posted
I am not allowed to, court order, that and I am barred from being in any female dressing room untill sometime next century.
j/k, I have followed this a little bit, It makes it easier to carry a concealed weapon, yet the law has some criteria to be meet in order to obtain the permit.
Sure resonalble and responsable people will be packing heat, but these arent the pig fuckers who are commiting the crimes, these people also don't use leggitimate guns anyways.
I am for everyone to carry a concealed handgun, yet the Nazi Democratic party will try to rape every last ounce of freedom that this law ussers in.
Posts: 740 | From: Tranyland Pending | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might do it, if I find a couple guys to go to the classes with. Rock Star described the classes he attended and they sounded really cool. I would probably never carry except at my cabin but it would be nice to have.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I'm thinking that none of you actually LOOKED at the link I put there. I was expecting at least a passing comment of "thats cool" or something I guess. AK has always had a "permit" and the required classes. Now the worthless mouthbreather of a govenor has passed the first legislation that makes sense. EVERYBODY who is not specifically prohibited from owning/carring weapons (fellons, etc...) can now carry a concealed weapon in this state w/out a permit. We will still have our permit program, but you only have to do that if you want to carry in other states with permit programs. I guess Vermont has always been like this. I like it cause it just makes traveling with the handgun/clip/ammo more practical, and less likely for you to get hassle for improper storage.
posted
Interesting report released last month about Minnesotas first 9 months of "shall issue" hand gun permit program.
When you apply for your permit to carry you pay $100 for processing of the application. The application process is a simple check of the database for dis-qualifying felonies etc. After that the permit is printed and mailed within 30 days. Most counties are actually making money on the whole deal but there are a few of the bigger counties (Anoka-Dakota-etc) that are claiming to be losing thousands processing the applications. I have seen their reported expenses and they are trying to right off new copy machines and whole deputies salaries etc. It's actually funny - and of course the star tribune did a story based on the two or three counties and how the taxpayers are paying for the permit program..... Well take a look at the report from the state and judge for yourself.
Here is a letter to the editor in Duluth which points out a few facts
Dear Ms. Anderson,
I have been reviewing the BCA's 2003 Permit to Carry Report and I am deeply troubled by several issues, so much so that I feel it is necessary to ask your office to investigate at least two Sheriff's Departments.
First, the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 (MCPPA) requires that $21.50 from each application fee be transferred to the state general fund to cover the state costs of permitting. According to the report the DPS has received $218,848.50, which would be fees from 10,179 permits and yet there were 15,873 applications. Where is the remaining $122,421?
Second and more importantly, there seem to be several counties "cooking the books". According to the original report Hennepin County (among others) spent *exactly* what they collected in fees to the penny. In all my forty-two years on this planet I have never seen such precision. Nor have I ever seen such inefficiency. According to the initial report, the sheriff's office spent $211,000 on "labor costs", but when the revised report came out that number had jumped to $461,957. In the job listing for a sheriff's deputy on the Hennepin County Employment Opportunities website, a deputy makes between $41,472.00 and $51,564.00 a year. So the average would be $46,518.00 per year. Thus, assuming only deputies processed the applications, the Hennepin County Sheriff's office spent more than 9.9 man YEARS processing applications. I notice that Washington County, with 29% of the applications of Hennepin, only spent 6.6% as much on payroll.
In addition to Hennepin County, the Ramsey County sheriff seems to have seriously overspent as well. $5,582.69 for copier rental (I believe you can buy a high end copier for around $2000). $990.78 for long distance service above the $627.20 for phone service. I purchase long distance calling cards at Sam's Club for 2.96 cents per minute, all day every day with no surcharges. At that rate Sheriff Fletcher's deputies spent 33,472 minutes or 13.9 work weeks making long distance calls.
Ramsey and Hennepin counties accounted for about 25% of the permits applied for, so you would assume that economies of scale would mean their costs would be lower than most counties. When you remove those two counties from the calculation, the average cost per application across the state was $39.90. The cost per application in Hennepin County it was $193.16 and in Ramsey County was $219.98.
I have heard that Sheriff Fletcher claims that the high costs are a result of the number of applications he denied. Granting that each permit issued cost $40, each denied application cost Ramsey County $5079.64 and each denial cost Hennepin County $14,042.36.
Given the huge disparities in costs, and given that the MCPPA requires that "[f]ees collected by sheriffs under this section and not forwarded to the commissioner must be used only to pay the direct costs of administering this section" I believe that your office should investigate both the Ramsey and Hennepin county sheriffs, and possibly the sheriffs of Crow Wing, Grant, Jackson, Lake of the Woods, and Morrison counties, whose expenditures exactly matched their fees.
I thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of me and all Minnesotans.
Peace,
Bruce W. Krafft
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy: go to all the most popular message post boards that make you enter your email address when posting and post w/ his email...
