• RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
Ridgerunnr

new Mn anti gun law proposal™™™™

Recommended Posts

Huh, looks like I will be a felon if these pass, well, that is if they can trace the guns to me. I am not giving up my guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a total of 8 bills related to guns that were introduced and referred to the Public safety finance and policy committee. Hearings are scheduled for Feb 5 @ 10am & 6 pm, Feb 6 @ 10 am, Feb 7 @ 10am & 6pm in Room 10 of the state office building. This committee is so lopsided 11 DFL and 7 Repubs. The time to act is now and put the pressure on!!!

what follows is a copy and paste from the house register of the bills

Paymar; Schoen; Dehn, R.; Simonson and Hornstein introduced:

H. F. No. 237, A bill for an act relating to public safety; modifying provisions related to the transfer of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, and to eligibility to possess a firearm; providing criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 624.713, subdivisions 1, 4; 624.7131, subdivisions 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10; 624.7132, subdivisions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, by adding a subdivision; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 609.66, subdivision 1f; 624.7132, subdivision 14.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Journal of the House - 8th Day - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - Top of Page 107

Davnie; Lesch; Dehn, R.; Simonson; Schoen; Slocum; Benson, J., and Hornstein introduced:

H. F. No. 238, A bill for an act relating to public safety; establishing equal penalties for offenders who unlawfully possess firearms on school property; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.66, subdivision 1d.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Davnie; Dehn, R.; Simonson; Schoen and Hornstein introduced:

H. F. No. 239, A bill for an act relating to public safety; establishing equal penalties for persons who possess guns on private property after being ordered to leave the premises; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.714, subdivision 17.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Schoen, Simonson, Paymar, Isaacson and Dehn, R., introduced:

H. F. No. 240, A bill for an act relating to public safety; firearms; improving mental health screening for persons applying for firearms permits; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 624.7131, subdivisions 2, 4; 624.7132, subdivisions 2, 3, 5, 13; 624.714, subdivisions 2, 6, 12, 16.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Hausman, Hornstein, Simonson, Davnie and Slocum introduced:

H. F. No. 241, A bill for an act relating to public safety; establishing a crime for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing certain assault weapons; providing for the disposal or registration of existing assault weapons; defining terms; classifying data; clarifying language; providing criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 13.87, subdivision 2; 624.712, subdivision 7, by adding subdivisions; 624.713; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 624.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Hausman, Slocum, Hornstein and Davnie introduced:

H. F. No. 242, A bill for an act relating to public safety; establishing a crime for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing large-capacity magazines; defining terms; providing criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012 sections 624.712, by adding a subdivision; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 624.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Hausman; Paymar; Johnson, S., and Simonson introduced:

H. F. No. 243, A bill for an act relating to public safety; establishing a crime for manufacturing, transferring, or possessing large-capacity magazines; defining terms; providing criminal penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012 sections 624.712, by adding a subdivision; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 624.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Journal of the House - 8th Day - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - Top of Page 108

Johnson, S.; Schoen; Slocum and Isaacson introduced:

H. F. No. 244, A bill for an act relating to public safety; making it a crime to falsely report the loss or theft of a firearm; expanding the crime of transferring certain firearms to an ineligible person; making a person convicted of these crimes ineligible to possess a firearm; amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, sections 609.165, subdivision 1a; 609.505, by adding a subdivision; 624.713, subdivision 1; 624.7141, subdivisions 1, 2, 3.

The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Public Safety Finance and Policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what the big deal is? They don't want to take away our hunting shotguns and rifles, they want to ban assault rifles. You shouldn't need an assault rifle to hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain the difference between a semi-automatic .22 one might use for rabbit hunting and an "assault rifle?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what the big deal is? They don't want to take away our hunting shotguns and rifles, they want to ban assault rifles. You shouldn't need an assault rifle to hunt.

I suppose there is no chance that you are kidding? Did you know that being in possession of the standard Ruger 10/22 (probably the most commonly owned gun in Minnesota) would make you a felon under the new laws because of it's 10 shot clip? Do you have any idea how many folks hunt coyotes with an AR? An accurate affordable rifle in varmint calibers that affords a quick follow up shot is pretty popular. Just check out this HSOforum. Do you really think that once they ban AR's, that all semi auto's and pistols (including your duck hunting shotgun) won't be on the chopping block next?

Lastly, what part of the second amendment says we have a right to hunt? The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment has to do with having the right to bears arms to protect ones home and nation. My favorite quote about police response is, "When seconds count, police are just minutes away". Lastly, the current administration is just utilizing tragedy to further strip us of our rights. I like the argument made at the hearings about swimming pools resulting in my deaths to children than guns of any kind. We ought to ban swimming pools, after all they aren't even necessary or or guaranteed to us by the constituion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's another one ole. Millions of ex military don't hunt, they took up their interest in the shooting sports through their experience in the armed forces, particularily using the m16, now they have a hobby shooting the ar15, either in competition or at the range and are law abiding civilians that the government wants to either, take away one of their posessions and destroy it(heil hitler) or make them an automatic felon for owning one and they never comitted a crime.

what the government is trying to do the second amendment is the very reason it was put in place, so the government dosen't opress it's people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain the difference between a semi-automatic .22 one might use for rabbit hunting and an "assault rifle?"

