I just got a call from the Department of Publc Safety about my letter of notification to carry at the Capital. Aside from the letter, which I got off the reference section, thay also want copies of the front and back of my DL, a copy of my permit and my DOB (isn't that ON my DL?). Might want to update/add the "new" reqirements with the letter in the reference sction.

That's utterly ridiculous. There is nothing in the law that requires you to do anything more than "notify" them. A signed letter from you should be more than suffucient.

If they want to see your permit and your DL, they have computers for that.

I agree. The person I spoke with was very nice and I'm sure she was just doing what her supervisors have told her to do. I emailed the copies to her and she said she would take care of the rest. I'm not really sure what "the rest" is other than put my name on the big "list".

Should it be different? I think yes but I have no idea who I would contact to try and make a change. I'm sure there are those who think I should fight "the man" on this but to quote someone wiser than me, "how much justice can you afford?"

They have something that they call "DVS"...they can look up any driver in MN and get your DL information...as well as your previous few pictures.

Well, I did send exactly that, sent a copy of my drivers license and Minnesota permit to carry, both front and back. I actually have a few copies that I have made up for when I mail order certain restricted items, so I just sent that because I already have them made up.

There's nothing wrong with sending it voluntarily, but they can't require you to do anything but notify them. If they have any doubts about your identity, they have the permit database, the drivers' license database, a whole staff of investigators, and a telephone.

I know many don't see the harm in giving bureaucrats an inch. The problem is, we don't have a lot of yards to spare.

Just a dumb question, did you happen to send your letter of notification to the DPS and not to the Capital? I sent mine directly to the Capital many years ago. Maybe that is why the DPS is asking.

Well, the law says you have to notify the DPS commissioner, so the DPS commissioner would be the right place to send the letter.

I dunno. I think that, where the law doesn't specify otherwise, it's just good practice to not seek the absolute minimum in such things, but the reasonable minimum. That's why I think it makes sense to throw some extra paperwork at them, and add some additional verbiage -- which is why the notice letter that David (mainly) and I wrote, some years ago, reads the way it does. It could be half as long and still cover the required bases, but it explains what it's about, and I think that's a good use of a little toner.

The other thing that militates in favor of it is "they're playing nice, so let's play nice." Even before 2005 and the, err, moments of unusual interest, I've consistently found the Capitol cops to be service-oriented professionals, and making things a little easier for them doesn't bother me any.

Now, were the atmosphere there start to change, I'd reexamine that, but I don't think it will.

I stand corrected. What I was remembering was a reply from a captain at the Capital.

Yeah, that's where the commish apparently forwards the letters to be filed or "listed."

Agreed. But they HAVE NO RIGHT to say "your notification is insufficient" and such behavior needs to be FIRMLY stomped out as soon as it appears.

Pretty soon the policy will morph into a "if your name is on the list' kind of thing.

But it's NOT the time to press this issue. We don't want Capitol Security to ask the legislature to open up the MPPA for "just this one issue", with the present composition of the legislature.

Agreed to the first; no, it doesn't, to the second. It would be nice if it could be, but since I don't think that it will be, I'm glad that I don't think that it needs to be.

Realistically, the only way to stomp it out that I can see is to threaten to generate a test case. (There may be ways to reason it away, although I'm skeptical.) And then force the authorities to play along, and go to trial -- in RamseyCo -- and win on at least the District level. (Better: lose on the first two rounds and win at the Supreme Court.)

Reasoning it away would be simpler -- somebody with some credibility just has to call up Michael Campion, the Commissioner of Public Safety, get him on the phone, explain the issue to him, and good, service-oriented civil servant that he is --

Oops. Nevermind.

A test case would be, they'd deny you entry, you'd refuse, you get arrested, you get it dismissed.

The Capitol Security would use the test case to explain to the Metros on the Public Safety Committees that the situation requires a change in the MPPA for the securtiy of everyone in the building. They will approve a bill that at least the Dem leadership will endorse to assist Capitol Security in keeping them safe.

And then other Amendments to MPPA will be proposed for debate. The Amendments will be things like, repeal, go back to discretionary issue etc. It's a vulnerable time, TPaw already suffered a veto.

Test cases are fun only when you win.