Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Bill to remove closed case requirement for transporting

Pakrat wrote:

So, this bill has nothing to do with hunting? It is only meant to allow people to carry without a permit in their car?

Mosin wrote:

The current text of the bill is inaccurate. The bill in no way is meant to allow the transportation of loaded long guns.

Mosin wrote:

The bill is simply meant to remove the casing requirement for long guns no matter what your reason for transporting i.e. hunting, range, fun, etc.

Pakrat wrote:

Is there a real bill text?

Pakrat wrote:

What you are saying is that they only are removing the case requirement? You would still have to unload it?

Is there a real bill text?

Are they trying to pull one over on anti's? "I know what the bill says, but that's not what it really says...." ?

Quote:

I do not plan on making any changes on the pistol portion. All that would do would be open up the pistol Pers Protection Act and make this bill germain (sic) for changes on the floor where enemies of the Pers Protection Act would try to change it and destroy it. We won't make any changes to pistol law with this law.

This would not be a step back. This would be a state law that would still pre empt them. If you can't discharge a firearm within a city, there's really no need to carry uncased. It would be nice, but it would make too much of a stink and cause cities to fight the bill. I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city. Meaning everything just stays the way it is now. We'll see where that goes, however.

Pakrat wrote:

Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this.

Quote:

I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city

DeanC wrote:

Lenny7 wrote:

if it's someone else's truck, find a different truck to ride in.

That works great 20 miles from town and there's only one truck.

It didn't happen to me, it happened to someone else in ND where it is legal. It makes for a spoiled hunting trip and bad business.

It's one of those stupid things you wouldn't think you'd have to ask about before booking the trip. "Uh, by the way, are your kids going to get fidgety and ride around with one in the tube?"

It's even worse when the father is a very long-time business associate and a top-notch, very responsible professional whom you pay thousands and thousands of dollars to every year. You wouldn't dream he'd permit this, but he does and it's legal. Besides, you aren't really road hunting anyhow, you are driving from field to field where you have permission to hunt.

It's a no-win situation in my opinion. You are basically giving carry rights in the car to anyone 14 and up (who already has a firearm safety certificate) with no new training. I'm sure DNR instructors would add a unit on that for all of our new classes and that would help. But I see so many downsides to it.

I like the freedom aspect of it, be our culture is so firearms knowledge impoverished it scares me.

Pakrat wrote:

Andrew Rothman wrote:

No no no no no!

Every city already regulates the discharge of firearms.

Why not just leave it as is: no casing requirement, no unloading requirement, period.

If necessary, give in on unloading, but WE DO NOT NEED the extra bullshit of trying to figure out city limits, population size, and all that nonsense.

Pakrat wrote:

I agree less is better, like the original text of the bill. I was addressing the modifications that the bill author seemed to want to add.

Author:	Mosin [ Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: So, this bill has nothing to do with hunting? It is only meant to allow people to carry without a permit in their car? I would say no, and no. The bill is simply meant to remove the casing requirement for long guns no matter what your reason for transporting i.e. hunting, range, fun, etc. However, since these issues came up in committee today. My concerns now are: 1. Clarify "carry" of long guns for permit holders in vehicles 2. Don't mess with current preemption It seems this is the time to provide our input while it is committee and open to discussion. As far as it being a trap. Dill and Cornish were authors of MCPPA. Which leads me to believe there is good to come out of this bill somewhere. Maybe?

Author:	Pakrat [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:40 am ]
Post subject:
Mosin wrote: The current text of the bill is inaccurate. The bill in no way is meant to allow the transportation of loaded long guns. Mosin wrote: The bill is simply meant to remove the casing requirement for long guns no matter what your reason for transporting i.e. hunting, range, fun, etc. What you are saying is that they only are removing the case requirement? You would still have to unload it? Is there a real bill text? Are they trying to pull one over on anti's? "I know what the bill says, but that's not what it really says...." ?

Author:	DeanC [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:19 am ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: Is there a real bill text? The first version: Haven't seen the "new" draft yet. And - here's the link to the first draft: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin ... ssion=ls86 Just to get everyone back up to speed.

