At a crowded mid-February rally in the rotunda of the Minnesota Capitol, First Lady Gwen Walz told a supportive crowd that DFL lawmakers would pass a broad agenda to limit guns. She cited policies like raising the minimum age to buy certain semiautomatic rifles and restricting the capacity of magazines.
“We will pass the legislation you’ve heard about,” said Walz, who is a prominent advocate for gun regulations. “If you want to purchase military-style firearms, why don’t you just join the military?”
Even then, when the legislative session was still young, the pledge was a bit ambitious. At that point, Democratic leaders had essentially ruled out much of Gov. Tim Walz’s firearm wish list given the political realities of narrow majorities in the House and Senate.
Still, groups like Moms Demand Action spent the two months that followed lobbying the Legislature. They held more rallies and press conferences, and the governor hosted former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Mass shootings across the nation roiled the debate over limits on weapons. The governor made guns a focus in his State of the State speech and highlighted police support for some measures.
Meanwhile, dozens of sheriffs throughout Greater Minnesota campaigned to block a bill related to gun storage, and gun rights groups worked to convince a few key DFLers to side against their colleagues.
The end result? Democrats are resting their hopes on just two gun bills: one that extends background check rules to private transfers, and another that allows a judge to seize firearms from a person deemed a threat to themselves or others.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid[/image_credit][image_caption]Former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords speaking in support of gun safety legislation at the Minnesota State Capitol on March 30.[/image_caption]
Four months into the legislative session, it’s still not totally clear where a few of those DFL senators in political swing districts stand despite immense pressure and repeated questions, leaving Minnesota in the dark on what might clear the Legislature. That includes Sens. Rob Kupec of Moorhead, Judy Seeberger of Afton, Grant Hauschild of Hermantown and Aric Putnam of St. Cloud.
“They probably know how they’re going to vote,” said Rob Doar, senior vice president of government affairs for the Gun Owners Caucus. “They just are keeping their hands close to their chest for fear of backlash on either side, either us lobbying them relentlessly to change their mind or the other side lobbying them relentlessly.”
The uncertainty in Minnesota stands in contrast to other Democratic-led states like Washington and Michigan, where lawmakers have passed new gun laws including a ban on selling certain semiautomatic weapons and a red flag law.
How a gun storage bill went down
From the start, it was always unlikely that Democrats would take on proposals like restricting the size of gun magazines. But the DFL nevertheless had slightly bigger hopes for gun policy than what turned out to be possible.
The House public safety committee seriously considered only a few controversial bills aimed at limiting gun use or access. That included what’s commonly known as a “red flag” law, in which a person can have their firearms seized if a judge determines they are at risk of suicide or a threat to others. It also included a bill long sought by the DFL to require background checks for private-party gun transfers.
But another bill — which became the first high-profile gun restriction to fail this year — would have expanded an existing gun storage law.
Current law makes it a gross misdemeanor to negligently store a loaded firearm where a child can use it. The new proposal would have required most people to store a gun unloaded with a locking device separate from ammunition unless the firearm was being carried or “under the control” of the owner.
The idea drew initial support from the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. But there was a flood of opposition from county sheriffs who argued in part that the policy would make it too difficult for a gun owner to defend themselves or would violate the U.S. Constitution. According to the Gun Owners Caucus, 79 sheriffs made public statements in opposition to the measure, representing the vast majority of Minnesota’s 87 counties.
[image_caption]State Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn[/image_caption]
However, Doar said the justified outcry from law enforcement gave Greater Minnesota legislators cover to block the bill and “gave them some ability to look like they’re not for every single restriction.” Hauschild, the DFLer from Hermantown, told MinnPost he was a “big no on the gun storage law.”
“I think I was probably the main culprit that made sure that bill didn’t move forward,” Hauschild said. (The bill didn’t advance in the House either.)