Right it is illeagal to own an assult rifle unless you have a special Federal permit.

An assult rifle is not determined by what it looks like. it is determined by it's operation.

To answer your question as simple as possible. an assult rifle is fully auto matic or can fire burst rounds. More then one round per pull of the trigger.

So by the definition they are labeling on assult rifle. A pump shotgun with a Pistol grip would be Ileagal. If it is not bolt action, over and under side by side, can hold more then 10 rounds, has a pistol grip on it. it will be unlawful to have one.

Doesn't matter, the 2nd amendment is my right to own any gun that is made.

I reccomend to those that might not understand the true intent of the constitution to read the Federalist Papers that has just been released.

Once the 2nd amendment falls all the other will fall shortly there after. You are only kidding yourself if you think it can't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what the big deal is? They don't want to take away our hunting shotguns and rifles, they want to ban assault rifles. You shouldn't need an assault rifle to hunt.

I have a Mossberg semi-auto .22 that I bought used in the mid-sixties for squirrel and rabbit hunting. That is an assault rifle according to these proposed laws because it has a tubular feed that holds more than seven rounds. Idiots!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets not forget, EVERY long gun has a pistol grip, it's where your trigger finger hand gets it's grip, what attaches to/or is built into it, is the butt stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand what the big deal is? They don't want to take away our hunting shotguns and rifles, they want to ban assault rifles. You shouldn't need an assault rifle to hunt.

It has ZERO to do with need. Don't even go there.

If you're going down that road then you don't need any sort of gun because very, very, very few people these days actually need to hunt. For those that do, oh well, tough luck, public safety at large is priority over your need to hunt. You don't really want to go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bash Ole #1 all you want but he is likely speaking what the majority of Americans feel and don't understand, would you like to put it to the publics vote ? Didn't think so we're very lucky for that 2nd ammendment. My mom even, 6 hunting brothers,father etc. she agrees with Ole why do you need a gun like that for hunting, none of my brothers have 1, if it was such a good hunting weapon they'd own 1, if you need 15 shots you shouldn't be hunting, etc. She would say then buy a gun that is legal there's hundreds of them. Think most inner-city people care a lick about our hunting heritage. Anyway, for me it's about mentally ill people, especially males, which until that gets cleaned up you're not only preventing shootings, but other violent acts as well that can lead to a fatality, knives, etc. in the wrong hands, mental illness is really ugly, me not personally but I live with it every day and could write chapters about it, it sucks, it creates every day is a challenge, no break from it, it stinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bash Ole #1 all you want but he is likely speaking what the majority of Americans feel and don't understand, would you like to put it to the publics vote ? Didn't think so we're very lucky for that 2nd ammendment. My mom even, 6 hunting brothers,father etc. she agrees with Ole why do you need a gun like that for hunting, none of my brothers have 1, if it was such a good hunting weapon they'd own 1, if you need 15 shots you shouldn't be hunting, etc. She would say then buy a gun that is legal there's hundreds of them. Think most inner-city people care a lick about our hunting heritage. Anyway, for me it's about mentally ill people, especially males, which until that gets cleaned up you're not only preventing shootings, but other violent acts as well that can lead to a fatality, knives, etc. in the wrong hands, mental illness is really ugly, me not personally but I live with it every day and could write chapters about it, it sucks, it creates every day is a challenge, no break from it, it stinks.

Musky...do you truly believe that if we give up AR's and high cap clips they are just going to leave gun owners alone and never try to erode our rights further? I personally believe their tactic is to divide and conquer. They will eat us one bite at a time focusing first on places where the least amount will complain. By the time they get to the 'hunting guns' there won't be a large enough base of people to defend it. Hang together or hang alone so to speak. I for one won't stand idly by and watch it happen. If you don't think politicians know what a force gun owners can be, why do you think they all lie through their teeth prior to elections and wait until they are lame duck in office before trying to pass this type of garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, what MuskyBuck is saying is for the most part the truth. Were becoming outnumbered as gun owners and the left knows it. Ole doesnt care about protecting himself from the government HE TRUSTS THEM! As do the growing number of sheep who pay no attention or educate themselves on the constitution and why the 2nd is there in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has ZERO to do with need. Don't even go there.

If you're going down that road then you don't need any sort of gun because very, very, very few people these days actually need to hunt. For those that do, oh well, tough luck, public safety at large is priority over your need to hunt. You don't really want to go there.

