<h2>We've got a problem, and it's time to make some <i>more</i> targeted phone calls and emails.</h2>Lots of them, preferably. And, yes, for those of you who already received an email on this subject, much of this will be a repeat.<p>It's time not only to repeat ourselves to the same folks at the Capitol in St. Paul, but get the word out to every pro-gun representative.

<p>If you've done this before, yes, it's time to do it again, with a few more riffs; if you haven't, well, it's time to get started.
<p>
So, please, get out your phones, and let me back up for a moment.
<p>
Representatives David Dill and Tony Cornish had a good idea, all in all. Right now, state law requires that when a firearm (long guns for some, handguns for handgun hunters) is being transported in a boat or motor vehicle -- say, when you're getting a ride out to the deer stand on an ATV, or taking a boat ride out to the duck blind -- that the gun be unloaded and encased.
<p>
Which is kind of silly. It's not a big deal, but there's no particular reason that the gun couldn't just be unloaded, and put on a rack on the back of the ATV, or in the back seat of the car or the back of the boat, and Representative David Dill put in a bill, HF128, to accomplish that.
<p>
A minor improvement. Let's call it the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009.
<p>
But, as the legislative process went on, some problems developed. Some clever anti-gun folks in the legislature saw it as an opportunity to get something that they've desperately wanted, but have been denied by gun-rights activists for more than a quarter century: a wedge into the concept of statewide gun preemption that requires that gun owners all over the state be treated identically, no matter what zip code they live in.
<p>
After all, rights don't have zip codes. People do. They don't like that.
<p>
So, they cleverly inserted language into HF 1238, a pending Fish and Game bill, that does some pretty awful things -- for the first time, it makes the seven-county Metro area different from the rest of the state, gives it more stringent gun laws than the rest of the state, and makes metro gun owners into second-class gun owners, by denying them the mild privileges of the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009.
<p>
It does a bunch of other things, too, none of them good. There's more details <a href=http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12431>here</a>.
<p>
It needs to be stopped. We will, eventually, be able to get the Hunters' Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act passed -- but when we do, it needs to be done for all Minnesota gun owners, not leaving those in the metro as second-class citizens.
<p>
<h2>Please do the following five things today.</h2>
<p>
1. Call your own representative in the legislature (e-mail them too) -- you'll find his or her name and contact information <a href=http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder.asp>here if you don't know it</a> -- and ask him or her to "oppose the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009 in HF 1238." If they don't know what that's all about, tell them some call it Rep. Dill's "uncased/unloaded bill" and point them <a href=http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12431>here</a>.

<p>
2. Call the office of Representative David Dill at 651-296-2190 and ask him to withdraw the the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009 in HF 1238, because metro-area Minnesotans should not be second-class citizens; rights don't have zip codes. People do. It's likely that you'll get the answering machine when you call, what with the legislators having already gone home for a long weekend. That's okay -- be firm but polite, and let Representative Dill come back to work with your message pending.
<p>
3. Email him at rep.david.dill@house.mn, and ask him to withdraw the Hunter's Minor Inconvenience Repeal Act of 2009 in HF 1238, because metro-area Minnesotans should not be second-class citizens; rights don't have zip codes. People do.
<p>
4. For those who got last week's email: you haven't seen this one before. Write a short email (perhaps something as simple as "Please vote against the stealth second class status for metro-area gunowners provisions in HF 1238") and send it to every pro-gun member of the Minnesota House of Representatives; just copy-and-paste the list into the To: field in your email program. "But where can I find such a list?" you ask? Courtesy of GOCRA, it's right here:
<blockquote>
rep.Dave.Olin@house.mn, rep.Bernie.Lieder@house.mn, rep.Kent.Eken@house.mn, rep.Brita.Sailer@house.mn, rep.Tom.Anzelc@house.mn, rep.Loren.Solberg@house.mn, rep.John.Persell@house.mn, rep.Larry.Howes@house.mn, rep.Tom.Rukavina@house.mn, rep.Tony.Sertich@house.mn, rep.David.Dill@house.mn, rep.Mary.Murphy@house.mn, rep.Paul.Marquart@house.mn, rep.Bud.Nornes@house.mn, rep.Mark.Murdock@house.mn, rep.Torrey.Westrom@house.mn, rep.MaryEllen.Otremba@house.mn, rep.Al.Doty@house.mn, rep.Al.Juhnke@house.mn, rep.Dan.Severson@house.mn, rep.Larry.Hosch@house.mn, rep.Larry.Haws@house.mn, rep.Mary.Kiffmeyer@house.mn, rep.Jeremy.Kalin@house.mn, rep.Ron.Shimanski@house.mn, rep.Dean.Urdahl@house.mn, rep.Bruce.Anderson@house.mn, rep.Tom.Emmer@house.mn, rep.Lyle.Koenen@house.mn, rep.Marty.Seifert@house.mn, rep.Paul.Torkelson@house.mn, rep.Doug.Magnus@house.mn, rep.Bob.Gunther@house.mn, rep.Tony.Cornish@house.mn, rep.Laura.Brod@house.mn, rep.Robin.Brown@house.mn, rep.Jeanne.Poppe@house.mn, rep.Steve.Drazkowski@house.mn, rep.Randy.Demmer@house.mn, rep.Joyce.Peppin@house.mn, rep.Steve.Smith@house.mn, rep.Paul.Kohls@house.mn, rep.Joe.Hoppe@house.mn, rep.Mike.Beard@house.mn, rep.Mark.Buesgens@house.mn, rep.Mary Liz.Holberg@house.mn, rep.Pat.Garofalo@house.mn, rep.Joe.Atkins@house.mn, rep.Michael.Nelson@house.mn, rep.Denise.Dittrich@house.mn, rep.Tom.Hackbarth@house.mn, rep.Jim.Abeler@house.mn, rep.Peggy.Scott@house.mn, rep.Jerry.Newton@house.mn, rep.Tim.Sanders@house.mn, rep.Bob.Dettmer@house.mn, rep.Julie.Bunn@house.mn</blockquote>