[image_caption]State Sen. Grant Hauschild[/image_caption]
What’s happened since
As the legislative session went on, the DFL, including the governor, drew its focus to the extreme risk law and background checks bill. The party cited favorable polling, research on effectiveness and some conservative support around the country as reasons why the measures could clear the Legislature while other bills could not.
Supporters tout the red flag proposal as a way to intervene when people are in crisis to stop suicides and shootings. Critics say the policy does not give people due process before their firearms are stripped.
With the prospects of the two policies still unknown, Walz and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan have used their bully pulpit to cajole Democrats into action on guns as much as any issue at the Legislature this year.
Giffords came to Minnesota on March 30 and held a press conference at the Capitol where a host of Democrats spoke, along with the executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.
[image_caption]Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan[/image_caption]
Walz has chided Republicans for not supporting any limits on guns. He has brought up his background as a veteran, gun owner, hunter and former congressman who once held an A rating by the NRA and now holds an F. He has projected frustration and impatience and highlighted stories from victims of gun violence.
During his state of the state address, Walz said he’d put his gun credibility up against anyone as “one of the best shots in Congress.” But he said “we all know damn well weapons of war have no place in our schools, in our churches, in our banks.”
“The time for hiding behind thoughts and prayers is long gone. What we need is action and we need it now,” Walz said. “We’ve got a gun safety bill on the table. And we’re going to get it passed. And I’m gonna sign it. … We’re going to have universal background checks. We’re going to have red flag laws to keep guns out of the hands of people, and we’re going to have lawful gun owners not be impinged upon one bit.”
The Gun Owners Caucus has done its own public outreach. They have also held a rally, run advertisements and have a popular social media presence and lobby legislators in meetings and through public testimony.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid[/image_credit][image_caption]During his state of the state address, Walz said he’d put his gun credibility up against anyone as “one of the best shots in Congress.” But he said “we all know damn well weapons of war have no place in our schools, in our churches, in our banks.”[/image_caption]
Even so, it’s not clear who has the upper hand.
The background check and red flag bills were approved by the Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, and Seeberger voted for the new background check regulations after winning some changes to the measure. But the policies have not received a floor vote, and the committee chairman, Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, said Thursday that any gun policy will likely be part of an “omnibus” package of public safety legislation negotiated with the House closer to the end of the session on May 22.
[image_caption]State Sen. Ron Latz[/image_caption]
“I’ve talked with all the members that have potential issues or concerns about it trying to find the sweet spot in terms of policy that they’d be comfortable with, and then the politics have to line up too,” Latz said. “It’s really been a fascinating kind of a game of chess in a sense … You never know where you’re going to end up until you try the final push.”
Two weeks ago, Maggiy Emery, executive director of the gun control organization Protect Minnesota, was also unsure of what the outcome might be when talking to reporters. She said there was work to do. “Our understanding is that it’s our job to find the votes for these bills,” Emery said.
Meanwhile, Doar said he’s attended town halls held by legislators across the state in an effort to better understand where lawmakers stand. Sometimes legislators are more candid in their home districts at events that can be away from reporters.
[image_credit]Courtesy of Rob Doar[/image_credit][image_caption]The Gun Owners Caucus has held a rally, run advertisements and have a popular social media presence and lobby legislators in meetings and through public testimony.[/image_caption]
What those legislators are saying
Kupec and Seeberger declined an interview request, saying through a spokesman they are waiting to see the final version of legislation before making a decision. But MinnPost interviewed two DFL senators about gun regulations on Wednesday.
Putnam, from St. Cloud, said when he talks with people in his community, they’re usually on board with the background checks legislation. But he said the “overwhelming majority of conversations” are with people who are not fans of a red flag law “because they can be written poorly.”
[cms_ad:x104]
He hasn’t ruled out voting for such a bill, though. Putnam said some regulation of firearms is reasonable in an effort to prevent self harm. And that could be some version of a red flag policy. “A lot of it is about how it’s written and how it actually works,” Putnam said. He said he still needs to “drill down” on the bill currently circulating at the Capitol to determine if it meets his standards.
