| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
| Dayton, MN city code and preemption http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=14218 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | BigBlue [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
Best thing you can do is to talk to your neighbors about this topic. At least the ones who you know are not anti-gun. Get them to contact city council members and share their views. The more people your council members hear from the more they will take it seriously. Cities do these types of things for several reasons: in response to complaints, because someone has a political agenda, or because staff wants to appear to look like they are 'doing something useful'. In Dayton, with its relative lack of new development, I doubt whether this has been prompted by complaints. So either some staff our council member has an agenda or the staff is just bored. It is your city. That means that you and your neighbors have clout. Regardless of what staff and the police chief want it is the will of the (perceived) majority that will win out. Keep working those council members. BB |
|
| Author: | kecker [ Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
BrianB wrote: There is a great story behind that mansion on the river. Or at least I have been told a great story about that mansion. At risk of hijacking this thread, I think there are about 30 great stories about that mansion or at least I've heard that many. Still not sure which one to believe. In any case, very nice shack. |
|
| Author: | clevang [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
Just got a look at the newest version of the proposed weapons ordinance that will come up for a vote tonight at the city counsel meeting. They have removed all of the provisions on firearm possesion. It looks like it is at least legal now... They are only keeping the 1000ft rule for hunting on lakes. There is still some stuff in there on paint balls and such that I think is dumb, which I am talking to a counsel member about. But, in its current form, it is better than what we have on the books now. Thanks for all the advice. The Mansion: I have heard everything from, its Kenny Rogers, to some guys ex wife has a house on the other side of the river and he built it to spite her. |
|
| Author: | BigBlue [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
Good job on keeping tabs on this stuff. It is people like you who help keep the rules/laws sane. The story I heard about the mansion was the second one you mentioned. BB |
|
| Author: | BrianB [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
Ex-wife story is the one I know as well |
|
| Author: | DpThnker [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
I was at the meeting last night. The ordinance that past, while not ideal, was actually an improvement on the prior ordinance. Language was added to allow paintball games. Sling shots and BB guns are still regulated (which is stupid), but most of the rest of the ordinance conforms with State Law. The part that goes beyond State law (other than the sling shot, BB gun and paint ball guns part) is the 1000 foot ban within an occupied house while on a lake. Since that is less restrictive than the old ordinance, at least it is movement in the right direction. The council had more public input on this than almost any other issue in the last three four years. Public input really shaped this issue for the better. |
|
| Author: | clevang [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dayton, MN city code and preemption |
DpThnker wrote: I was at the meeting last night. The ordinance that past, while not ideal, was actually an improvement on the prior ordinance. Language was added to allow paintball games. Sling shots and BB guns are still regulated (which is stupid), but most of the rest of the ordinance conforms with State Law. The part that goes beyond State law (other than the sling shot, BB gun and paint ball guns part) is the 1000 foot ban within an occupied house while on a lake. Since that is less restrictive than the old ordinance, at least it is movement in the right direction. The council had more public input on this than almost any other issue in the last three four years. Public input really shaped this issue for the better. Welcome to the board! I emailed Tim yesterday about inserting an exception for paintball games for the 'can't point a dangerous weapon at a human' section. Glad it got put in there. Yes, the proposed ordinance started out way worse than we had and ended up better than we had. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|