Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

Stalling tactics: Why Minnesota can’t pass gun safety measures

photo of man holding rifle inside gun shop
REUTERS/George Frey
America has settled into a disturbing status quo: Whenever a mass shooting occurs and concerned citizens call for reform, Republican politicians do everything they can to run out the clock until the media moves on and the demands of activists become easier to ignore. These disgraceful stalling tactics are why no gun safety measures can pass, despite massive public support for them. As a result, our children are learning how to hide from shooters in school, workplaces across America are increasing security, and our public spaces feel more dangerous by the month.

Unfortunately, we’ve witnessed these stalling tactics play out time and time again, and not just from President Donald Trump and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, but right here in Minnesota. One of the biggest perpetrators in our state is Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, who represents Maple Grove and runs the Senate committee that should be holding hearings on new gun safety proposals, but has refused to consider any gun safety bills.

Patronizing and pointless

In response to this summer’s horrifying spate of mass violence, Limmer proposed what amounts to another stalling tactic: He suggested Republicans hold a hearing dedicated to lecturing lawmakers and advocates on what gun safety laws already exist. This proposed hearing is as patronizing as it is pointless. Gun safety advocates are well aware of current laws and the loopholes within them that could allow dangerous individuals to gain access to firearms.

Ken Martin
Ken Martin
During the last legislative session, the DFL-controlled House of Representatives passed two important gun safety measures to keep Minnesotans safe and close the loopholes in our current gun-buying system: universal background checks and a red flag bill.

Universal background checks are necessary because many private gun sales do not require a background check — which allows someone with a violent criminal history to easily purchase a firearm. Earlier this month, seven people were killed in West Texas by a gunman who failed a background check then bought a gun from a private seller. That should never happen in Minnesota.

Similarly, red flag laws are important because, in many instances, mass shooters will display warning signs before they carry out their attacks. With red flag laws in place, law enforcement can present evidence to a judge that a certain individual poses a threat to their community. If the judge agrees, police can confiscate guns belonging to that dangerous individual. This system protects the right to due process and the rights of lawful gun owners while providing a mechanism to stop potential mass shootings before they begin.

No Senate hearings; nothing got done

While these measures were passed by the DFL-held House, Limmer and the Republican majority in the Senate refused to even hold hearings on both of these bills, so once again, nothing got done.

Behind Limmer’s stalling tactics lies a contempt for Minnesotans who are concerned about gun safety. Limmer was recently quoted as saying that “the public has been kind of whipped into a froth and for some reason, they think we have no gun laws.” It was just over a month ago that a gunman murdered 22 people in El Paso, Texas, including Jordan and Andre Anchondo, who died shielding their 2-month-old child from a hail of bullets. To claim that Minnesotans are “whipped into a froth” because we are terrified of violence like that being visited on our communities is one of the most condescending and misguided things I’ve heard in my time in politics.

Minnesotans who want to keep our communities safe are completely justified in our concern and we will not relent in our demands for action. We don’t need a lecture from Warren Limmer and Senate Republicans; we need them to do something to keep Minnesotans safe.

Ken Martin is chair of the DFL Party.


If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Comments (60)

  1. Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 09/20/2019 - 04:09 pm.

    “This proposed hearing is as patronizing as it is pointless.”

    Whew lads; my irony meter just blew up in my hand!

  2. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 09/20/2019 - 08:37 pm.

    Neither of these measures have anything to do with “gun safety.” If Ken Martin is truly concerned about gun safety, he should get behind a proposal to offer free online NRA safety training to all our middle school-aged children..

    • Submitted by Julie Stroeve on 09/21/2019 - 08:55 am.

      All we need in an AR-15 attack is a middle schooler with a gun. Yup. That’s what Dennis just said. We’re all in, right?

      • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 09/23/2019 - 08:36 am.

        I’m sure the NRA training Dennis endorses is part Duck & Cover, part Run for Your Life and includes discount coupons for the latest armored Kevlar school fashions.

        Or maybe he is thinking the third grader can approach the shooter and provide a few important gun safety tips applying their NRA certificate skills.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 08:43 am.

