New Legislative Director & SB59 Reintroduction

[Barrettone]

Hello All,

I will be serving as the new Legislative Director for MGO. I would like to thank Mike Theide for doing it for all these years, and I hope I can do the same. We have a lot in the works right now. I met yesterday with Senator Mike Green, as well as with the heads of MOC, MCRGO, SAFR, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, and our NRA State representative, Al Herman. We discussed the reintroduction of SB59, and what form that should take. It was said that the Govenor disliked the fact that public institutions could not "opt out" of allowing concealed carry in PFZ's. We are currently waiting to see if we have the votes in the house to get the bill reintroduced, and what, if any, tweaking we would do to it.

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially.

The above proposal, IMO, takes all the wind out of the Govenors sails, and gives him what he can claim is a "safe guard" that not just any CPL holder can carry in schools, as the Sheriff is managing it. Additionally, we can begin to get people carrying in the schools. After a good track record with the program, we can later try to expand it to ALL CPL holders with the additional training. It is basically taking a page out of the anti's handbook by gaining gun rights incrementally the same way they try to take them away. I think taking an "All or Nothing" approach will cost us this legislation.

Is it perfect? Heck no. We still run the risk of having a Sheriff who simply won't play nice, and grant anyone the permit. We'll just have to deal with that short term and vote the ones out who won't comply with our wishes. We will make headway in some jurisdictions though, and as soon as we prove it is working, and there is not blood in the hallways as some predict, we can get everything we want. Please sound off and tell me what you think. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Jeff LaFave
Legislative Director
MGO President

[emt232004]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

[moparman]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of pulic areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl progam and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no dirrerent than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

Yea what he said!

[Bikenut]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of pulic areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl progam and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no dirrerent than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

I concur...

[Sam H.]

My PERSONAL thought, and please hear me out here, is that we reintroduce the bill exactly as it was with a couple of exceptions. First, we take schools out of the equation. I think what we need to do is take away the Govenors "public reason" for not signing the bill (which was the Newtown tragedy), and force his hand a little. Now, with that said, I would like to insert verbage into the bill that allows for the same additional training for other PFZ's to qualify a CPL holder to apply to the local sheriff to be allowed to carry in the schools. Additionally, the bill needs to indemnify the Sheriffs Department and hold them harmless in any potential legal liabilities. Let's face it, no Sheriff will sign off on ANYONE if they are going to be on the hook both legally and financially

I could live with this, Part of politics is wheeling and dealing and if it means making progress in smaller steps, it's still progress. As gun owners our focus should always be on continual progress by any and all means that we can.

I am new to this forum but the one thing I have come to realise over the last month is that we will always have to fight the good fight when it comes to the 2nd amendment regardless of SCOTUS rulings or who holds exective office, our work will never be done.

[Barrettone]

1. Do not get rid of preemption of public areas, there is no reason anyone should not be allowed to exercise their rights on public property

I agree

2. Do not throw OC under the bus like the last SB 59

I agree, but MOC is the one offerring to give OC up in the schools if we can get what I mentioned above passed.

3. Rather than add extra training why not work it into the current cpl program and have an option to allow those with current cpl to take any "extra" training to do so within their next renewal cycle.- My opinion is these places are no different than where I am allowed to carry at this time other than giving criminals places to target easy victims.

Let's face it, the additional 8 hours is just to pacify people and say there was additional training. It is just a necessary evil. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out why its there.

10 Characters

[DP425]

I would rather see SB59 scaled back to the original intent of moving CPL's to the SOS. Of course add in the additional protections for CPL holders/applicants which would be applicable. It would also be nice if something were directly mentioned concerning "minor mental illness"; mild depression, ptsd to an extent. Give some legislative clarity to the CPL/mental health issue while protecting the rights of those not dangerous to others.

Make a push on the PFZ's in separate legislation. If schools must be left out, IMO they should be left out entirely, no one person should have the control; this is clearly a STATE issue, not a county issue. I support our sheriffs that support us of course, but we can't be signing away our rights to the authority of individuals. At this point, I'd rather see holding off on PFZ's if we can't get 2/3 veto proof and do this right. And I supported SB59 as good compromise that moved us forward... but I wouldn't be willing to give up anymore than what SB59 did.

[Tallbear]

SB 59 asked for too many changes in one package. If the "gun board elimination" would have been in a separate bill we would have that now.

PFZ's should be one issue and the gun board should another. I told Sen. Green's staff this last year and they ignored it.

[Smokepole]

Jeff,

Take this one small step at a time, just like we have on other issues, and think strategically, not tactically, and in a concentric manner.

Start with getting control of the CPL process at the state level, and getting it away from county level.

The benefits are obvious in that we substantially remove the political influence from 83 little fiefdoms, and add uniformity at a state level.

Once that's accomplished, whittle away at these PFZ's with an established priority incrementally from the easiest, and then moving onto the more difficult.(schools)

With each successive removal of a PFZ, we collectively demonstrate that properly licensed and vetted CPL holders are no threat to public safety, and may in fact enhance it.

And, as those goals are accomplished, we need to aggressively market each step to bring favorable awareness to the public, and elected officials.

[Barrettone]

Jeff,

Take this one small step at a time, just like we have on other issues, and think strategically, not tactically, and in a concentric manner.

Start with getting control of the CPL process at the state level, and getting it away from county level.

The benefits are obvious in that we substantially remove the political influence from 83 little fiefdoms, and add uniformity at a state level.

Once that's accomplished, whittle away at these PFZ's with an established priority incrementally from the easiest, and then moving onto the more difficult.(schools)

With each successive removal of a PFZ, we collectively demonstrate that properly licensed and vetted CPL holders are no threat to public safety, and may in fact enhance it.

And, as those goals are accomplished, we need to aggressively market each step to bring favorable awareness to the public, and elected officials.

Man, I wish it was that easy!!! With so many special interests at the table though, it is tough to "whittle away", as everybody wants their pet project addressed. I've got MOC, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, etc...They have input too, so keeping it simple is often hard, but I'll try!!! I especially like the idea of getting CPL issuance at the State level.