Hauschild, from Hermantown, said he’s had lots of outreach from people on both sides of the issue and has regular check-ins with law enforcement on gun policy. He, too, said he’s still waiting to see “what these bills might ultimately look like and whether or not I can support them.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Walker Orenstein[/image_credit][image_caption]Two weeks ago, Maggiy Emery, far right, executive director of the gun control organization Protect Minnesota, was also unsure of what the outcome might be when talking to reporters.[/image_caption]
“I represent a district that is the size of Massachusetts, so in essence I represent a landmass that is what some governors have to deal with,” Hauschild said. “Grand Marias is a far cry from Big Fork in terms of their perspectives.”
He said that makes deciding how to vote on guns a “delicate balance.”
“I will say I really feel like we’re reaching a point where something has to be done and people seem to be saying that, that seems to be a common refrain,” Hauschild said. “But I think people are also afraid of what a more extreme gun control policy would look like.”
When might he finally make up his mind?
“Before the vote,” he said.
Gun politics are, personally, one of the most depressing topics in American political culture. I am for gun control. Not just the common sense stuff like background checks, but even further to things like licensing and training requirements. Gun ownership is a responsibility and policy should reflect that. But I am also not an idiot. There are SO many guns in this country, and that number is only increasing due to gun nuts on the Right stocking up on guns and people on the Left purchasing guns out of fear of said gun nuts. The real winner of American gun culture is gun manufacturers. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has also used the asinine 2nd Amendment to make it nearly impossible to establish any gun laws that would try to reduce the number of guns out there, or actually make an impact on America’s gun violence epidemic. The situation is absolutely out of control, and we have almost no mechanisms to remedy the situation. If anyone is curious at just how asinine our current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is, please read the book “The Second Amendment: A Biography” by Michael Waldman.
If I had to praise the Right for one thing, it is that they commit to the long-term. Just look at abortion and how long it took for them to get that “win”. I hope the left doesn’t give up on gun control, but it is obvious they are going to need to take the very-long view.
The Bill of Rights is not a series of rights granted to the people by the federal government. The Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on state action. The Second Amendment restricts the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to state governments. Before you say “the National Guard is the militia”, I need to remind you it is not. The NG can be countermanded by the USCIC, which is POTUS. The militia, as it was envisioned in 1789, was an ad hoc group of citizens at the beck and call of state Governor’s to defend against an enemy of the state (foreign or domestic). So, the only truly effective way to control gun ownership is to repeal the Second Amendment.
Actually, the Bill of Rights was conceived as a series of restrictions on the federal government, propounded by those who were concerned that the Constitution would infringe upon the “rights” of sovereign states and their citizens.
The Second Amendment quite obviously deals with state-run militias, as you say. But your idea that an “ad hoc group of [gun owning] citizens” qualified as such clearly would run afoul of any sensible interpretation of the phrase “well regulated Militia”, whatever history you might appeal to.
But the most important thing is that the text of the Amendment involves state militias, not to some made-up right to “personal self defense” tied to guns, which is the intentional misinterpretation of the text that conservative activist justices have forced upon us.
So if we had a sensible and correct interpretation of the Second Amendment (as we had for decades before the “conservative” misruling in 2008) we wouldn’t need to repeal the Second Amendment in order to have effective gun control legislation.
Sad to say, but the hearts and minds of gun advocates are won over one dead fourth grader after another.
Look at the Tennessee Governor who has his epiphany when one of his wife’s best friends is killed in the Nashville school shooting,
If Florida can have a red flag law why not Minnesota?
Oh, and why does FL have a red flag law? A pile of dead school kids after the Marjorie Stoneman Douglass school massacre winning over the required number of legislative hearts and minds in deep red FL.
So gang members will buy their guns through a background check? Really?
Why does the state need to keep records of who owns guns?
Will this be run by the same agency that runs the new Hate Speech registry ?
Everyone take note – this is your brain on propaganda.