      The myth that “training” makes guns safe is literally killing thousands in this country. Every week well trained and experienced gun handlers accidentally shoot themselves or someone else… sometimes in the midst of teaching gun safety. Training does not prevent accidents, and beyond that it can only make mass killer more lethal… that’s why military’s spend so much time training.

    • Submitted by James Miller on 09/27/2019 - 12:15 pm.

      This simply doesn’t work. The only thing that’s been proven to work is reducing the number of available firearms, and restricting access to them. Stop wasting everyone’s time with your groundless recommendations about how more guns will help everyone.

  3. Submitted by Andy Briebart on 09/20/2019 - 08:41 pm.

    Most of the mass killers bought their guns with a background check.

    Most gang members won’t get a background check even if it’s the law.

    How is this going to make us safer?

    Isn’t this promoting a false sense of security?

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 09/21/2019 - 10:49 am.

      So only perfect laws should be passed?

      How many examples can you cite of perfect laws that are perfectly complied with?

      If perfection was the measure of whether laws should be enacted, we’d be living in a lawless society.

      • Submitted by Gerry Anderson on 09/21/2019 - 02:59 pm.

        Laws that may go against the Constitution need to be carefully crafted and passed

        • Submitted by Pat Berg on 09/22/2019 - 08:37 am.

          Of course laws should pass Constitutional muster. That is a statement that could be applied to the writing and implementation of any law.

          However, Mr. Brietbart wasn’t making a point about the Constitutionality of gun-related laws. He was suggesting that background check laws would be an exercise in futility since 100% of the populace would not obey such laws 100% of the time. That is the unrealistic expectation I was responding to.

        • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 09/23/2019 - 10:11 am.

          And of course the constitution is not open to interpretation, kind of like corporations are people etc. etc. Definitely no conservative bias in our supreme court!

      • Submitted by Andy Briebart on 09/22/2019 - 07:02 am.

        The states that have passed these laws have almost no compliance. Look at the data. It would be a voluntary law.

        The states that have this law don’t actually enforce it. Look at the data.

        This is a feel good law that says we are doing something.

  4. Submitted by Tomas Mauser on 09/20/2019 - 08:53 pm.

    Meanwhile, students and teachers are forced to practice “active shooter drills” while loopholes in our gun laws allow criminals and mentally unstable people to possess semi-automatic assault rifles.

    Ironic? More like insane, in my opinion.

    • Submitted by Kellan Mcdonald on 09/21/2019 - 12:31 pm.

      It is illegal for people to murder other people. Also, the Constitution guarantees your and my right to a firearm. The only way you can take away that right is through due process. So you saying we need to make law abiding citizens criminals overnight because criminals aren’t following the law is the height of irony.

      • Submitted by lisa miller on 09/22/2019 - 11:18 am.

        It does not say any firearm. And if you read it in its context, a militia is not every man. Most are not opposed to taking all guns away. That is a false narrative. I’m all for one’s right to own and carry. Do you need a ton of mags and a high powered assault–I don’t think so, unless you are on a confined training range. Also why does the NRA oppose taking guns away from people making threats such as domestic partners or people on the no fly list. Get real. And contrary to what some think, cops can’t put anyone on a hold and then they go to the hospital and are committed and can’t get a gun. The law to commit someone is very high. And many law enforcement leaders have come out in favor of the red flag law. No sensible gun laws don’t stop all killings, but they limit the number and severity of injuries while allowing responsible people to have guns.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 08:49 am.

        They myth that we have a Constitutional “right” to own guns, specially any kind of gun we want, is a product of intellectual fraud. The Second Amendment was drawn up to organize government militias, not put a gun in your closet.

        However, Mr. McDonald may well be correct in that the intransigent and irrational insistence regarding gun “rights” that is killing and injuring tens of thousands of Americans may well require that we stop arguing about the Second Amendment and simply repeal it. Since the militias it describes have longs since disappeared from the National Defense regime the Second Amendment is essentially obsolete.

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 06:28 pm.

      Statistically speaking most students are unlikely to ever see gun violence inside their schools let alone become victims. Everytown heavily pads their stats by including gang violence, shootings that happen nearby schools but are unrelated to schools, shootings that happen on school property but after school hours and suicides. Being prepared is necessary but the likelihood it will ever happen is incredibly slim.

      • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 09/24/2019 - 01:18 pm.

        The odds of virtually everything occurring is small. Why outlaw drunk driving? The odds I’ll get hit are small. Your point has absolutely no validity.

  5. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 09/21/2019 - 06:10 am.

    Virtually everyone wants UNIVERSAL Background checks . We don’t have them and people are dying as a result. Get it done Republicans!

    • Submitted by Kellan Mcdonald on 09/21/2019 - 12:29 pm.

      No they don’t. We already have background checks. What you want is the removal of private sales. Because if you are a licensed fire arms dealer you are required to conduct a background check on all sales. A private sale is none of your business and the individuals have a constitutional right to own and sell firearms. There is a federal law as well that regulates how many “private” sales an individual may conduct a year before they must get a license.

      • Submitted by Dan Landherr on 09/24/2019 - 10:37 am.

        I’m pretty certain their is no constitutional right to sell firearms privately. I see “keep and bear” but not “sell”.

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 06:31 pm.

      People are already barred by law from selling to unauthorized people, the onus is on the seller. However, those who are going to buy and sell guns illegally will continue to do so regardless of law because that’s how black markets work. Prohibition on drugs and alcohol didn’t stop the sales of drugs and alcohol it just made more people criminals.

  6. Submitted by Charlie Quimby on 09/21/2019 - 08:53 am.

    Red Flag laws are not primarily about school shootings and other mass violence. They would work mostly to protect family members, ex-partners, and disturbed individuals themselves.

    The denial is great and not just among Republicans. This week, I heard Sen. Minority Leader Tom Bakk tell a group that the greatest pushback on a Red Flag bill came from members of law enforcement.

    As he characterized it, the lawmen were opposed because they would have to enforce the law (if respondent to the warrant didn’t turn in their guns voluntarily). “How would you like to show up to confiscate the guns of a mentally ill person?”

    How would you like to be a woman terrorized by an abuse husband who even the cops can’t deal with?

    It’s the legislators who need to get informed.

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 06:33 pm.

      People who have restraining orders already are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The problem with red flag laws, especially as they exist in other states, is that they allow anyone to petition for them instead of only law enforcement. They also afford no due process which is extremely unconstitutional. Any such law would need to have multiple levels of checks and balances ro ensure people weren’t being deprived of their constitutional rights.

  7. Submitted by Kellan Mcdonald on 09/21/2019 - 12:27 pm.

    We don’t pass “gun control” because everyone knows it’s not going to stop with these so called “common sense” pieces of legislation. More people have been killed in St. Paul this year due to hand guns than any semi automatic rifles. So where is the talk about hand gun control? Also, can we stop calling rifles “weapons of war?” Because the civilian M-4 and SKS rifles are not made for war. They don’t have any of the features built into military variants.

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 06:40 pm.

      Finally, a reasonable comment with some good sense!

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 11:11 am.

      The idea that absence of a flash suppressor or a full-auto capacity make civilian assault rifles COMPLETELY different weapons or ill suited for military applications is just plain silly.

      Listen: aren’t these the guns you guys are going to use to battle the government if it get out of control? Aren’t these the guns you’re going to use to defend our liberties? Aren’t these the guns your going to use to fight off the zombie hoards or vigilante mobs? If these guns are sooooooooo ill-suited for combat how come you guys keep buying them and claiming you’re going to use them for combat if need be?

    • Submitted by ian wade on 09/24/2019 - 12:01 pm.

      Dude, other than barrel and gas tube length, feed ramps and full auto function, the civilian and military versions are identical. The M-4 is standard military issue. It was designed as a literal replacement of the M-16. To deny that it was designed as a weapon of war is ludicrous.

      • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 09/24/2019 - 12:34 pm.

        “Dude, other than barrel and gas tube length, feed ramps and full auto function, the civilian and military versions are identical.”

        A Perigrin falcon is a bird; so is a penguin.

        Which would you rather see headed your way if you were a pigeon?

        • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 07:23 pm.