Posts: 559 | From: Blaine, MN | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of Wescott Square - you would deliver a pizza and a bunch of people would say stuff to you as you returned to your car. Then you would get back to the store and there would be another pizza to the same building - always felt like a setup......
Deliveryman: 'It was my gun or his'
By Terry Horne terry.horne@indystar.com May 18, 2004
Marion County prosecutors will decide if any charges will be filed against a pizza deliveryman who killed an armed man during an apparent robbery attempt Monday night on the city's Far Eastside.
"I'm just satisfied it was him and not me," said Ronald B. Honeycutt, 38, of Carmel this morning.
Honeycutt said he pulled his gun and fired off all 15 rounds when, as he was about to get into his van, he turned and saw a man coming toward him.
"He said, "Hey, my guy," and as he said "Hey, my guy," he's lifting his arm up with his gun in his hand."
Honeycutt said he pulled his own 9 mm pistol and fired off all 15 rounds at the other man at close range.
The other man, Jerome Brown, 20, 9500 block of East 39th Place, was taken to Methodist Hospital where he died a short time later.
Marion County Sheriff Capt. Phil Burton said there were no witnesses to the shooting, which occurred about 11 p.m. in the 3600 block of Long Wharf Drive.
Burton said he did not know how many times Brown was shot but it was multiple times.
Burton said the investigators would present their findings to the Marion County Prosecutor's office.
Honeycutt said detectives had told him that "something could come out of it" because of the number of times he had shot Brown.
Honeycutt said he emptied his gun in less than 10 seconds and kept firing because he couldn't tell whether the bullets were striking Brown, who was three to five feet away. "He never ran. He never cried. He never moved. It was like I was missing him altogether."
Honeycutt said that after Brown fell, with his gun arm outstretched, Brown said, "I just wanted a pizza."
But Honeycutt said he didn't believe him, "because that's not what he wanted," he said.
The deliveryman said he later learned that Brown's gun never fired because there wasn't a round in the chamber. However, he did hear Brown's gun click two times, he said.
Honeycutt, who said he was laid off about a year ago from a transportation job with The Indianapolis Star, said he has been delivering pizza for 20 years. "I've always had a gun," he said. "I like delivering pizzas. It's a fair job, but I don't plan on dying for it. I know so many people that really got mangled up."
Honeycutt, who was delivering for the Pizza Hut store at 8932 E. 38th Street, said he had already made a $50 delivery Monday night where bystanders had badgered him. "I expected to get robbed," he said.
Then he drove to the Long Wharf Drive apartment. He said he noticed two men coming towards him as he was approaching the building but he doesn't know if either of them were Brown or associated with him.
After making his delivery, he turned around -- "to check my back one more time" -- and saw a man walking briskly toward him. He had reached his van and opened the door when he saw Brown raise his arm, he said. "Once he leveled that gun at me, it was my gun or his."
Honeycutt said he picked up Brown's gun after the shooting, because he feared Brown had an accomplice, and drove back to the store, just a couple of minutes away, where detectives later met him.
Honeycutt said he was fired from his job because he had violated the store policy against carrying a gun, which he was licensed to carry.
"It's my life. I choose which policy to follow."
A Pizza Hut spokeswoman, Patty Sullivan, confirmed that the ban on carrying weapons is a company policy.
Honeycutt said he had never had to fire his gun in self-defense before, although he had pointed at some would-be robbers once before.
"I'm a pretty down to earth kind of person. With everything that's transpired since 911, killing these days almost seems a necessity if it means your life or theirs."
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "middle of the road" comprises the majority of the gay population. You just hear about the fruity, artsyfartsy, ultra liberal ones because they're the most verbose.
BTW - I did a whois on that ifyoupackagun..... piece of shit. His registered email address is different than the one on the site:
larry@lsanderson.net
His address is:
Sanderson, Larry 519 West 27th Street Minneapolis, MN 55408 612-872-8468
If you ever need a fake email of physical address for junk mail/spam, etc. here's a good one to use. Dumb shit's probably too stupid to realize this is all public information.
posted
Clever loop-hole exploited..... Oh and of course legislation from the bench again....
Judge declares state's gun law unconstitutional Tony Kennedy, Star Tribune July 14, 2004 GUN0714
Minnesota's conceal and carry gun law was declared unconstitutional today by a Ramsey County District judge.
Ruling in a lawsuit brought by several churches, Judge John Finley wrote in his decision that it was unconstitutional for the 2002 Legislature to bundle the conceal and carry gun language with a "totally unrelated bill relating to the Department of Natural Resources."
He said the state Constitution prohibits laws from embracing more than one subject.
