Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

My legislative proposal for next year
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=672		 Page 1 of 8
Author:  joelr [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:27 pm ]
Post subject:  My legislative proposal for next year
I'm going to be sending out a Year in Review e-mail to the Activism mailing list -- see http://www.twincitiescarry.com/activism -- sometime soon, probably over the weekend, and in that I'm going to be putting forward both my reasons for legislative action this year in Minnesota, and my proposal.

I'm hoping to get as much support as possible from folks both on and off the Forum, and am expecting some controversy over one of the proposals, in particular. (You'll know it when you see it.)

Before the e-mail goes out, I did want to get some feedback from folks both here and elsewhere; so I'm posting the present draft of my proposal right here.

Here it is; the floor is open for discussion:

I'm proposing the following: that we advocate for the following improvements to the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act :

1. Change the "must accept" language so that the sheriffs must accept certificates from instructors who are certified by any one or more of the following organizations: AACFI, MADFI, Society for the Advancement of Firearms Education (SAFE), and NRA, removing the discretion of the DPS with regard to instructors certified by any of those organizations.

Modify the present language so that the Commissioner Public Safety may certify additional organizations, and that certificates issued by instructors from those additional organizations, too, must be accepted by all Minnesota sheriffs. (See below for both my disclosure of my relationships with all of those organizations, and for my reasoning as to why they should be included in the statutory language.)

2. Lower the minimum age for permit holders from 21 back to 18, as was the case pre-2003.

3. Remove the ban on carry in schools, and put schools in the same category as other businesses and governmental entities -- governmental entities not being allowed to restrict carry; private businesses allowed to post, or not, as they choose.

4. Mandate the acceptance of all carry permits issued by any state.

5. I'm labeling this set of proposals the "2007 MCPPA Improvement Proposals," just so we'll all know what we're talking about.

For strategic reasons, I strongly believe that the legislation should originate in the Minnesota Senate, not the House. The Senate is where we have a smaller majority; if we can get a good bill out of the Senate, it should be relatively easy to pass in the House. While I can't speak for Senator Pat Pariseau, I can say that there has been no stronger advocate for self-defense rights in the state of Minnesota, and that it she would be willing to run with this, reform could not possibly be in better hands.


Disclosures, disclaimers, and such:

While I'm not an officer, official, spokesman for, or employee of any of those organizations, I have the following relationships with them: I am certified by AACFI as an Instructor, and Certifying Instructor. They publish my book, "Everything You Need to Know about (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota," and I receive royalties from the sale of that book, and smaller royalties when their Permit to Carry course is taught, as I co-wrote that. I am certified by MADFI as a carry permit instructor. I'm certified by NRA as an Instructor in Personal Protection, Home Firearms Safety, Basic Pistol, and First Steps, and I am an NRA Certified Range Officer. I have no relationship at all with The Society for the Advancement of Firearms Education.

Why those? NRA, obviously, is the gold standard for firearms safety training in the United States, and elsewhere. Both SAFE and MADFI are nonprofit firearms training organizations, which make certification easily affordable for qualified instructors. AACFI, while a for-profit company, has a comprehensive presentation and training program for Minnesota carry permit applicants, and its instructors have trained, I believe, a plurality of carry permit applicants. (I can't pretend to any objectivity about the course, or the book that they use -- see above -- but I do think that is a fair characterization.)

Of all of those, if I had to give up one, it would be AACFI, as I believe that AACFI could very easily qualify for certification by the Department of Public Safety, and, at least arguably, mandatory statutory "must accept" provisions should be for nonprofit organizations.

That said, as I've said before, and will say again, I believe that AACFI being written into the 2003 law as a "must accept" worked to the benefit not only of AACFI instructors, but of NRA instructors, and non-affiliated instructors.
Author:  Srigs [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
All in all I like it. Items #2 and 3 will be the most problematic with #2 more likely of the two to be accepted. Good idea having the Senate pass it first should make things go smoothly!

Nice job. :)
Author:  JDR [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
If it comes to it, and changes have to come a little at a time, I would prefer to see #3 enacted, over #2.

Once an attempt to change the law is started what do the ante’s have available to them for us to deal with, besides a lot of money and a few people with a lot of time on their hands?
Author:  Steelheart [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:19 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd love to see #3 passed into law. I'd think with the right set of facts/statistics you could get non-closed minded educators on board.

#2 would be nice but I have some reservations regarding the maturity of younger adults. Yes I know, you have to draw the line somewhere... maybe let ages 18-21 be somewhat discretionary, but not as open as under the old law. Would their completion of school be a factor (ie, have they graduated or achieved a GED cert.)?

For #4 are you thinking along the line of what's been reported from Wis.? I'd be all in favor of any state that has a background check done to get the permit be allowed. I haven't looked it up but I'm assuming that most if not all states that issue a permit perform a check.

As far as #1, I haven't followed that close enough to state a real opinion.