          Connor, we’re having a serious conversation, fatuous analogies aren’t helpful. We’re not talking about birds.

        • Submitted by ian wade on 09/25/2019 - 12:53 am.

          Nice strawman. I’m not a pigeon. I’m a man that doesn’t feel a need to pack my Glock to go to Target. Your mileage obviously varies.
          Now back on point…dispute my statement.

  8. Submitted by Virginia Martin on 09/21/2019 - 12:47 pm.

    Arguing with people who oppose gun control is sometimes like discussing something with a person with a cognitive impairment. You can tell them something over and over (but that’s not the best way to talk to a mentally impaired person), and it doesn’t register. They hear, but don’t “hear.” There are facts, although because of the NRA, the federal government (Centers for Disease Control) is prohibited from gathering statistics on gun violence. But in fact, the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest gun deaths, and vice versa. Alaska is highest, with Mississippi, Louisiana (New Orleans is highest city–not Chicago), Wyoming, Idaho, Missouri also leading in deaths. That is a reflection of not just one gun law but usually several working together to help stop Americans from killing their children, their fellow Americans, themselves. There is a surprisingly high incidence of toddlers killing others. Look it up. Don’t argue facts.

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 06:51 pm.

      In most of those states you mentioned it’s suicide that drives the number of gun deaths rather than homicides. The reason gun owners are opposed to additional layers of legislation is because the laws we have are barely enforced now or the perpetrators are so lightly punished that it’s comical. Just recently in Duluth a man who was a credible threat at shooting up a school was given parole and time served. He had two felony charges against him, including illegally modifying a weapon, both charges were serious but he had to get alcohol and drug treatment and stay on his meds and away from schools.

      If we enforced the laws we have currently numerous lives would be saved but it would also have the outcome of increasing having a negative effect on communities of color. We know, statistically, that black men make up 50% of homicide victims and that people rarely kill outside of their own race. We know that when the policies that occurred in the Clinton era helped reduce crime but it also resulted in mass incarceration.

      New gun laws aren’t going to stop mass shootings, they may not affect suicide levels, but they will affect people who were very unlikely to commit crimes to begin with.

      Oh, one last thing, the Federal government isn’t prohibited from gathering and publishing statistics, the CDC just can’t make recommendations for new policies. The reason being is that the CDC is subject to political appointment.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 11:18 am.

        The CDC IS prohibited from conducting gun related research because NONE of it’s can be spent on such research. The gun laws we already have were written by and large by the gun lobby and as such are rendered mostly unenforceable by multiple loop holes.

        No matter how people commit suicide mass shootings and homicides by firearm are still a huge national crises in need of serious attention. Some people may assume that the toll on human life is irrelevant and insignificant. but those people are in a distinct minority.

  9. Submitted by Carl Brookins on 09/21/2019 - 12:48 pm.

    None of the proposed laws will remove gun-related deaths and injuries. But like most laws, red-line and universal background checks for ALL gun sales or gifts will reduce this pestilence. And as for those who wave the second amendment around, I suggest a reading of the Second Amendment. Nobody suggests removing arms from the National Guard, a well-regulated militia. Eventually, the longer so-called gun rights and NRA advocates resist any kind of regulation, the more restrictive will be ultimate laws passed by the Congress and signed by a president. Is that what you really want, Senator Limmer? How about a universal confiscation law? Or expensive required insurance for all gun owners? Is that what you want?

    • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/23/2019 - 06:26 am.

      “I suggest a reading of the Second Amendment. Nobody suggests removing arms from the National Guard, a well-regulated militia”

      Sir, we have a group of 9 people who’s job it is to not only read the Constitution, but to interpret it when disputes arise. That group has twice interpreted “well-regulated militia” to include every American citizen who is not otherwise prohibited.

      They’ve also ruled that the well-regulated militia (aka every American citizen, not otherwise prohibited) is entitled to possess any firearm in common use; modular semi-automatic rifles are without doubt the most commonly used firearms in the country.

      The Supreme Court is the last court of appeals, sir. They have spoken. You may not like what they had to say, but reinventing their rulings does your credibility no benefit.

      • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 09/24/2019 - 01:29 pm.

