as to pass, that's fine.

Look at it another way: if he'd voted against the Paymar amendment, it would have failed, and we'd probably have to fight against the bad stuff in the DNR bill on the floor, and I'm not sure we'd have won. Dill was under the impression that he could sell the bill, sans Paymar, as "uncontroversial," after all.

Let's be generous to the folks who helped us out on this, even if they did it a little obliquely.

Yup. I think she could and should. If you feel like it, email her. I'm curious as to what she'll say.

And yes, I think Mr. Dill wouldn't want to take the DFL to war (metaphorically) on the gun control issue this year.

Good. 'Cause there's a few anti-gun Republicans as well as some Democrats I'd like to see us give a hard time to; rather not have to back one political party, but the good people.

Indeed; a win is a win, no matter how you get it.

Remember:

-- Our goal is to stop this particular part of the bill.
-- The legislators' goal is to pass other parts of the bill.

Getting there sometimes means a friendly legislator walks away from a vote.

Al Fingulin

For those who came in late .... there are three nonlegislators without whom most of you would not have your carry permits: Joe Olson, David Gross, and Al Fingulin. (There's lots of other important folks, like Lonn and John and Tim, and lesser players like me, all of whom were important, but if any one of us had gotten run over by a truck, the bill would still have passed. Without Joe and David taking point, and Alfred teaching us all how to do grassroots activism on this, it just plain wouldn't have happened.)

Showing up is half the battle. The legislators know that for six working guys to show up on short notice, there's dozens or hundreds that would pack the room if they had enough time, and that there's literally thousands and thousands who are watching, and just about all of them vote.

Honest: people like Joe and lesser lights like me don't often ask you to show up for a hearing or demonstration in St. Paul. We don't ask that lightly; but when we do, it's important. If you can't, you can't; but if you can, please do.

I said I'd give this a fuller commentary, and I will. But I'm also promising to be nice, so I will do that, too. Yup.

Let's take a step back, and look at the bigger issue. When somebody's hunting, it seems to me that it's not a huge imposition to case a long gun that's being carried for hunting purposes . . . unless, of course, you're going to do road hunting. There are states where that's legal and customary, but we're not one of them.

That said, I really don't think there's anything wrong with removing the casing requirements, on balance, in the hunting context. If somebody doesn't want to case their gun as they're driving from a ground spot to where they're going to walk to their deer stand, say, I've got no trouble with that (as long as they unload it, of course; we don't road hunt here). . . but I think that there oughtn't be a difference whether they're doing it up in Garrison (where I hunt) or out in Lake Elmo. I know you agree on that, Chris, and view the metro carveout as a step along the way, while I see that as a dreadfully bad precedent.

Let's leave that discussion for another day -- preferably before you do anything to revive what you refer to as "uncased and unloaded" stuff? Fair enough?

(All in all, I think we really need to make carrying of long guns by permit holders more clearly and explicitly tied to 624.714, and trumping any suggestion of hunting regs, whether they're in or out of a car, except when in the act of hunting . . . but that's another issue for another day.)

Yup. He would. And that's why our friends -- and there are people who say Dill is a friend -- need to be very, very careful before bringing any gun bill to a committee, particularly in this legislative environment.

Hell, we've got Professor Joseph Olson around. I think it makes a lot of sense to check stuff out with him, in advance, before making any compromises. I haven't even gone into the 624.714 Subd. 9 implications of the Dill language, but I know that Professor Olson could have thought them through, thoroughly, and perhaps figured out a way to code around them that wasn't there.

Were they emboldened? I dunno. Maybe. Then again, if you were there, I'm sure you would have been pleased with the way that Heather Martens and Paymar looked like they'd been hit by a truck when Dill laid his bill upon the table.

But no, I don't expect them to give up. Then again, no matter what happened last night, neither their handful of paid staffers nor our grassroots movement is going to give up. Yup. And I think, in general, the NRA should punish absences when scoring voting. On the other hand, that really can't happen this time, can it? After all, the NRA is officially neutral on the (now laid upon the table) Dill bill, and you can hardly punish somebody for voting any way or not voting on something you're neutral on.

That said, while I like the result, I don't much like folks voting for "gun control" language, either, and if you want to criticize the folks who voted for the Paymar amendment or skipped out on a vote other than as a tactical maneuver to sink this bad bill, may I offer you a soapbox here? Heck, I'll give you your own subforum, and let it be announce-only, so all responses will have to go in another subforum.

Just ask, if you want that. Publicly or privately; I'm easy. Yay, to both of them. I'll be sure to send them a thankyou email later today; I hope I'm not the only one (hint, hint). Well, the simplest maneuver is for Dill to keep the bill laid upon the table, and bring up whatever good stuff there was in HF 1238 (far as I can tell, all the stuff except the uncased provisions with the carveout) up in another way.Cool. See above. Chris, I look forward to your answers.

