Two thumbs up!!!!!!!! Congratulations and well done, soldier.

Good JOB, Reaver!!! I hope it didn't cost you a fortune to get this straightened out and make them comply with the law, etc.

I was working cable TV in St Paul, in particular, the I-Net (an Institutional data- video network in 97. One of the city employees and my mentor always stirred the pot. He kept getting lectured that his leatherman was a dangerous weapon and he maintain that it was a "tool". He never seemed to get into much trouble over it.

Good job!

Yes, well done Reaver.

Though this is only a first step to solving the original problem, as I perceive it. Namely that the "Dangerous Weapons" signs are silly and dangerous on their own, regardless of whether we are allowed to carry or not.

They set a very bad precedent for weasley signage. And could encourage more public places to do the same, adding to the confusion and increasing the danger to the public. Some may think I'm nitpicking this point, but I think the original exchange I had with the library staff (that started this whole thing) clearly shows the dangers, e.g. people think "it is a state law", "prohibits guns" etc... Bad guys, being even less informed than county attorneys, are even more likely to make these assumptions, making violence in the library more likely.

Since nobody but a subset of permit holders are going to know that they can carry, the silly signs still have the effect of creating a victim disarmament zone. As long as the silly signs are up, and the vast majority of people assume they apply to pistol permits too, then the deterent benefits of carry are defeated, the anti's win, and we are more at risk of violence.

I still want the silly signs removed, or at a minimum modified to clearly state that they don't apply to permit holders. If the county isn't willing to do that then I'm thinking a twice monthly "open carry gathering" at various county libraries might be required to further educate the county on their foolishness. I haven't outed myself yet, but this issue may yet get me to cross that threshold.

You would, of course, learn from Reaver's experience and PRE-arrange your attorney and your documentary crew?

I'm carefull by nature, so I'd probably still coordinate this with the police/library ahead of time, but if I'm hearing Reaver right there will no longer be any hassles for people who carry, open or concealed. Right?

I'm with you, bab, but patience please. The sign issue has not been forgotten, and is being worked on as we speak. Can't tell all, but things are looking good.

Please remember that not ALL Hennepin County librarys will allow carry, The Brooklyn Center one on Shingle Creek Parkway has a Court House in the building.

I am not easily impressed.

I am impressed about this result!

Congratulations (apparently) are in order!

Skoal!

Yes, sorry, didn't mean to give the wrong impression. After all I was the one who was surprised by your intitial challenge. Recall at that time I was the one advocating a slower approach.

I just meant that this issue will continue to be pursued until the silly signs issue is resolved. Perfectly willing to let your hand be played out regarding that topic. Please keep us updated.

I will say that after the signs issue is dealt with, the final thing to address will be the signs on libraries next to courts. As was pointed out above, the new county policy presumably doesn't apply to those (Southdale is another one by the way). So don't carry there.

But this does demonstrate yet another reason to do away with the silly signs. Right now the valid and invalid signs are virtually identical. The vast majority of people don't know the difference. As such they are a kind of trap that the county has set up to catch permit holders. Not to mention of course that any reasoning that equates libraries to neighboring courts is completely bogus (I'm speaking only of Southdale here, not familiar with the layout of others). They are seperate buildings. The public must enter the court through its external door, wich is posted, and is about a hundred feet away from the library door, not to mention across a road. If they claim the public has access to the court via the library then they better start letting us use this access (if it even exists). The current county policy infringes on the rights of the public to defend themselves in a library they pay for. But... I preach to the choir.

Very nicely done. Kudos to all involved.

grayskys wrote

Absolutely. This does not apply to libraries with a courthouse attached, due to Judge Burke's order. Like bab said, this is why the signs are so confusing, because they're so similar, yet so different in that one means something, and one doesn't.

You mean they were told to "sit down and shut up, the DFL believes differently on this issue, and they're the one calling the shots."

Organizations are not monoliths.

Whether it's the DFL, the Star Tribune or Hennepin County, there are people there that don't believe depriving law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights in hopes of deterring criminals.

These folks do what they can -- and are often more effective in their quiet ways than the loudest activist on the outside.

And that's about all I have to say about that.

Thanks for the posting, Andrew. I was trying to come up with a way of saying that without jeopardizing specific people and you did it for me.