Some background: When the original MPPA passed in 2003, the Eagan City Council was in hysterics about how preemption kept them from banning guns in City Hall, the community center, and other public places (probably city streets, too). Well, to make themselves feel better, they voted unanimously to use my tax money to erect signs at all of these places that state "Guns are not welcome in these premises". Very nice signs, too (read: expensive). Don't mean a darned thing, but very nice indeed. Also intimidating to law-abiding people who don't know the law like we do and could be hoodwinked into thinking that they have legal weight.

Well, ever since then I have been doing a slow burn over this whenever I'm over there doing something, but haven't had the opportunity to do or say anything about it. Tonight, however, I found myself with a free Tuesday night, so I decided to go to the council meeting.

I arrived there about 10 minutes early, and sat in the second row. I was dressed business casual, and open carried on my left hip. The meeting started, pledge, etc., and the meeting went on for about 1 1/2 hours. Nobody said anything to me, but two of the women council members kept staring at me with expressions of hate, as if they could try hard enough to make me burst into flames. I haven't had looks like that since I had the "End the Suffrage" booth at the Lilith Fair. (just kidding).

When the mayor called for a recess, I was gathering up my papers when a man in a suit walked up to me and flashed a police ID. I stayed still as he asked me ""Do you have a permit for your weapon". I replied yes, and he said "Without moving, can you tell me where it is? I stated in my left rear pocket, and how did he want to handle it, me or him getting it. He said "just move slowly and you get it". I handed it and my ID to him and he checked both for about 2 minutes, all the while making small talk with me. He asked me "How do you like your Glock"? I replied "It goes bang every time I pull the trigger, unlike some of my other pistols". He laughed and said "I've always had good luck with them". He then handed back my permit and said "Well, everything's in order, have a nice night" and walked away. I got ready to leave, and when I walked out into the lobby, the man and the mayor (ex Eagan police chief) were standing there, and I thanked the officer for being so professional and low-key and could I have his card so that I could tell the chief about the job that he did. He laughed and said that he WAS the chief, and gave me his card. He and the mayor talked with me for 5 minutes or so about the airport runway noise in my neighborhood, and then I left on friendly terms.

My dilemma:

I wanted to bring up the sign issue, but I didn't want to seem too militant, so I waited for someone to bring up why I was carrying openly, and then I was going to explain how the sign made me feel a little second class, and that criminals weren't going to pay attention anyway, but no one brought it up. Should I

1. Continue to open carry at council meetings until someone in authority inquires

2. Send a letter to the Council stating why I open carried, and to please take down the signs

3. Another letter, but just to the mayor, seeing as how he seemed fairly reasonable

4. Do nothing, the issue isn't as important as I think it is.

Any or all suggestions are welcome, I'd really like to get the signs down, now that I have their attention.

P.S. the chief was really cool, not just faky nice.

Man, that is a heck of a cool story. . . but somebody wiser is gonna hafta answer your dilema. My inclination would be to option #1 though, but I am justa punk from PA so. . .

It’s pretty damn obvious they know that can’t ban.

This is an interesting dilemma.

I vote for talking to the Mayor, first. Since you have already had a casual conversation with him (and the Police Chief) AND they (probably) noticed how polite you were, I think he might be the one to start off the conversation about signage with.

My own suggestion for the first thing to try would be a private conversation with the mayor. If -- and it's an if -- the signs can be taken down without a lot of sturm und drang, he's probably the guy who can do it.

In my attmepts to have signs removed that have been successful I have always politely asked the person in charge in person first then follow up with a phone call if nothing happens within 30 days or the next council meeting, which ever comes first. If you can meet with the mayor that would be great, he is definitely the man who can make the signs come down.

MAybe use Durbin's letter as a model? I think they're treading on thin ice, giving the impression that they're banning.

Well, I went to City Hall this morning and talked to one of the administrative assistants. Apparently, the mayor and council have no formal offices or official phone numbers, and most business is handled at the meeting. I asked the procedure to put something on the agenda, and was told that I should show up at the "listening session" 1/2 hour before the meeting, and if the council thinks it's worth it, then they'll put it on the agenda. She asked me what the matter was about, and when I told her, she immediately turned into one of the lemon suckers from last night. Here are the arguments I gave her:

1. The signs are legally worthless, and my tax dollars were basically wasted on a "up yours" statement to the Legislature.

2. I, as a law-abiding citizen and permit holder, was made to feel like a second-class citizen and not welcome.

3. The signs, while worthless, are placed and worded in a manner that may be construed as 1. intimidating to law abiding people and 2. could be construed as misleading or giving false information to a casual observer that isn't knowledgeable about the law, and good government shouldn't work that way.

