State Representative Gail Kulick Jackson (DFL - Milaca) cast a vote for a bill in a House committee Wednesday that is viewed as an an anti-gun measure. The bill, House File 1396, authored by Rep. Michael Paymar (DFL - St. Paul), authorizes the courts to include pets and companions in protective orders.

It seems to be a frivilous bill on the surface to be sure. In fact, one Democrat on the committee who voted against the bill said he was a prosecutor for 32 years, and had never heard of anything like this.  But how is this an anti-gun bill, you ask.

First the ratioonale behind the bill. Certainly there are a few bad apples out there who try to intimidate their spouses, in separation or divorce situations, by abusing or killing the family pet. Inclusion of pets in protective orders would reduce the occurances of these trajic situations, proponents of the bill say.

However, let's say you are separated from your spouse and your spouse, in a bitter diviorce or separation situation is accusing you of abuse. Your spouse is awarded custody of the family pet, in this case a hunting dog, and you are ordered by the cout to not have contact with your spouse or your hunting dog. You are now living in a separate house, but in the same town. In a small town, say Milaca or Princeton, it would not be totally out of character for your hunting dog to find out where you live and show up at your doorstep. Well, there you are at the house where you live now, and your vindictive spouse or a vindictive friend of your spouse takes photos or a video of you petting your hunting dog that came to visit you. Well, now the court has evidence of you violating your protective order, and the court now has reasons to confiscate your guns, or take away your permit to carry.  

This is why National Rifle Association (NRA) took a position against this legislation. Rep. Gail Kulick Jackson taking an anti-NRA vote? Probably doesn't play well in House District 16A.