Author:	Mosin [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:15 am ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: What you are saying is that they only are removing the case requirement? You would still have to unload it? Is there a real bill text? Are they trying to pull one over on anti's? "I know what the bill says, but that's not what it really says...." ? Yea, right now it appears as though they are only going to go after removing the casing requirement. The gun will still have to be unloaded. Major disappointment... I have had the same thought about maybe they are trying to pull one over on the antis but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Author:	Mosin [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:18 am ]
Post subject:
Just received an email back from Cornish and Dill. Quote: I do not plan on making any changes on the pistol portion. All that would do would be open up the pistol Pers Protection Act and make this bill germain (sic) for changes on the floor where enemies of the Pers Protection Act would try to change it and destroy it. We won't make any changes to pistol law with this law. This would not be a step back. This would be a state law that would still pre empt them. If you can't discharge a firearm within a city, there's really no need to carry uncased. It would be nice, but it would make too much of a stink and cause cities to fight the bill. I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city. Meaning everything just stays the way it is now. We'll see where that goes, however.

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

Bill to remove closed case requirement for transporting http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11475	Page 4 of 4

Author:	Pakrat [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this.

Author:	Mosin [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this. I think that's where the comment Quote: I'd actually rather just say that this bill did not apply in any city Comes into play. Not sure yet what will constitute a city though.

Author:	kecker [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:
DeanC wrote: Lenny7 wrote: if it's someone else's truck, find a different truck to ride in. That works great 20 miles from town and there's only one truck. It didn't happen to me, it happened to someone else in ND where it is legal. It makes for a spoiled hunting trip and bad business. It's one of those stupid things you wouldn't think you'd have to ask about before booking the trip. "Uh, by the way, are your kids going to get fidgety and ride around with one in the tube?" It's even worse when the father is a very long-time business associate and a top-notch, very responsible professional whom you pay thousands and thousands of dollars to every year. You wouldn't dream he'd permit this, but he does and it's legal. Besides, you aren't really road hunting anyhow, you are driving from field to field where you have permission to hunt. It's a no-win situation in my opinion. You are basically giving carry rights in the car to anyone 14 and up (who already has a firearm safety certificate) with no new training. I'm sure DNR instructors would add a unit on that for all of our new classes and that would help. But I see so many downsides to it. I like the freedom aspect of it, be our culture is so firearms knowledge impoverished it scares me. I see what you're saying, however, when you boil it down this situation is the same as every other situation that has been used as "evidence" of the need for nanny-state laws because people can't be parents to their kids.

Author:	Andrew Rothman [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: Instead of putting it on the city to remind them that they can regulate the discharge of firearms, why not say 'not within city limits' or 'not within a city with x number of people?' Cities would be tripping over themselves to regulate the discharge of firearms after hearing this. No no no no no! Every city already regulates the discharge of firearms. Why not just leave it as is: no casing requirement, no unloading requirement, period. If necessary, give in on unloading, but WE DO NOT NEED the extra bullshit of trying to figure out city limits, population size, and all that nonsense.

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:
The practical problem with a restriction in city limits is that you then have to have a case available. People who live in states that don't require cases often don't own them. They use gun racks, especially in those states that require firearms in vehicles to be clearly visible, or nothing at all. For a utility firearm (where scratches don't really matter much) used for hunting and kept in a safe at home a case is just extra expense.

Author:	Pakrat [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:24 am ]
Post subject:
Andrew Rothman wrote: No no no no no! Every city already regulates the discharge of firearms. Why not just leave it as is: no casing requirement, no unloading requirement, period. If necessary, give in on unloading, but WE DO NOT NEED the extra bullshit of trying to figure out city limits, population size, and all that nonsense. I agree it's safe to assume every city regulates, but that's not necessarily true. I agree less is better, like the original text of the bill. I was addressing the modifications that the bill author seemed to want to add.

Author:	Mosin [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Pakrat wrote: I agree less is better, like the original text of the bill. I was addressing the modifications that the bill author seemed to want to add. It seems the original text (intent), which got me excited, is disappearing quickly. I could really care less about casing the gun if I have to unload it anyhow. The only way this would benefit me now is in that I wouldn't have to worry about owning enough cases for all my long guns. And we wouldn't have to wait for a car to go get our cases from the other end of a field so we can drive to our next spot.

Page 4 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/