I talked with Rep. Steve Smith and Rep. Tom Hackbarth, briefly, after the event thanking them for their stands and comments. I mentioned Mary Kiffmeyer's "walk" from the hearing, which was quite conspicuous, at least to me. Steve only smiled at me, and said, "We'll talk to her about that and see exactly what was on her mind." He characterized it as a "walk:" "she "picked up her stuff and left." This leads me to believe that Joel's option 4 is the most likely explanation for what happened, last night.

Apparently, there's more to this parliamentary procedure and understandings of what various people will do under various circumstances and with their various principles and beliefs than I can process, personally. It appears to be a fluid situation at ALL times.

Steve Simon's comments on Heller, coming from an otherwise DFL liberal from a very liberal, DFL, Metro District (I used to live there, and I grew up there) were an indication that he FINALLY was willing to accept the very idea that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says, despite the attraction of "political convenience" in ignoring it. This is good and is a sign of a crack or fissure in the DFL party line when it comes to the Supreme Law of the Land. "Acceptance" can be a sign of respect, albeit begrudging. He has, yet, to declare that the MCPPA's formulation of what the 2A means was 1) 5 years ahead of the SCOTUS schedule, and 2) that it was exactly correct, which is something that Joe Olson and I have been saying since 1982, when we (first) met at an evening hearing held by then-Rep. Bob Vanasek on Mark Kaplan's (MPLS City Council member, 8th Ward - and with whom I graduated High School) proposed Morton Grove-style ban on handguns, statewide. This was before preemption, too. There we had a Law Prof. and a City Prosecutor being booed and jeered for daring to say what came true 26 years later. Think about how far we have come!

As I understand it, Joyce Peppin's absence had to do with "family matters" and involving younger children. My guess is that's a "pass." Who's the third person?

So, although I would like to have been "in" on the strategy and tactics that our friends, both Republican AND DFL, had, and I'm open to the idea that they all went in there with the same goals as we had, it turns out that they did know exactly what they were doing and had several options of action, depending on how things played out during the course of the hearing. Who says that our friends didn't caucus before the Finance Committee meeting? They just didn't announce it. This is a trust and respect issue, on our part. WE should learn from this. This is where the deep background work by Joe Olson and Chris Rager, even though they were somewhat at crossed purposes (Yes, our fledgling NRA Liaison screwed up, was short-sighted, and was "played" professionally based on his ego); nevertheless, Chris apparently has considerable skills and abilities. But he was in Louisiana, last, and not here! Was HE told to "take a walk?" Inquiring minds want to know. Now, if we can only work TOGETHER for common goals in consultation with each other . . .. But that's the judgment part; and that takes some time and some "seasoning." "Not too salty, please!"

And there is the larger view that the DFL has to contend with: whether or not they wish to be the party that both raised taxes (made them sky-rocket) AND also tried to do away with the Second Amendment, taking on the gun owners, in the next 18 months. Either one is bad enough; both, together spells disaster. One is tempted to speculate as to whether the DFL NEEDS to take away the guns in order to effectuate confiscatory taxes; but that's for another day. In any event, it appears that the DNR bill will, probably, come back, without the Metro carve-out, because Rep. Dill has now been freed from his obligation to accept the carve-out based on the condition of the "deal" that the (Metro) DFL would NOT try to amend further any gun provisions. The Metrocrats broke the deal and actually passed the so-called "gun show loophole" provision, and forcing Rep. Dill to lay the bill over.

Did Mary Kiffmeyer's walk perform as "bait" in a trap? Did they know that Steve Simon would abstain? When DO they count all these noses and know what it means? It's over my head. I know that I do feel a whole lot better knowing that I can trust some of our friends, for example, Tom Hackbarth and "Smiling" Steve Smith. My mention of these two is not intended to denigrate anyone else's contribution; not at all! I felt like a child, there, last night. I'm glad that mommy and daddy were there.

Thanks, again, for being there AND explaining what the outcome was/is. I'd still be there, scratching my aching head, if you hadn't.

If the various scenarios outlined above are any indications of how things are actually played out down there, it's amazing ANYTHING ever gets done. On the other hand, the less THEY do, the better off WE are.

Since this is only the latest in a never ending battle I'm inclined to think I'll be attending more of these gabfests. Never know when I might run out of Sominex...

Might even be tempted to bring my darling granddaughter down some time. She thinks the monkeys in the zoo are funny. She'll bust a gut when she sees the House in 'action'.

As far as the NRAs participation, as a lifer, methinks they screwed the pooch on this one.

And what was up with the security? Do you think they were worried the metrocrats were going to run amok? (now, that geezer in the black hat scared the shit out of me! )

Did you notice when the security left? Once we left the room, so did they ...