-just thought i would share the response i received from my representative and my queries / responses to her

I shall remember, "we try to avoid enacting redundant, repetitive and unnecessary laws", the next time I see your voting record on tax increases, gun legislation, voting a pay increase for yourself or any other law I believe to be redundant, repetitive and unnecessary.
j in J - pp

-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Hortman [mailto:rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:51 PM
To: Paul & Alice
Subject: RE: Pending Legislation

Dear Paul,

You are correct. I find the legislation redundant of existing law.
You already may shoot intruders when you are threatened with seriously bodily injury or death or reasonably believe that you are. This is very clear in Minnesota case law. Every word we add to the statute books has a cost attached. Therefore, we try to avoid enacting redundant, repetitive and unnecessary laws.



Sincerely,

Melissa Hortman
State Representative
District 47B - Brooklyn Park / Coon Rapids Room 377, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
tel. (651) 296-4280
email: rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn

>>> "Paul & Alice" 04/20/07 11:39 PM >>>
Am I to understand you are not in favor of this bill? I do not appreciate waffling from anyone, let alone those who represent me in the legistlature.
j in J - pp

-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Hortman [mailto:rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:19 PM
To: Paul
Subject: Re: Pending Legislation

Dear Paul,

Thank you for contacting me regarding HF 498/SF 446, which would modify the laws governing self-defense. I appreciate your sharing your perspective.

As I understand it, this proposal is an attempt to clarify the circumstances under which a person may use deadly-force as a means of self-defense. Apparently, there is a concern that law-abiding people could be prosecuted for defending themselves against criminals. One of the bill's authors recently stated, "a person could be charged with a felony just for defending themselves or their children in their own home."

As you may have heard, there have been several cases recently where homeowners have killed or seriously injured intruders. For example, last November a 73-year-old man -- Gerry Whaley-- shot and killed a burglar who had broken into his home. In December Eric Cegon shot and killed a person who broke into his apartment. In neither case did Mr.
Whaley or Mr. Cegon face criminal prosecution for the killings because
their actions were deemed to be justifiable uses of force.

Given that current law already gives homeowners like Mr.Whaley and Mr.
Cegon the right to use deadly-force in self-defense, it will be important to hear from the bill's author the complete rationale for the legislation.

HF 498 was introduced on February 1 and referred to the Public Safety and Civil Law Committee. It did not have a hearing in that committee prior to the deadline for committee action on policy bills. However, it is my understanding that the bill will receive a hearing next year at which time the merits and drawbacks of the legislation will be fully assessed. Consequently, I am particularly glad you contacted me to share your thoughts. Your input is helpful to me in understanding the
potential impact of this legislation. Rest assured, if the bill does
come up for consideration, I will listen to the debate carefully and consider all viewpoints before I cast my vote.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to advise me on the issues that are of interest to you. I rely upon the calls, letters, and e-mails I receive to help me understand the views of our community on the matters that face our state.


Sincerely,

Melissa Hortman
State Representative
District 47B - Brooklyn Park / Coon Rapids Room 377, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
tel. (651) 296-4280
email: rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn

>>> Paul 04/10/07 8:54 AM >>>
2007/04/10 08:54:34



Dear Representative Hortman:

RE: HF 498

Very soon you will be required to cast a crucial procedural vote on the Castle Doctrine sponsored by Rep Tony Cornish. He is asking that HF 498, the "Stand Your Ground" legislation, be given an up or down vote on the floor of the House, since he couldn't get it heard in committee.

We will be watching to see that you vote AFFIRMATIVELY to bring HF 498 up out of committee onto the House Floor for a vote.

A vote to "kill the bill" by sending HF 498 back to a committee or to the Rules committee will be counted as a bad vote by Minnesota gun owners, I being one.

Thank you,
pastor paul


.

Good job standing your ground on stand your ground.

I think you are missing an opportunity educate your representative.

The reason such a bill is necessary is to change the requirement that a law abiding citizen who is in fear of death or great bodily harm from another MUST attempt to run away.

The ONLY time you don't have to prove you could not run away is in your HOME, under existing law.

I think the majority of us would run away when faced with a threat if we could avoid getting shot or harmed while doing so. I certainly don't want to shoot someone unless I have to do it to protect my life and there is no other way out.

The question is: How do you PROVE you couldn't retreat if you have to stand your ground and shoot?

That's the situation the bill is meant to address as I see it. It drops the requirement to prove you had no alternative.

You might want to remind your Rep that Mr Gerry Whaley had to wait almost 5 MONTHS to hear that his actions were justifiable. 5 MONTHS of uncertainty..............for a law abiding citizen, and he still has the possibility of civil action looming! The law needs to be changed....................but we'll have to wait till next year!

I think she means Great Bodily harm. "seriously bodily injury" isnt on the list.

In Minnesota, there is no winnable civil action in a righteous self defense case. Minn. Stat. sec. 611A.08

Thanks Kimberman

gentlemen - thanx for your responses. i have gained some insights into mn law and also received a valuable reeducation: i should have taken the opportunity to eduacate ms. hortman rather than just pin her down. my original frustration with her response was her tendency to talk around the legislation rather than stating "for" or "against". imho, she was like trying to nail jello to a wall. i let my frustration and occurant anger get the better of me and i let an educational moment pass by. i shall try to resurrect the opportunity, as i shall apologize to her for being so curt. again, thanx for pointing out some knowledge of the laws to me and for reminding me of one of our orimary tenets: education.

hit the enter button twice! ding - dong

more like ding ding

He knew you'd reply, he was calling you the Ding Dong

The Devils Advocate
It would be interesting to write to this representative, claiming to be from the other side. Something like… “what are you planning to do about all this killing, we expect to feel safe to send our kids to school and not get shot by some psychopath who just bought a high power handgun at the local gun store… ect.

It would be interesting to see what her response will be to supporters of gun control. Then you will know her true colours!
Then post the results here.

Just my 2 cents

The apple does not fall far from the tree ...........son