Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Paymar Gun Control Amendment Smacked Down on the House Floor

kecker wrote:

One of our 2A-friendly legislators called me from the House floor about an hour ago. Let me know that Paymar tried to include a gun control amendment to the game&fish bill they are currently debating.

A point of order was made that the amendment was non-germane (not related) to the bill. Speaker Kelliher let the body decide if it was germane and it was ruled non-germane by a 91-41 vote.

So on the plus side, it got smacked down hard.

On the down side, I'm not sure what the amendment was, and the legislator didn't have time to go over it all over the phone. Anyone else know what it was?? Was this the same one he's been trying to push in committee or what?

mrokern wrote:

Good news: Yeah, it was the Paymar amendment and the amendment didn't pass.

Bad news...the bill still passed with the uncased crap in place.

This still didn't do us many favors.

-Mark

kecker wrote:

mrokern wrote:

Good news: Yeah, it was the Paymar amendment and the amendment didn't pass.

Bad news...the bill still passed with the uncased crap in place.

This still didn't do us many favors.

-Mark

Errr, so the seven county crap passed?? Then what was the amendment?

JimC wrote:

What's the gun case thing you people don't like?

singhcr wrote:

I thought that Rep. Dill tabled the bill after the amendment was approved so it would not make it out of the Finance committee?

Author:	kecker [ Wed May 13, 2009 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Paymar Gun Control Amendment Smacked Down on the House Floor
One of our 2A-friendly legislators called me from the House floor about an hour ago. Let me know that Paymar tried to include a gun control amendment to the game&fish bill they are currently debating. A point of order was made that the amendment was non-germane (not related) to the bill. Speaker Kelliher let the body decide if it was germane and it was ruled non-germane by a 91-41 vote. So on the plus side, it got smacked down hard. On the down side, I'm not sure what the amendment was, and the legislator didn't have time to go over it all over the phone. Anyone else know what it was?? Was this the same one he's been trying to push in committee or what?

Author:	mrokern [ Wed May 13, 2009 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:
Good news: Yeah, it was the Paymar amendment and the amendment didn't pass. Bad news...the bill still passed with the uncased crap in place. This still didn't do us many favors. -Mark

Author:	joelr [ Wed May 13, 2009 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Paymar Gun Control Amendment Smacked Down on the House F
kecker wrote: One of our 2A-friendly legislators called me from the House floor about an hour ago. Let me know that Paymar tried to include a gun control amendment to the game&fish bill they are currently debating. A point of order was made that the amendment was non-germane (not related) to the bill. Speaker Kelliher let the body decide if it was germane and it was ruled non-germane by a 91-41 vote. So on the plus side, it got smacked down hard. On the down side, I'm not sure what the amendment was, and the legislator didn't have time to go over it all over the phone. Anyone else know what it was?? Was this the same one he's been trying to push in committee or what? Yup.

Author:	kecker [ Wed May 13, 2009 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:
mrokern wrote: Good news: Yeah, it was the Paymar amendment and the amendment didn't pass. Bad news...the bill still passed with the uncased crap in place. This still didn't do us many favors. -Mark Errr, so the seven county crap passed?? Then what was the amendment?

Author:	kecker [ Wed May 13, 2009 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Nevermind, I found your thread on this in another area.... http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12866

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

Paymar Gun Control Amendment Smacked Down on the House Floor http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12869	Page 1 of 2

Author:	mrokern [ Wed May 13, 2009 8:09 pm ]
Post subject:
kecker wrote: mrokern wrote: Good news: Yeah, it was the Paymar amendment and the amendment didn't pass. Bad news...the bill still passed with the uncased crap in place. This still didn't do us many favors. -Mark Errr, so the seven county crap passed?? Then what was the amendment? Paymar's mess was the "gun show loophole" and basically meant registration. Actually, it could have banned private sales entirely depending on how it was interpreted. -Mark

Author:	JimC [ Wed May 13, 2009 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:
What's the gun case thing you people don't like?

Author:	mrokern [ Wed May 13, 2009 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:
JimC wrote: What's the gun case thing you people don't like? http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12431

Author:	singhcr [ Thu May 14, 2009 12:03 am ]
Post subject:
I thought that Rep. Dill tabled the bill after the amendment was approved so it would not make it out of the Finance committee?

Author:	mrokern [ Thu May 14, 2009 6:06 am ]
Post subject:
Link to the MN House page for the bill (HF 1132): http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=1132&ls_year=86&session_year=2009&session_number=0&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Search There's obnoxious language in there. Maybe Kimberman or someone can fill in the blanks as to the history / how it didn't get noticed in time, but it got passed in the House. -Mark

Author:	djeepp [ Thu May 14, 2009 7:14 am ]
Post subject:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesHFS.asp?ls_year=86 Part 3 of Wednesday May 14th. 1:36:00 - Some discussion on the uncased language. 2:05:30 - Paymar offers amendment.

Author:	plblark [ Thu May 14, 2009 7:15 am ]
Post subject:
I believe this is the bill as passed: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls86 Our stuff starts at 14.14 Here's where they sold us out: 14.21(1) within Anoka, Hennepin, or Ramsey county; 14.22(2) within an area where the discharge of a firearm has been prohibited under section 14.23471.633; 14.24(3) within the boundaries of a home rule charter or statutory city with a population 14.25of 2,500 or more; Also note it does not include handguns. Handguns, without a permit, still need to be cased AND unloaded. If it's good enough for long guns, why not handguns? Also note: HF1238 would have allowed Carrying on a permit while Archery hunting Deer. This bill does NOT. Sure, it's not as bad as the 7 county metro area, Now just the most populous counties got shafted!

Author:	mrokern [ Thu May 14, 2009 7:16 am ]
Post subject:
singhcr wrote: I thought that Rep. Dill tabled the bill after the amendment was approved so it would not make it out of the Finance committee? Yup. Similar language got into a different bill.

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Thu May 14, 2009 9:23 am ]
Post subject:
So, I can drive with an uncased and unloaded shotgun from Lakeville to Franklin, MN if I am going there to hunt? If I left the farm to get some lunch I would have to unload and case my shotgun before i got to the city limits of Redwood Falls. After eating at Hardee's in Redwood Falls I could drive from the resturant to the city limit with my shotgun unloaded and cased, then from the city limit to the farm with my shotgun uncased and unloaded. After I finish hunting for the day I could drive from Franklin to Lakeville with my shotgun unloaded and uncased. This makes no sense. (oh yea, I'd have to case my shotgun when I got to the city limits of Winthrop, Gaylord, New Prague, and Lakeville... probably some more too.) Seems to me is this is going to result in: a) everything staying the same b) people fingerfucking their long guns on the sides of the highway before entering a town of 2,500 or more. or most likely c) a bunch of people driving around with guns uncased when they should be cased

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	plblark [ Thu May 14, 2009 9:32 am ]
Post subject:
In trying for a "fix" to remove "inconveniences" it appears to have added levels of complexity and a lot of potential for Gotchas.