Let's also not forget that as many if not more people are killed by another deadly weapon and if we're going to talk about need let's remember that weapon is not needed either. I have many neighbors that can testify to that. The automobile.

Strange thing is, driving a car is a privilege whereas owning a firearm is a right. Anyone that argues the need/want debate has their head up their whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, what MuskyBuck is saying is for the most part the truth. Were becoming outnumbered as gun owners and the left knows it. Ole doesnt care about protecting himself from the government HE TRUSTS THEM! As do the growing number of sheep who pay no attention or educate themselves on the constitution and why the 2nd is there in the first place.

I'm not sure Ole is any of that or anything like that.

I think it's easy to get lulled into the "who needs that" thinking about black rifles and high capacity magazines. As I mentioned earlier, it's not about need.

Hey, if certain types of rifles aren't your deal, fine, but we all need to stick together to prevent erosion of our rights.

I don't do much hunting these days so the majority of my shooting is at targets. Point being, I could easily vote for any legislation that might come along for curtailment of hunting rights and or for any legislation that might come along for more restrictions on all guns. But, I don't/won't, because even though hunting isn't really my thing at this point, I don't want to harsh your deal.

One hand washes the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MABR that was what I was trying to get at, I don't even agree with what I typed, I was just typing hopefully the feel of most americans, I just got out of my own train of thought and tried to think like a non-gun owner or even some gun owners who heard the president say that over 1,000 deaths by gun have occurred since SandyHook. You know this BobT the rebuttal is when are you gun owning crybabies going to stop talking about cars, poison, knives, etc. Most don't choose to use a car as a deadly weapon or a knife, can't slice bread with a gun. For the most part guns scare a lot of people, cars don't, knives don't, poison you put the Mr. Yuck on that stuff. A lot of people are born today and guns/hunting isn't a part of their upbringing, we all know it's the one pulling the trigger, the one not slicing bread with that knife, so the feel good weapon to go after is guns, they're loud, and a seatbelt doesn't come with em, nor does body armor, I'm not convinced this is an elaborate plan by the government, they don't even want to talk about it but when the word "kids" got involved that struck a nerve with so many so Obama or not here it is, you really think Mitt would've swept it under the rug on behalf of like the NRA, then vote republican next time and they can undo anything Obama puts in, wasn't their a ban before on them, how'd it get lifted ? I personally don't want to see any ban on any of them, it's the guy generally pulling the trigger, gun crimes need serious punishment, mentally unstable people especially men need prudent help, there's just so many avenues to go in before guns even need to be mentioned almost, it does make some sense that people who have suffered from gun violence want action, last night the 1st 3 lead stories were all gun violence related. And most nights that's on the short list. Are we just to a point in our history where so many things have festered, we're slowly but surely overpopulating our acres, time and things are moving so fast we don't have time to reflect, does deep meaningful conversation happen or is it just get this bill to the table, IDK lol, what a rambling mess lol. I don't want to lose access to my 30 or 15 shot clipped, M1 30 carbine, I lol took it out deer hunting 1 day last season, glad nothing came by lol, no scope, etc. Not even certain it would fire lol. But it was fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun owners have never been the majority of US Citizens...

"The problem is a general degrading of society."

Our biggest hurdle is the media, falsly broadcasting "Facts and Statistics" to gain support. It's working wonders so far, and it's making the threat of a 2nd ammendment disappearing VERY REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • this piece looks good, i interessting recipe for marinade. I make a meat with basil but want to taste new recipes. And one more think - i may advice you while smoking make a incisions if meat very broad
    • You sure seem to say Grill a lot though! 😏    
    • I have an old MES 30that I put a new element in right before I got my pellet grill. I decided that all of the wet chips is what raised havoc on the last element, so now I run a smoke tube that I burn pellets in. The nice part is that I can now do cold smoking
    • You could but that's just another thing and I like to make bigger batches. Like 50 # plus and I like them hanging. The MES is marginal at best for this and I have the cold smoker attachment on that.   If you just want small runs of stuff that might work. 
    • Can you put a cold smoker box on the side of yours? That would be a good set up for sausage, sticks, etc.  
    • Yep.....😊     Nothing wrong with that. I've just decided I like to cook great BBQ as easily and lazily as possible. 😋
    • I'm still keeping the MES until I make my fridge smoker. The Pellet grill is great for some things but I still like a regular smoker for sausages, sticks etc. 
    • No, I wanted both in one package.     A pellet grill IS a smoker and takes just as much time to cook low and slow as any other smoker.
    • Boat prices are INSANE!!! Even used boats are still rediculous.   As far as buying old used boats and rebuilding them for profit, I think you’ll be hard pressed to break even, let alone make a profit (unless you find one for dirt cheap). An old boat is still an old boat even if it’s been fixed up. 
    • So you really wanted a fancy Grill, not a smoker? Smokers do take up a lot more time but I'm having a lot of fun with my Char grill smoker.