Minneapolis attorney David Lillehaug, who represented Adath Jeshurun Congregation in challenging the gun law, said Finley ruled that passage of Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2002, known as Senate File 842, was "contrary to Minnesota's tradition of open government."
Finley issued his order about 11 a.m. and was unavailable for comment on the immediate effects of the ruling. Under the law, citizens who obtain a permit are allowed to carry a concealed gun.
Minnesota Attorney General Michael Hatch said he will appeal Finley's ruling. Hatch said he was still researching the opinion, but believes that conceal and carry permits obtained since the law was passed are still valid.
He said the whole issue of laws embracing more than one subject has been in debate for the past 10 years.
Hatch also said he is not aware of any ill effects from the gun law
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's actually kind of interesting the way this went down. A bunch of Churches were upset because they had to post no guns signs in order to ban guns in a place of worship. So they sued the state and have got the "Citizens Protection Act" thrown out (for now). This makes the law revert back to how it was before the new law. All permits are still valid, but new ones might not be processed until an appeal is filed. One thing that the PPA did was put alot of restrictions on where you can carry and whom can carry (must post signs,no felons, no school carry, no daycare carry, no drinking while carrying, must be 21 etc) these restricts are now thrown out. So what did the churches accomplish?
Here is a summary of the changes:
quote:What has not changed: 1. The status of current permit holders: all persons who currently hold permits under the new law are still valid holders of a MN permit to carry.
2. How many guns you can carry: there is still no limit, carry as many as you like.
3. Places where carry status is not altered: a. Courtrooms (still legal if the county sheriff is notified). b. State Capitol grounds and buildings (still legal if the Commissioner of Public Safety is notified). c. Federal buildings (no change - prohibited).
What has changed: 1. How permits are issued: Now back under the old law, permit issuance is performed by your local law enforcement agency, or in the absence of a local PD your county sheriff. Permit issuance is now "May issue" rather than "Shall issue".
2. Private property posting of "XYZ, Inc Bans Guns in These Premesis" was not provided for under the old law. Therefore, these signs are now meaningless. However, a property owner may still ask you to leave their property, failure to comply can get you charged with trespassing.
3. Places where carry staus is altered: a. Schools: Under the old law permit holders were specifically exempt from statute 609.66 subd 1d - 609.66 subd 1d (d): "This subdivision does not apply to:...(2)persons who carry pistols according to the terms of a permit." The MCPPA outlawed permit holder from "knowingly" carrying on school property, this is no longer in effect. b. Daycare centers: under the MCPPA carry in a daycare center was outlawed, there is no such provision in the old law. Therefore it is now legal.
4. Carrying while drinking or intoxicated (now legal). Carrying with a blood alcohol content of over .04% was made illegal under the MCPPA. There was no provision making drinking or being drunk while carrying a crime under the old law. Therefore it is now perfectly legal (though completely idiotic) to drink to excess while carrying, as long as you don't drive.
5. Who may posess firearms: violent felons may now obtain firearms if they have been released from their sentences for more that ten years. Under the MCPPA certain violent felons were given a lifetime ban on the purchase or posession of firearms unless this right was granted back in a court hearing by a judge. Now, back under the old law, if their sentence has been completed more than ten years ago, they may again purchase firearms.
6. Training requirements: under the MCPPA there were specific training requirements that had to be met in order to recieve a permit. Under the old law there were no such requirements.
This list is by no means complete, but it is an example of what an improvement the new law was over the old one. Of course, when and if the appellate court issues a stay after AG Mike Hatch files for an appeal, we revert back to the new law (the MCPPA).
posted
No, they are the correct size. Considered standard is other countries without the 10 limit. In my Sig I can only get a 13 round clip. I did see some 33 round clips that would fit my Glock tho (non standard size of course).
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic WriterWed May 11, 9:13 PM ET
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.
In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.
Birmingham, where Rice was born in 1954, was a focal point of racial tension. Four black girls were killed when a bomb exploded at a Birmingham church in 1963, a galvanizing moment in the fight for civil rights.
Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."
Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."
"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."
The First Amendment protects religious, press and speech freedoms as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government. The Second Amendment guarantees "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Gun-rights supporters and those who favor gun control disagree over whether the amendment guarantees individual gun ownership.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban # The death of the law hasn't brought a rise in crime -- just the opposite.
By John R. Lott Jr. This wasn't supposed to happen. When the federal assault weapons ban ended on Sept. 13, 2004, gun crimes and police killings were predicted to surge. Instead, they have declined.
For a decade, the ban was a cornerstone of the gun control movement. Sarah Brady, one of the nation's leading gun control advocates, warned that "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis." Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.
Well, more than nine months have passed and the first crime numbers are in. Last week, the FBI announced that the number of murders nationwide fell by 3.6% last year, the first drop since 1999. The trend was consistent; murders kept on declining after the assault weapons ban ended.
