Yea, I would not be in favor of adding anything that can be perverted by the anti's.

With that said; Maybe anyone under 21 who wishes to pack should have a zero-tolerance restriction on alcohol/drugs and packing. Taking that a step further, maybe alcohol related offenses can cause you to lose your permit until 21. Just an idea to help slide it through. The more restrictions, the happier the anti's are.

Mobo, by: "I *would* like to see daycares completely exempted.", do you mean they should be a no gun zone? I disagree. I would be for stiffer penalties for zones where if a gun is used in a criminal manor. I cannot get behind any no gun zones, they do not make sense. (possible exception for gun shows. Where people may pull out a loaded gun.) If the gun is in a holster, there is no more danger than a no gun zone.

One thing that I would caution against is negotiating with ourselves. There's nothing wrong at all with trying to figure out what makes sense, and discussing and disagreeing about that.

What I'd caution against is making premature concessions to mollify either the antis -- who can't be mollified -- or to get weak votes that we may not even need.

Or, for that matter, to mollify people who don't properly have a say in it. I'm told that neither the Minnesota Sheriffs Association, nor their counterpart down the hall at the Police Chiefs Association would like to see any further improvements in the carry law this coming session. My own take is, roughly: so what? Neither the chiefs nor the sheriffs have been supporters of carry reform until, at best, recently, and then weakly, at best. Their secret meetings to try to control the instructor certification process didn't gain them any credibility. So, in my opinion, they are not stakeholders in this, and their opinion should be given the same weight that any other obstructionist group's opinion should be.

My proposal would be to start with the Alaska or Vermont model. That is what we all should be working towards.

GS

I'd like daycares to be seen as requiring proper posting if they want to ban, not automatically banned from CCW as they are now.

I'm personally irritated by this because my daycare has also had 3-4 smash-grab car break-ins in the past 8-9 months, which means I have to make a lot of BS side trips to do daycare pickup or dropoff if I'm carrying.

I'm pretty sure I feel the same way about the idiocy of banning at schools, too.

Small bites. The best is the enemy of the good -- and Alaska didn't get there overnight. Give us another eight or so years of improved carry laws and the sky not falling, and we'll have a sound political argument for an Alaska-model law. (I'd much rather have an Alaska-style law than a Vermont-style one.)

Right now, we don't have the votes in the Legislature for anything close to either. But we do have enough votes -- if we apply sufficient effort -- to move the ball forward significantly, and protect Minnesota against future secret meetings at the Minnesota Sheriffs Association. Add in fixing the schools problem, fixing the 18-to-21 problem, and fixing the of-of-state permits problem, and that would be a real -- and doable -- victory for this year.

I agree with you that that is what we should be working toward -- but that's not the next step. It's not the next step not because it's undesirable, but because it's not doable.

That said, your view is one that I'd like to see expressed more -- and the February CCRN/GOCRA meeting would be a terrific place for it. Hope to see you there.

The proposals listed are entirely sensible. I support them, both as an individual, and representing MADFI.

During the period of time when new permits were not being issued, I carried (legally, under the pre-2003 laws then in effect) into several schools.

And I never felt the need to shoot the place up, either.

Similarly, 18-, 19- and 20-year-old permit holders were never a problem in Minnesota between 1974 and 2003; I doubt they will be in 2007, either.

Obviously, I favor having several must-issue training organizations written into the law, not at the whim of a political appointee. I am pleased that MADFI has been suggested, of course, but beyond that, I recognize that having several written into law -- whichever they are -- would render moot any attempt to deny permits by choking off the supply of instructors.

As a permit-holder, I am frustrated by how few states accept Minnesota permits, and acknowledge that this is caused by the very few states' permits that Minnesota recognizes.

Again, this is something that is clearly spelled out in law, not subject to a bureaucrat's interpretation. If five states make the grade during a pro-carry governor's tenure, how will we fare with an anti at the helm?

These are common-sense proposals.

I know, I know -- common sense and political reality have nothing in common. But victory often goes to those who show up.

