I think you may have nailed it tepin, any reason that tazer weren't included in the permit to carry law? That would seem to be a logical way to protect it from bannination ( I just made that word up
)
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| Defeating a taser BAN in Minnesota. http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=4063 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | kimberman [ Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Defeating a taser BAN in Minnesota. |
If we want to STOP THE BAN of Tasers, we've got to start planning now. The House hearing (our best shot) will be on a Tuesday or Thursday from 12:30 - 2:30p.m. in Room 10 (large hearing room) of the State Office Building. We'll be lucky to get 3 days notice. People will have to take time off work. That needs to be arranged in advance. The cops will fill the room with Chiefs and administrators in uniforms. They'll say (exactly as they said in 1985 and 1994) that tasers are offensive weapons (with a 15 foot range?), that cops can't effectively defend themselves (don't the probes have to touch skin?), and the streets will run red with the blood (no historical support in the 25 years that tasers have been around). They will try to ignore the 25 years of evidence that tasers are no significant risk. The opponents of a ban will have to fill the rest of the room. It will best be done with females (nurses, lawyers, college students) who want to protect themselves but don't want to run the risk of killing another human being. A strong female spokesperson would really help. Honestly, I don't know of any. Do you??? Simply put, it's bad public policy to remove non-lethal choices from tens of thousands of civilians. Thousands of Minnesota women carry mace and tasers just because they ARE non-lethal. Should the law force them to go unarmed and alone (there is never a cop nearby when you need one) or to upgrade to deadly weaponry? History shows that the greatest risk of taser abuse comes from rogue LEO's (such as the NYPD officers who tortured sustects in the '80s) not criminals. *********************************************************** On the other hand, as one chief suggested, let 'em ban tasers because it'll increase the number of carry permit holders (and students and gun owners and ...). Hummm? |
|
| Author: | AGoodDay [ Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: that cops can't effectively defend themselves (don't the probes have to touch skin?) No. They can shock through 2 inches of clothing. The old M26 didn't shock through ballistic vests very well, but the new X26 has a shaped pulse that might go through the vest. Can you get a spokesperson from Taser Int'l as well? |
|
| Author: | tepin [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What is the current law on defending yourself against a taser attack (for cops and civilians)? In my opinion, if someone is going to hit me with a taser blast, I am shooting them. Can my heart take the voltage? Am I being incapacitated so I can be moved to a secondary crime scene? Will I crack my skull open when I fall? Is that a taser or a homemade zip gun? Tasers might legally be considered non-lethal but I don’t know the full intent of the person attacking me and once hit with the taser, I cannot defend myself. I propose the taser be added to the MCPPA and the taser be an additional component in the permit to carry training. If a person wants a non-lethal option for defense, they take a carry class and get taser and firearm certified in one step. My $0.02. |
|
| Author: | sigman [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They really would like us disarmed and totally dependent on the government for protection. |
|
| Author: | MNXD9 [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think you may have nailed it tepin, any reason that tazer weren't included in the permit to carry law? That would seem to be a logical way to protect it from bannination ( I just made that word up )
|
|
| Author: | tepin [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
sigman wrote: They really would like us disarmed and totally dependent on the government for protection. I definitely agree with you. |
|
| Author: | tepin [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MNXD9 wrote: I think you may have nailed it tepin, any reason that tazer weren't included in the permit to carry law? That would seem to be a logical way to protect it from bannination ( I just made that word up )No idea. kimberman is the pro on this topic. In my mind, if I am authorized to carry a firearm, I should be able to carry a club, knife, taser or anything as deadly or less deadly than a firearm. I use the term “less deadly” because if I wanted to I could kill you with a #2 pencil. 
|
|
| Author: | sigman [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think we want to open the MCPPA with the current legislators in power. |
|
| Author: | Pakrat [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tasers weren't addressed in the permit to carry a pistol law: 1. Because they aren't pistols (  ), 2. Because electronic incapacitating devices are covered and allowed for most to carry by another statute (624.731)
Who would have thought that anti's would have attacked them? Personally, I didn't. What's up next? Knives, baseball bats, rocks, and hurtful words. |
|
| Author: | tepin [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pakrat wrote: Tasers weren't addressed in the permit to carry a pistol law: 1. Because they aren't pistols ( )...Shotguns and rifles aren’t pistols either. sigman wrote: I don't think we want to open the MCPPA with the current legislators in power. I agree. tasers suck anyway! 
|
|
| Author: | Dick Unger [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It might be good for the carry community to stand tall on carefully selected self defense or individual liberty issues like this, to demonstrate to legislators that we are still a strong political group. I would assume that the anti's will by and by have some gun law proposals to justify the grant money they are getting, and it would be good if legislators discouraged such issues as too controversial. If they get lots of email and a full room just on tasers, it could be a signal that this is not the time for new gun laws. |
|
| Author: | dismal [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Are there bill numbers we can cite if we want to write our legislators? Or hasn't got that far in the process yet? |
|
| Author: | kimberman [ Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No bill numbers yet. We are trying to keep ahead of the curve. In short, Legislators need to hear a SHOUT of protest before the police lobbiests get there, while they are there with a bill, and afterwards until the bill is dead. Lots of real people complaining that they will be injured (because denied a safety tool) if the ban is adopted. |
|
| Author: | MNXD9 [ Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anyone care to share a sample idea of what I should include in my emails. Is it even worth while to email people like Klobuchar? |
|
| Author: | Pakrat [ Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
tepin wrote: Pakrat wrote: Tasers weren't addressed in the permit to carry a pistol law: 1. Because they aren't pistols ( )...Shotguns and rifles aren’t pistols either. They aren't in the Permit to carry a pistol statute either. Carrying long guns are an exception in another statute. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|