        Hopefully, you also know that the SCOTUS can overturn a decision. And the 2nd Amendment, as you describe it, is a complete fiction and judicial activism gone wild. And I’ll tell you it’s the same fiction as the right to an abortion, so it’s not a Left/Right thing.

        • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 09/24/2019 - 03:30 pm.

          You’re right, of course. But considering the membership of the SCOTUS I wouldn’t get my hopes up for the next 30-40 years.

          I’ll remind you also, that the right to abortion was created out of thin air, the Constitution says nothing about it while the 2nd Amendment is, well an Amendment the founders were all familiar with.

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 09/26/2019 - 07:33 pm.

            Off topic but, where in the constitution/DOI does it state that women should have their bodily functions subject to the right wings approval or disapproval? Or is that created out of thin air as well?

  10. Submitted by Gerry Anderson on 09/21/2019 - 03:03 pm.

    If I remember correctly, the Republicans offered hearings on the bills separately. The Dems said my way or no way.

    Why wouldn’t they let the two measures stand on those own merit?

  11. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 09/23/2019 - 10:24 am.

    Point is, we can do better in reducing gun deaths, 2nd point, the gun heads don’t want to, evidently they are good with this high death rate and want nothing done about it. The clarity, the US is quite the UN-civilized country. Singapore .02/100,000, US 4.43/100,000 that is over 221 times greater. Yep, can’t make any improvement there!

    • Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 07:03 pm.

      First of all, we do care about human life but not at the expense of our civil liberties. Second, there are so many factors that need to be taken in to consideration that it is ridiculous to think even a small collection of laws would change anything at all. The United States is unlike any other country on Earth, our uniqueness is our strength but also our weakness, many of the same things that make us great also present problems. We have the largest non-homogenous population any where in the world. None of us share common values and none of us share common heritages, also our founding documents set us apart from virtually every other nation in the planet.

      Singapore is slightly larger than Los Angeles but is 75% ethnic Chinese, comparitively Los Angeles is 47% Hispanic and less than a third White. If you look at other countries they too either have homogeneous populations or they have a long history of limiting firearm ownership because it wasn’t enshtined as a right. Comparing us to any other country or looking to them for solutions is folly because they are so unlike us.

      • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 09:10 am.

        Many countries have the same civil liberties we have, and some have liberties we don’t. What those do NOT have is the gun violence. We do NOT have to tolerate massacres in order to enjoy our civil liberties.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 09/24/2019 - 09:37 am.

        So PP, it appears your point is, we as a country are the only place on the planet that is incapable, it is an impossible task, to reduce our murder rates? We lack the intelligence, the fortitude, the humanity, the morality, to protect our own, we just can’t make it happen, And this despite the constitutional objectives,

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  12. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 09:07 am.

    Actually the Red Flag and background check laws themselves are delaying tactic in their own right. What we need is bans on certain types of firearms, and permanent registries for those who buy guns.

    Most shooters would pass the proposed background checks, and Red Flag laws can only confiscate guns that police know exist and can otherwise find and confiscate.

    The call to enforce existing laws is always a red herring because the existing laws have been written by gun industry and NRA lobbyists who build in plentiful loop holes that render most laws unenforceable in a majority of cases. Straw Buyer laws a great example, they require that the seller “knowingly” sells to someone who’s buying for someone else. Proving what someone knows or doesn’t know is a legal and philosophical problem that has plagued humanity for millennia if not longer. And all anyone has to do is claim they DIDN’T know.

    Likewise with the current confiscation laws that “should” have prevented some of the domestic murders, these laws assume that police know who does and doesn’t have guns, and they know where those guns are, or can find them. The law also assumes that police have the resources to search for guns that someone claims to have lost or sold. When MPLS police aren’t even responding to emergency calls why would you expect them to go searching for a gun someone claims to have lost so they can confiscate it?

    We need to stop making a big deal out these whack-a-mole attempts at gun policy. These aren’t “bad” ideas, but we need to stop pretending that the least we can do is always the most we can do, and celebrating minimal efforts as if they’re ground breaking common sense.

  13. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/25/2019 - 08:51 am.