Steelheart
Author:  chunkstyle [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:07 am ]
Post subject: 
I think reciprocity is the most important issue. I want my permit recognized as widely as possible. If this means MN must recognize all permits from other states, all the better.
Author:  matt160 [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:35 am ]
Post subject: 
IMO 4, 3, 1, & 2. I have received a campaign donation request from Sen. Pariseau and I think I will send a copy of the 2007 MCPPA Improvement Proposals with my donation. Even though she is not my senator she did a lot of the work for us in the senate.
Author:  matt160 [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:37 am ]
Post subject: 
You may also want to cross post to Livejournal too.
Author:  gunflint [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:54 am ]
Post subject: 
I agree that #4 is the most important issue. I also have reservations about #2. However, when you're negotiating issues like these you always ask for more than you want and settle for a little less.
Author:  lastgunshop [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My legislative proposal for next year
joelr wrote:
I'm labeling this set of proposals the "2007 MCPPA Improvement Proposals," just so we'll all know what we're talking about.

If this takes place in 2006 and pass, why is it called 2007 MCPPA? :?
Author:  lastgunshop [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: My legislative proposal for next year
joelr wrote:
1. Change the "must accept" language so that the sheriffs must accept certificates from instructors who are certified by any one or more of the following organizations: AACFI, MADFI, Society for the Advancement of Firearms Education (SAFE), and NRA, removing the discretion of the DPS with regard to instructors certified by any of those organizations.

Modify the present language so that the Commissioner Public Safety may certify additional organizations, and that certificates issued by instructors from those additional organizations, too, must be accepted by all Minnesota sheriffs.
Joel I'm certified by the Commissioner Public Safety under my own organization. I must be missing something here. Don't they do this now? :? :? :?
Author:  Pakrat [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:12 am ]
Post subject: 
lastgunshop wrote:
If this takes place in 2006 and pass, why is it called 2007 MCPPA? :?

Because it would go into effect in 2007?

lastgunshop wrote:
Joel I'm certified by the Commissioner Public Safety under my own organization. I must be missing something here. Don't they do this now? :? :? :?

(#1) It looks to me that Joel would like some hardcoded organizations so the DPS cannot just force everyone out. Right now, the certified organizations are only certified because the DPS made some arbitrary guidelines. Those could be changed at any time.

While I see a reason for concern, I don't think it's a priority.

I would like to see the infamous OR changed back to an AND in regards to banning guns. Maybe other things to make banning guns harder or more ridiculous. So people won't want to post the signs.

(#2) As far as the minimum age, I would love to see it set to 18. The problem is because of our alcohol age limit being 21, 21 is the adult age now. Seriously, I don't know how the smoking age hasn't gotten up'd to 21. Well, I guess the alcohol limit is different. I do think that should be put down to at least 19. The problem there is minors with adult friends. What is a 18 year old going to do with a gun, give it to a minor? oooooo.

(#3) I would like to see the school restriction removed; either completely or make it like the capitol (notice required). The latter being a settle point (if needed).

(#4) I think the highest priority is changing the wording of the reciprocity section. If we can't go to a WI (proposed bill) style of honoring (basically) all other state's permits, then we need to remove the word "substantially". The only thing I'd add to WI's (proposed) style would be actual reciprocity agreement ability. That way they could fill the gaps, so to speak (if there are any).

Still with #4, I don't know if I should admit this openly, I don't know how you all feel. I don't think I would be opposed to a residence restriction (like WI's and SD). So, you have to have a MN permit if you live in MN. Maybe that can be the settle point.
Author:  BigRedBowtie [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:46 am ]
Post subject: 
School, schools, schools. I'd put that on the front burner.

Second in line would be the age to 18- c'mon- it's for the children!!
Author:  mobocracy [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:59 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm not picking on you Pakrat, but your post was so nicely laid out I used it to add my own comments!

Pakrat wrote:
I would like to see the infamous OR changed back to an AND in regards to banning guns. Maybe other things to make banning guns harder or more ridiculous. So people won't want to post the signs.


I must be either getting bold, stupid or some combination thereof because I so seldom see a proper posting that I've kind of begun interpreting those signs as _really_ saying "XYZ Requires Concealed Guns" -- and at worst they have to ask you to leave and as long as you comply, there's no harm.

Quote:
(#2) As far as the minimum age, I would love to see it set to 18. The problem is because of our alcohol age limit being 21, 21 is the adult age now. Seriously, I don't know how the smoking age hasn't gotten up'd to 21. Well, I guess the alcohol limit is different. I do think that should be put down to at least 19. The problem there is minors with adult friends. What is a 18 year old going to do with a gun, give it to a minor?


I'm all over the map on this one. As a society we seem to increasingly extend "childhood" well into the late teens to the extent that I have serious reservations about the general maturity of most 18 year olds, and specifically their ability to make life or death decisions. Obviously some 18 year olds are more mature than 50 year olds, but this is an exception rather than a rule, and I think the actuaries at most insurance companies would agree.

Quote:
(#3) I would like to see the school restriction removed; either completely or make it like the capitol (notice required). The latter being a settle point (if needed).


I think the notice is a reasonable compromise and probably required to overcome the "think of the children" fortress paranoia associated with schools. I *would* like to see daycares completely exempted.

