Proposal affecting gun owners surfaces at Capital.
Author |
Message |
kimberman
|
Post subject: Proposal affecting gun owners surfaces at Capital. Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:15 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
[snip] Legislators and others say it's time for a serious look at state laws governing criminal records. A task force report released earlier this month called for a host of changes....
Their recommendations included:
• Creating four levels of state-mandated background checks, with the toughest checks for law enforcement personnel and those who want to buy or carry guns.
• Increasing use of fingerprints for criminal background checks.
• Consolidating about 40 requirements for background checks into a single statute. [snip]
|
|
|
|
|
farmerj
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:33 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:13 am Posts: 714 Location: A County in MN
|
how about a source?
The full article?
Two things I don't like....
Someone who is against something who does not provide the full story or source.
Someone who is for something who doesn't provide the full story or source.
_________________ We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:43 pm |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
|
|
|
|
farmerj
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:03 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:13 am Posts: 714 Location: A County in MN
|
Thanks for the link.
Quote: Sealing court records is becoming a meaningless gesture in the information age, and a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 2004 left state criminal records open to the public, even if court records are expunged.
This will bother me much more though.
_________________ We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
|
|
|
|
|
gaygoalie
|
Post subject: Re: Proposal affecting gun owners surfaces at Capital. Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:30 pm |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:51 pm Posts: 372 Location: Lakeville
|
kimberman wrote: • Creating four levels of state-mandated background checks, with the toughest checks for law enforcement personnel and those who want to buy or carry guns. I was expecting something about "those we trust our kids with" included in that. That would guarantee passage Quote: • Increasing use of fingerprints for criminal background checks. I don't know if fingerprints add much to a check. If a check comes back on me as being clear, odds are fingerprints will come back clear as well. I also have a fairly uncommon name, so the odds of there being 2 of me with the same name are low as well. I've give my prints to afew agencies in the past and know I'm clear, but it doesn't mean I liked doing it.. Quote: • Consolidating about 40 requirements for background checks into a single statute.
I have mixed feelings on this. I'd like there to be some standards, but I also like there to be an option for an agency or a specific law to have a different way of doing a check if they feel its enough.
I also don't like something like this being codified into a law, as it could be changed if emotions flare up right before passage, or someone adds a "for the children" clause that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify for some of the checks.
_________________ Certified MN Carry Permit instructor check http://www.mncarrytraining.com/ for info
My Homebrew journal http://brew.goalie.cx
|
|
|
|
|
Dick Unger
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am Posts: 2444 Location: West Central MN
|
Sounds like State laws to "fight crime" coming, with a couple of gun control twists in the package.
We need to find a way to complain at every committee hearing, because at the end everyone will vote for the Omnibus Crime bill with the "harmless and reasonable" gun control provisions.
By the time it comes up for house/senate vote it will be too late. Gov will have to sign it.
"Finger Prints" for gun owners will never solve a crime but it sounds good, and will set the stage for more stuff. Why not collect our DNA as well?
|
|
|
|
|
gunflint
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 4:40 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am Posts: 1094 Location: Duluth
|
Let's see if I'm understanding this. They want to make it easier for criminals (the bad guys) to hide their past and they want to make it harder for LEOs and law abiding citizens (the good guys) who want to purchase and or carry. Must be a Democratic legislature.
_________________ "I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull
|
|
|
|
|
mnosretep
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:32 am |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:32 pm Posts: 174 Location: Eagan
|
gunflint sums it up well...
|
|
|
|
|
joelr
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 6:34 am |
|
The Man |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am Posts: 7970 Location: Minneapolis MN
|
gunflint wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this. They want to make it easier for criminals (the bad guys) to hide their past and they want to make it harder for LEOs and law abiding citizens (the good guys) who want to purchase and or carry. Must be a Democratic legislature. Hey, Joe? I think gunflint just wrote some very good Republican talking points.
_________________ Just a guy.
|
|
|
|
|
brauchma
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:21 am |
|
Senior Member |
|
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:39 pm Posts: 426 Location: Central MN
|
gunflint wrote: Let's see if I'm understanding this. They want to make it easier for criminals (the bad guys) to hide their past and they want to make it harder for LEOs and law abiding citizens (the good guys) who want to purchase and or carry. Must be a Democratic legislature.
Good point! +1 It just blows my mind!
|
|
|
|
|
Widge
|
Post subject: Re: Proposal affecting gun owners surfaces at Capital. Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 am |
|
Delicate Flower |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:50 pm Posts: 340
|
gaygoalie wrote: (snip) someone adds a "for the children" clause that will make it nearly impossible for anyone to qualify for some of the checks. Already in there, just needs to be refined: Quote: Making criminal background checks mandatory for school volunteers and those who mentor children.
As for Law Enforcement having to be thoroughly checked, they certainly should be, and I speak as a cop. Gun owners? We go through enough hoops already, and I don't really see what else they could add on that we don't do anyway. From that article it looks to me more as though they are wanting to relax some standards on checks, but keep some more stringent ones (i.e. CCW checks and LE background checks) in place. At the moment there's a real mixture of requirements for different jobs which make it pretty complicated to ensure the right check has been done for the right position.
We need to know more about what they are proposing and looking into before having a stroke over it, otherwise this has a lot of chances for gun owners to show themselves in a bad light by rushing to judgement too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
kimberman
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:43 am |
|
Wise Elder |
|
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm Posts: 2782 Location: St. Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Srigs
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:12 am |
|
Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:40 am Posts: 3752 Location: East Suburbs
|
I looked through the final report.
Why would you exsponge convictions ever? What is the problem they are trying to solve?
I understand why you might exsponge arrests that never turned into anything but convictions does not make since.
Thanks for the links!
_________________ Srigs
Side Guard Holsters
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
|
farmerj
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:27 am |
|
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:13 am Posts: 714 Location: A County in MN
|
Srigs wrote: I looked through the final report. Why would you exsponge convictions ever? What is the problem they are trying to solve? I understand why you might exsponge arrests that never turned into anything but convictions does not make since. Thanks for the links!
Do a Google search on an Alfred Plea.
How about the Lautenberg Amendment.
How many LEO and military service members lost their jobs because an estranged spouse had a witch for a lawyer.
How many people were railroaded by Child Protective Services?
Expungement was their only recourse. And even then it was often times to little, to late.
_________________ We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.
Last edited by farmerj on Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
hammAR
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:33 am |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:54 pm Posts: 1941 Location: N 44°56.621` W 093°11.256 (St Paul)
|
The reason you couldn't find the origin of the term "Alfred plea" is
because the term is actually "Alford plea." It is derived from the
Supreme Court's 1970 decision in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25............from Google, not me.....
Before taking the Alfred Plea, you turn to your attorney and ask, "If I take it, will I meet Batman?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|