Please show up -- today, at the CCRN meeting, next month at the February CCRN meeting, and by contacting your legislators.

The ball is in our court; get in the game.

How about the ones like me that would not be written in to the law?
I would think the LEO. could deny premit to the ones that took my class. By saying that he not in the law. Please take your class from AACFI,MADFI etc......

What's the history of carry in Alaska? I would have assumed that given the wildnerness nature of Alaska that open carry would have been accepted if not actually legal.

Right now, your classes are must-accept -- but only as long as the DPS commissioner -- an appointee -- recognizes you.

A hypothetical DPS Commissioner Skoglund might be tempted to decertify all sixty-or-so training orgs, leaving ZERO, to choke off the supply of new permits.

If there were three or four large must-issues in the LAW, Skogie wouldn't be able to choke off the supply of trainers, and thus wouldn't see any advantage to decertifying you and 60 others.

Getting at least some must-issue orgs into the law is an insurance policy for the rest.

If Skoglund could choke off say, 56 of the 60 he would do it. I know Skoglund for about 33 years now and have work with him back in the 70's and he would do it. I would like to see the law have guidelines for becoming a certify training orgs and must certify the orgs, if they meet the guidelines. They should be all or none of the names in the law. I know there 2 or 3 names in the law now and some wants 2 or 3 more names in the law too. This is not a good thing were you would only have say 5 or 6 names in the law. Look at the 1 or 2 that wanted to be the only ones and the HATE that went on for months here. Now there 2 or 3 more that wants to do the same here and the hell with the another 56 orgs.

You're mistaken, Mark. Right now there are ZERO civilian organizations in the law.

We have "none," and it's far more risky than "some."

In the 2003 law, there were two big ones -- NRA and AACFI -- and there was little problem getting certified by the state.

That arrangement created a sort of stasis that made it impractical and pointless to play political tricks with the rest of the instructors.

Ok it was in the 2003 law. Why only have a few orgs. in this new law this year? Why not have as I said before "guidelines" in the law the all orgs. must follow, and as long as they do the State cannot refuse them. I can see down the road that if we only have a few orgs. in the law what would keep the State from telling the other orgs. to bad so sad you are out. Why is it that we only hear talk about a few orgs.? Would you only want to see, AACFI,NRA,MADFI and IFIA be the main ones? Then last year they was one or two orgs. that try to be the only ones that could teach the classes. I can recall back in 2003 that the few orgs. was going around saying that they where the only one that can teach the carry class.

You're right, Mark. That would be even better. As long as there is no discretion written in on the part of bureaucrats, that could work.

I personally disagree with reducing shall issue carry to 18 years old. While there are very mature 18 year olds who would be fine to carry, there are a lot that would not and there does need to be some restriction on carry by 18 year olds. Having graduated from high school, for example. Peer pressure for those people is high, and I can't trust that someone like that wouldn't do something stupid. I understand that it wasn't a problem in the pre-2003 laws, but those were also may-issue, not shall-issue. While shall-issue is a great thing, I doubt that many 18 year olds were carrying under may-issue in other than rural or light suburban area's.

The other two things that I would like to see, if it wouldn't be a bad idea to propose them, is reasonable laws to allow people with permits to carry to possess firearms in their dorm rooms and on campus at college, and the duty to retreat removed or at least acceptably modified. I find it disturbing that the place where women are most likely to be sexually assaulted is the place where they live and are not allowed to defend themselves.

"Those people" has been used to deny people their rights for thousands of years.

18-year-olds are adults in the eyes of the law. They can sign contracts, they can go to jail, they can serve in the armed forces and they can vote.

Why deny them the right to personal protection on the untested basis that some in their age group might do something stupid? Stupidity knows no age, as I'm sure we've all seen.

For that matter, why not propose raising the carry age to 23, like Missouri -- or 45 or 65 or 90?

You're thinking like a gun-grabber.



I'd wager that 90% of dormitory residents are under 21, so I don't see how you reconcile those two opinions.