Quote:
(#4) I think the highest priority is changing the wording of the reciprocity section. If we can't go to a WI (proposed bill) style of honoring (basically) all other state's permits, then we need to remove the word "substantially". The only thing I'd add to WI's (proposed) style would be actual reciprocity agreement ability. That way they could fill the gaps, so to speak (if there are any).


Would a change in our reciprocity rules give us easier/better/faster/more reciprocity with other states?

Quote:
Still with #4, I don't know if I should admit this openly, I don't know how you all feel. I don't think I would be opposed to a residence restriction (like WI's and SD). So, you have to have a MN permit if you live in MN. Maybe that can be the settle point.


If they make reciprocity work, I don't see why a residency restriction would be a huge issue. But if they won't play nice with that, non-resident permits keep the broader national reciprocity issue a little more flexible.

IIRC, the passing margin increased the second time around, but I'm always worried that opening the law to ammendments increases the chances that the hard-core anti-gun minority will take the opportunity to poison us somehow. I will admit that living in Minneapolis does make me see gun control advocates under every rock.
Author:  squib_joe [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 
mobocracy wrote:

Quote:
(#2) As far as the minimum age, I would love to see it set to 18. The problem is because of our alcohol age limit being 21, 21 is the adult age now. Seriously, I don't know how the smoking age hasn't gotten up'd to 21. Well, I guess the alcohol limit is different. I do think that should be put down to at least 19. The problem there is minors with adult friends. What is a 18 year old going to do with a gun, give it to a minor?


I'm all over the map on this one. As a society we seem to increasingly extend "childhood" well into the late teens to the extent that I have serious reservations about the general maturity of most 18 year olds, and specifically their ability to make life or death decisions. Obviously some 18 year olds are more mature than 50 year olds, but this is an exception rather than a rule, and I think the actuaries at most insurance companies would agree.


I have to agree here, although I might be in favor of allowing carry permits to those under 21 in active military service.
Author:  joelr [ Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:19 am ]
Post subject: 
It's always best to assume the worst about the anti-gun folks, but if this were to be put forward with a principal author who was reliable -- Pat Pariseau comes to mind -- there's an easy check on that: if an anti-gun committee were to do what Skoglund's committee did last time, to lard up the bill with stupid amendments, those could be stripped out on the floor by amendment. As a last-ditch defense, the principal author could kill the bill rather than letting a bad bill go to a vote. Even if a bad bill were to come out of the Senate -- vanishingly unlikely; see above -- the large pro-self-defense majority in the House could be counted on to vote it down.

Short form: nothing to worry about.


Right or wrong, there's reasons for each of my suggested modifications. And, for that matter, for the title -- which Pakrat has already figured out.

Certification -- right now, the certification program seems to be working well. In order to make sure that it continues to work well, it's necessary that there be several organizations that don't have to go through it, thereby protecting would-be permit holders from a future Commissioner of public safety, who might be -- and if appointed by certain gubernatorial candidates, would be -- much less reasonable, and could see the limiting instructor organizations as a way to limit the number of permits issued or renewed. Generally speaking, I think the statutorily mandated instructor certification organizations should be nonprofits; I'm suggesting an exception for AACFI, for the reasons I specified.

If that were to be put in place, it would disadvantage none of the present instructor organizations, as most of those consist largely or entirely of NRA-certified instructors, and the few that didn't would still be able to get certified by the DPS.

18 year olds -- let's put the theoretical issues aside. Under the pre-2003 law, 18 year olds could get permits. The sky didn't fall. No reason not to go back to what was working.

Schools -- see above. Limiting carry in the schools by permit holders was something that was put in as a compromise in 2003, to get some weak votes. We don't need those weak votes anymore, and the Principals Association, which demanded that as their price for not opposing carry reform in 2003 didn't keep their part of the bargain -- they simply opposed it under another umbrella organization.

Recognition of all outstate permits -- is the single best way to counter inappropriate use of the discretion of sheriffs in Minnesota to both deny applicants and keep permit prices artificially high. See Missouri as the example; the St. Louis County sheriff got an exemption from the Missouri law. It's turned out to be no problem; people in that county simply got their Florida or their Pennsylvania permits, and avoided the nonsense in their home state entirely. As a practical matter, Michigan has accepted outstate permits (although, in practice, only from the permit holder's home state) for a very long time, and they've had no problem with it. New Hampshire has been willing to issue outstate permits to anybody with a permit from their home state, as well; they've had no problem either.

It's simply a very clean way to both provide an additional check on the sheriffs, and make it possible for people visiting Minnesota to carry their handguns for self-protection without going through the hassle of finding training, applying, and then waiting up to 30 days.

Any of that make sense? I'd be tempted to add in a couple of proposals as negotiating bait -- things that I think were overreaching, and could be easily dispensed with -- but that's really not my style. I think that all four of the proposals are reasonable, and should be implemented, and that it would be a big win for Minnesota if any one were, and the more of them implemented, the better.
Page 1 of 8 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/