Even more interesting, the seven states that have their own assault weapons bans saw a smaller drop in murders than the 43 states without such laws, suggesting that doing away with the ban actually reduced crime. (States with bans averaged a 2.4% decline in murders; in three states with bans, the number of murders rose. States without bans saw murders fall by more than 4%.)
And the drop was not just limited to murder. Overall, violent crime also declined last year, according to the FBI, and the complete statistics carry another surprise for gun control advocates. Guns are used in murder and robbery more frequently then in rapes and aggravated assaults, but after the assault weapons ban ended, the number of murders and robberies fell more than the number of rapes and aggravated assaults.
It's instructive to remember just how passionately the media hyped the dangers of "sunsetting" the ban. Associated Press headlines warned "Gun shops and police officers brace for end of assault weapons ban." It was even part of the presidential campaign: "Kerry blasts lapse of assault weapons ban." An Internet search turned up more than 560 news stories in the first two weeks of September that expressed fear about ending the ban. Yet the news that murder and other violent crime declined last year produced just one very brief paragraph in an insider political newsletter, the Hotline.
The fact that the end of the assault weapons ban didn't create a crime wave should not have surprised anyone. After all, there is not a single published academic study showing that these bans have reduced any type of violent crime.
Research funded by the Justice Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the effect of the assault weapons ban on gun violence "has been uncertain." The authors of that report released their updated findings last August, looking at crime data from 1982 through 2000 (which covered the first six years of the federal law). The latest version stated: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."
Such a finding was only logical. Though the words "assault weapons" conjure up rapid-fire military machine guns, in fact the weapons outlawed by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic and legal hunting rifle. They fire the same bullets at the same speed and produce the same damage. They are simply regular deer rifles that look on the outside like AK-47s.
For gun control advocates, even a meaningless ban counts. These are the same folks who have never been bashful about scare tactics, predicting doom and gloom when they don't get what they want. They hysterically claimed that blood would flow in the streets after states passed right-to-carry laws letting citizens carry concealed handguns, but that never occurred. Thirty-seven states now have right-to-carry laws and no one is seriously talking about rescinding them or citing statistics about the laws causing crime.
Gun controllers' fears that the end of the assault weapons ban would mean the sky would fall were simply not true. How much longer can the media take such hysteria seriously when it is so at odds with the facts?
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush: Florida crime rate down to lowest level since '71 By BRENT KALLESTAD Associated Press Writer
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Florida's crime rate dropped for the 14th straight year in 2005 to its lowest mark since 1971 because of tougher laws, increased financial support from the Legislature and law-abiding citizens with guns, Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday.
"This report shows that staying tough on crime works," said Bush. "Law abiding citizens that have guns for protection actually probably are part of the reason we have a lower crime rate."
The crime rate, compiled by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, decreased 3.7 percent from 4,855 crimes per 100,000 people in 2004 to 4,677 crimes per 100,000 people last year. The total included 881 murders, 12,230 rapes and 75,204 vehicle thefts.
In 2005, the state's law enforcement agencies reported 838,063 crimes compared to 850,490 in 2004, a 1.5 percent decrease.
Last year Bush signed a bill that allows people who feel threatened on the street, in a bar, at a ball game or just about anywhere to "meet force with force" to defend themselves without fear of being prosecuted.
"You send a real powerful signal when you know the citizen has a good potential of being armed and doesn't have to back off anymore," said John Birch, president of the Illinois-based Concealed Carry, Inc.
Opponents, however, have said the idea would legalize shootouts in the streets.
A telephone message left for comment after hours with the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. was not immediately returned.
Bush said he was concerned about the number of murders in the Jacksonville and Orlando areas, where there have already been 120 homicides this year.
FDLE chief Jerry Bailey said he has assigned seven agents to help Jacksonville officials with the troubling increase in murders and is working with law enforcement in central Florida on forming a task force.
The number of violent crimes in 2005 increased statewide by 1.7 percent although the rate dropped 0.6 percent and nonviolent crime decreased by 4.2 percent. Violent crimes are murder, forcible sex offenses, robbery and aggravated assault.
Reports of domestic violence were up slightly and those incidents accounted for more than a fourth of the reported violent crimes and one-fifth of all murders, according to FDLE.
"The people that commit the majority of the crimes are habitual offenders," Bush said. "They're the ones that commit a crime after crime after crime."
For the second straight year, authorities made more than one million arrests. The 1,056,121 arrests in 2005 represented a 2.6 percent increase.
Drug arrests continued to increase, going from 150,334 to 160,649. Last year they increased nearly 10 percent.
Posts: 5484 | From: St. Paul, Mn | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I was expecting at least a passing comment of "thats cool" or something I guess.![[shoot]](graemlins/shootout.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[gun1]](graemlins/uzi.gif)