4. Criminals don't pay any attention to signs in any case.

I could see I was wasting my breath, so I thanked her politely and left. Here is my tentative agenda:

I have the mayor's home number, I will call him this afternoon and sound him out about the issues above. I will then show up at the listening session and outline the same arguments to the entire council and mayor. If I don't get a satisfactory outcome, then I will continue to open carry at the meetings, and get the word out to CCRN and other interested parties that I'm interested in having some friends attend the meeting with me.

I wish to stress that I have been polite and respectful at all times and to all parties, and will continue to do so. Thanks much for everyone's suggestions, and more feedback is welcomed.

(One moment whil I don my flame retardent suit...I suspect I will need it.)

First, I do not disagree with the "big picture" where a person wants to hold government accountable for their actions, and to require that government conduct their activities in accordance with the law.

What bothers me is an attitude that some have that goes along the line "hey, it is legal, deal with it." I fully realize that in this specific instance that all things were done in a calm, responsible and professional manner,....but.... (and you knew there was a "but" here somewhere!)

I can't see how suggesting that a group of CCRN'ers come open carrying into a council meeting will get anything but (a) bad press; (b) people riled up to "get even" by amending the MCPPA in a manner that is less open than it is now.

I just don't get it.

(Now note that if everything was equal, I prefer open carry etc. However, things are not equal. I believe that we are, as the anti's suggest, a minority...a very small minority...that will openly advocate even the right to carry concealed. Why get the anti's into a possibly more organized fashion. I also think that we have a guaranteed 2A right to bear arms. But, we don't live in my utopia...we live in a State where our right can be taken away on the whim of one Judge. It has already been done. There is, I believe, a time and place for open carry and activism; I just don't believe that it is the correct time nor place for that activism.....yet.)

I have now fully zipped up by suit

No flames, Paul. I respect all points of view.

My point is that my local government has decided to thumb their nose at the law and "pseudo-post". Businesses are free to post or not post, even improperly, as has been discussed in the BW3 thread. Public places are another matter.

Having friends attend the council meeting with me is pretty far down the agenda, after contacting the mayor privately and then the mayor and city council publicly, so I don't think that I'm pulling the red alert alarm prematurely. I am definitely of the school that honey works better, yada yada. However, if I run into a brick wall, then I feel that I should be able to ratchet up my protest level accordingly (always politely, calmly, and respectfully, of course). My model lately had been Virginia and the VCDL. Those cats have their act together. Every time a local government or even state govt starts shenanigans, those guys are at the meetings and in force, and they get stuff done. I also don't see a lot of backlash from them doing it, either. (I have family in the area and keep up on stuff). My school of thought is that rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they go away. If I don't open carry because someone might take away my right to open carry, then I've already lost my right to open carry.

I hope my arguments make sense to you, even if you don't agree. Again, no flames, just honest differences of opinion.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I just have a different perspective on the strength of our political position.

It is my belief, and I have -0- objective data to back this up, is that CCW'ers are (a) a small minority of gun owners in general; (b) a very small minority of our citizenry.

Further, I believe that we are living in an era where how the State ends up leaning on CCW legislation is still unclear. We have activist judges that would very much want to hear a case regarding the legality of the governmental agencies etc. banning guns. I am very suspicious and overly pessimistic that given the opportunity, they would once again rule the MCPPA is unconstitutional, suggesting that the legislation wrongfully removed the police power of governmental bodies and that by forcing them to accept the presence of CCW'ers openly carrying is infringing on the duty of the agency to protect its citizens that attend meetings etc.

I am not suggesting that banning guns is a good idea, far from it. What I am suggesting is that there is, in my belief, a majority...an overwhelming majority, of the voters that would support a ban at public meetings etc., and I don't encourage activity that would bring them to the polls in a more organized and fanatical manner.

Since I believe that our position is very tenuous, I prefer a more cautionary approach...at this time. I don't see the gun laws changing in a broad fashion in our favor, but would be ecstatic if we can make incremental changes each year etc. I fear that riling up the antis is just not a good political move, even if morally and legally correct as to this specific issue.

YMMV, and it does!

Private talks (Mayor and maybe the chief)and go slow ....but be persistent
and explain the sign issues thoroughly.
Another (although long term) remedy would to be more aware of the positions of people that are running for those city council positions. Unfortunately there are folks with some pretty strong bias's that get elected.
When they come knockin @ my door I usually grill them on 2A as well as other issues. I get so tired of the characters that I am almost tempted to throw my hat in the ring sometimes........almost.