<p>
5. Pass this email on to at least two friends, and ask them to do the same.
<p>
It's important.

One <a href=http://twincitiescarry.com/Forum>Forum</a> member put it this way, and he's right:

<blockquote>A good way to think about this bill, might be to imagine how the new"gun case law" would be explained in the Hunting Regulations, and Firearns Safety Training.
<p>
The regs would explain and define the "Seven County Metro" area as a special area. Probably, there would be a map showing the precise boundaries of the "Metro Gun Transport Zone" along with a description of the boundaries. Minnesota gun owners would learn the concept of gun laws being different in the Metro vs "Greater Minnesota".
<p>
The law would, naturally enough, have to be covered in Firearms Training, so youngsters would be taught that the Metro Gun Transport Zone is "special". The instructers would, of course, have to justify the rule; imagine the discussion in these classes. Firearms Safety Instructors would be teaching the benefits of gun control laws.
<p>
Next session Duluth and Rochester will want to be special as well.
<p>
The session after that, every hamlet will want to decide for themselves whether or not they are "special". And it won't be limited to gun transport, they'll be special in other ways as well.
<p>
We've got to hang together. </blockquote>
<p>
<p>
Joel Rosenberg<br>http://twincitiescarry.com<br>
joelr@twincitiescarry.com<br>You can send your friends to http://twincitiescarry.com/activism to have them sign up to get these emails.
<br>

XXXX,

Thank you for the e-mail. I agree that the standard should be the same across the State. Hopefully there will be a floor amendment to fix the bill. In the mean time, please share your concerns with the Governor's office as well.

ML

Representative Mary Liz Holberg
303 State Office Building
100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155-1298
651-296-6926

Thanks for the email XXXX. I will speak with Rep. Dill about this. I agree with you. Doesn't seem to make sense. Thanks.

Rep. Pat Garofalo
District 36B
221 State Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
(651) 296-1069
1-888-667-3337

I am puzzled as to why Dill has not responded to anyone and that he is holding his ground on this. Did a Metro anti-gunner catch him screwing a farm animal?

Thank you for contacting me in regard to splitting gun rights based on
region.

This is the first time that I've seen this language and certainly want to
work with the author of this legislation to make sure gun rights are
protected for everyone.

There's a dead pheasant that looks great just a few feet from this
computer and I'd like to know that people's rights are protected,
regardless of where they live or hunt.

I appreciate your comments and concerns and will track down the authors to
find out what is going on.

Sincerely,

Rep. Marty Seifert

Representative Marty Seifert
Minority Leader
267 State Office Building
100 Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

rep.marty.seifert@house.mn
1-888-234-1242
House Republican website: http://www.mnhousegop.com

Appropriate language CAN, in fact, be arrived at to express what Tony wanted but was, somehow, dissuaded from drafting. Perhaps something in the nature of "while in possession of a hunting license and transporting a firearm between lawful hunting areas no more than X miles distant," or some such thing. I mean, after a while, it becomes reasonable to require that the firearm be unloaded and cased in order to enforce the traditional rules of fair chase and ceases to be an inconvenience. The hunting license operates as a permit to carry in those situations. Or even an amendment to 97B.045 Transportation of Firearms. See, below, where I added Subd. 1(4). That would be a functional rule directly related to the purpose of the regulations and would make no mention of geographic, political boundaries in the same way that the statute currently does. It's that "political boundary" thing that driving us nuts on a functional level. And, that way, all hunters would have the benefit, regardless of political boundaries.

97B.045 TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS.

Subdivision 1. Restrictions. A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless the firearm is:
(1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed;
(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle;
(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715; or
(4) an unloaded firearm used for hunting pursuant to a hunting license, transported or carried to, from, or between, lawful hunting areas according to the regulations of the commissioner.
* * *

"We couldn't do it right; so we're doing it anyway, wrong," is a terrible reason [to propose a bill].