    I just have to say that it’s always kind of funny… whenever gun violence and ideas to control it is discussed; the gun guys are always the only ones in the room who can’t recognize an assault rifle when they see it. As if you need a magnifying glass to recognize the most distinctive weapons on the planet. It’s like watching sci-fi nerds argue about the differences between the warp engines in original vs. the next generation of Star Trek.

    Meanwhile, these guys who claim that “civilian” versions are COMPLETELY different weapons will tell you they stock up on them in order to defend our freedom should the government get out of control, or society otherwise descends into chaos and lawlessness. I guess they think they can make do with “civilian” M-4’s if they need military weapons in a crises?

  14. Submitted by john landry on 09/27/2019 - 10:34 am.

    You are more likely to drown in a bathtub then be the victim of a mass shooting.

    Our second amendment was designed to protect us against a tyrannical government. Massive spending, useless wars, wars on our citizenry – drug war, massive regulations, environmental land grabs. The day it will come.

    From time to time the tree of liberty needs to be fed with blood of tyrants and Patriots.

  15. Submitted by Greg Claflin on 09/22/2019 - 07:06 am.

    This country banned the sale of hi cap mags and semi auto assault style rifles before. I have no issue with that. I don’t need a 30 round mag for deer hunting anyways. If you do or are too lazy to load a smaller magazine for target shooting, maybe you should take up another sport like knitting.

  16. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 09/23/2019 - 06:31 am.

    Sir, the second amendment in now way rests on hunting for support. Hear the words of a respected Minnesota Democrat:

    ““Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.,”

    Hubert H. Humphrey

  17. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 09/23/2019 - 10:27 am.

    A very important point.

    The Brady Bill high capacity magazine ban ran from 1994 – 2004, when it expired.

    I did not see a huge hew and cry for the 2nd amendment freedoms lost during this period. Gun ownership, hunting, sport shooting, personal protection all proceeded without noticeable impingement.

    What we also know is that when the ban expired in 2004 and 10’s of millions of cheap magazines flooded the market, virtually EVERY mass shooting killer took advantage of the GOP’s decision to end the high capacity magazine ban. They GOP own’s it and Massacre Mitch is determined to keep it…

  18. Submitted by Payton Powell on 09/23/2019 - 07:18 pm.

    Found the Fudd! Also, this isn’t about hunting and it never was. As a person of color in an age where white nationalism is on the rise I want every advantage possible and an AR platform with standard capacity magazine more than levels the playing field. Also, there are more shooting sports than hunting and shooting targets from a bench, don’t be ignorant. While it may be my AR that they want to confiscate today tomorrow they’ll come after your shotgun or bolt-action rifle and call them a street sweeper or a sniper rifle.

  19. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 09/23/2019 - 08:41 am.


    Could you give us your thoughts on the importance of the Third Amendment and its’ critical function in today’s society?

    Or maybe it is just an antiquity of the times it was written in and no longer applicable to our current lives?

  20. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 09/23/2019 - 08:44 pm.

    When the Brady Bill expired it was the result of every “yes” vote cast at the time for it’s enactment and expiration. Feel free to list all of the members of Congress who voted “yes” and show us all that no Democrat voted for the bill that became law. Please list EVERY person who voted “yes”.

  21. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 09/23/2019 - 08:48 pm.

    In 1994 the House and Senate were Democratically controlled and President Bill Clinton was in the White House. How on earth are Republicans at fault for passing the Brady Bill that you reference?

  22. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 09/24/2019 - 11:19 am.

    Payton, I think you’ll find that civil war (if it ever comes to that) isn’t the blanket of security you imagine to be.

  23. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 09/25/2019 - 01:39 pm.

    Please tell us about the efforts to renew the Brady Bill that were “shot down” by Republicans.

    And if you are implying that the sunset provision was done to appease Democrats in 1994 we both know that you mis-stating the facts of the day.

    We all know that Republicans fought the 1994 enactment unsuccessfully and prevented the 2004 re-enactment.

    Virtually every mass shooter owes a debt of gratitude to the GOP for giving them the fire power to move from killing 6 kids to 50 kids. Own it!

Leave a Reply