If y'all would help in this matter, I would appreciate it!! At least one should be able to surrender their weapon while on base and then retrieve it when they leave.


Dear Senator Coleman,
We have an issue that I feel should be addressed. The issue is that many states now allow concealed carry of weapons by it's citizens and that all military bases prohibit weapons on the base, unless one is living in the barracks, then it must be surrendered to the base armory. I would suggest that a change be made so that a permit holder can, at a minimum, surrender their weapon, temporarily, to base security while that person conducts their business on base. This would require some sort of small storage facility similar to those that are used by our law enforcement officers while inducting a prisoner into confinement. The cost would be miminimal and it would help preserve our 2nd Amendment rights, after our business on base is concluded.

Personally, I feel that NOT allowing a permit holder to NOT have their weapon available is an infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights, but I am willing to make certain concessions to not have to drive a couple of hours one way, conduct my business, and then go about the rest of my business in the area. After all, the permit holders have had background checks, and are probably better citizens than some of our military. To demonstrate the importance of civilians that hold permits, check out this web page: http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=517
It shows that civilian permit holders are almost effective as police in forestalling & preventing violent crime. Granted, there is not a lot of crime on the military bases, but it DOES happen!! As a prior reserve police officer, I have been required to investigate assaults, domestic disputes, and other potentially life-threatening crimes. It always takes some amount of time for a police officer to respond to any given situation.

In closing, I would hope that you would be instrumental in getting this rule/law changed to benefit society and those of us that are law-abiding citizens. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns in this matter.

Respectfully,
BigRobT
USN(ret)

Boy, is your timing crap.

At the very moment you posted this post, My wife and I were having lunch with Norm.

I did discuss Second Amendment rights with him, but military bases wasn’t even on my radar.

How do you get to have lunch with Norm Coleman?

And does he like PBJ?

My Daughter was at a charity event where there was a silent auction. She knows my party affiliation, so signed me up for a “Lunch with Norm Coleman at the St. Paul Grill”. She won it handily, because it was a charity for a musician, where most in attendance were very liberal and mostly Democrats.

I had postponed going for over a year, so she set it up and told me “you’re going to have lunch with Norm on Wednesday”. My wife and I went and had a very enjoyable time. We talked about a whole range of issues that were important to me. Our lunch went over one and half hours.
It was very enjoyable. Norm is a very easy person to converse with. It was interesting to hear about his interaction with people in Washington and his take on issues.

Well, it just figures !!!! I'm not real happy with Norm because of his opposition to drilling in ANWR. All in all, we could use those assets and our footprint would be negligible, IMHO. Otherwise, he's been OK. I will follow up with a phone call and probably a hand written letter, too. Too bad that this didn't occur to me to post that when I first considered the problem. But, alas, that's me, my timing usually does SUCK !!

I did confront Norm regarding exploring and drilling in ANWR. He said that before he was running for the Senate, he made a promise/commitment that he would oppose drilling there. He further stated that because he was a Democrat, tuned Republican, it was hard to get some people to trust what he said or the stands on issues he took. They would say; if he believed one thing, and then joined the opposition, he was not to be trusted. He is trying very hard to stand by a promise he made. He has tried to make this up by aggressively promoting renewable fuels, like ethanol, bio-diesel, etc. He just came back from a trip from Brazil, where he said they are using renewable fuel for a very large percentage of their overall fuel needs. He feels that we can make a very significant difference in our dependence on foreign oil with an effort similar to Brazils.

We also discussed permit to carry issues. He appeared happy that I had a permit to carry a gun. I asked him if he would be in favor of a federal law that would protect our second amendment rights to own, along with our right to carry a weapon for protection. One that would supersede the laws of the few states and municipalities that have or are passing laws attempting disarm us. He stated that he has sympathy for our cause, but is convinced that too many of his colleges are not willing to water down the states rights anymore then they already have, due to the commerce clause.

I'm all for renewable resources, however, those, too have their drawbacks. I've heard(read) that Brazil's capitol has some pretty rough air quality. I wonder if Coleman mentioned that? Secondly, global warming is really elevated by industrialized farming. Does one rob Peter to pay Paul in this matter?? I was listening to Hugh Hewitt on my way to Bill's North last night and on the return trip home. Hugh Hewitt had a discussion about one of our popular alternative fuel vehicles, the Toyota Prius. I found that pretty enlightening. It seems that the batteries used are pretty toxic, when crashes happen, batteries can leak, emergency personnel can be injured from electrical shock, as well as insurance adjusters and body repair people. I look forward to the production and popularity of hydrogen vehicles, myself. But those, too, will have their drawbacks.

Coleman, has yet to address any of my concerns, one is a veteran's issue that is very near & dear to me. I realize he's a busy man, but there are some tweaks needed to be made here & there. I suppose I can respect the man for sticking to his guns, though.

The bolded comment comes off somewhat negative, and may color the rest of the letter. Assuming you are trying to persuade him, honey may work better than vineager.
Maybe something like this?:

"After all, the permit holders have had background checks, and are likely to be as good of citizens as the fine people in our military."

Of course there is something to be said for keeping it short and simple too.

Your rephrasing it does seem more gratuitous and maybe a little more well said, but it's a little late.