It will all be OK:
In response to the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the state enacted a “red flag” law that allowed judges to order potentially dangerous individuals to surrender their firearms. Five states had some version of a red flag law before the Stoneman Douglas shooting; however, eleven additional states enacted a red flag law after it occurred. The law was applied more than 3,500 times from its implementation to 2020, although some counties use it far more frequently than others.
Amazing Andy, simply amazing.
Gang members aren’t who this legislation is aimed (no pun intended) at, and you know it. Gang members aren’t the ones who blow the faces off of our 4th graders in school classrooms. Gang members are rarely the ones where the child finds a loaded gun in the parent’s closet and accidentally kills their sister or themself.
“Now all eyes are on the state Senate, where Democrats have only a one-vote margin and Republicans appear united in opposition.”
If these minimal gun safety laws don’t pass, every time a kid kills someone in their home it’s on Senator Hauschild and every single one of our Republican legislators. The sad thing is that it seems like they can actually live with that. Hanging on to an outdated and ridiculous interpretation of their precious 2nd Amendment is more important to each of these monsters than the lives of our children.
Interesting how when the death of a child hits home, even staunch conservatives change their views on gun control.
And, btw, the state keeps records on who owns houses and cars, and neither of those are designed with the solenoid pose of killing. So it seems to make some sense to keep track of guns, right? And yes, there are too many car-related deaths, but less each year due to the regulations. And the main purpose of cars is transportation, not killing.
Well Andy… another one of your NRA/Republican “good guys with a gun” just today slaughtered a 5 neighbors because they complained that this gun nut was firing his weapon in the middle of the night. I’ll wait for your excuses and justification of this gun nut’s actions.
He was an illegal (most likely involved in a cartel) who has been deported multiple times. Luckily for him the Biden border is wide open. This explains why the story hasn’t gotten as much attention in the mainstream press last few days. Doesn’t fit the narrative.
Not “wide open” enough for him to even try to cross it and escape arrest, I’m afraid, since he was found hiding in a closet in Texas. And the idea that this mass shooting with (another) assault weapon hasn’t received adequate media coverage is just another baseless rightwing narrative, the exact kind of thing you freely traffic in…
For starters, it helps in tracking criminals. We track cars, marriage licenses, etc.. Cops can take away a car if they are concerned and then the person can pursue due process after that, so why not with guns IF there are enough defined high risks factors going on. That said, will these bills solve the problem? No, it will reduce some violent situations, but the there are already so many guns in circulation, the effect will be limited, but probably helpful. Democrats or some of them tout the gun bills as a magic answer. People should read the studies on school mass shooters to get a better idea of risk factors and many do not have what are deemed persistent significant mental health issues. Rather, their issues are often rage linked with anxiety, depression and usually have experienced being bullied or in some way isolated from others. I question if we actually need yet another state agency to address this, but at the same time thoughts and prayers sure aren’t working.
“Walz said he’d put his gun credibility up against anyone as “one of the best shots in Congress.” ”
Nonsense. Walz was a supply clerk in Europe while in the military. There are former Navy SEALS and Army snipers serving in congress.
Today I see on the news:
A dog is shot to death in the dog owners’ driveway up by Long Prairie. WTF? Look it up.
Legal Gun owners care to give a valid reason????
In Allegheny County, PA, a candidate for office that lost his election, gets huffy then gets his gun and threatens three other people, even after they retreat to one person’s truck. Another legal(?) gun owner.
Since some of our posters here are concerned with the rights of legal gun owners, it seems these incidents were committed by fellow legal gun owners.
How much more of this sanctimonious crap from gun owners do we need to listen to?
As Edward lists above, do ALL these 2nd A people need someone known to them to die on a personal level in order for some of these guns fetish fools to finally see logic? That is a lot of dead people.
And let us be honest – some never will listen to logic or reason, as they cling to a gun more tenderly than Captain Queeg held those marbles when on the witness stand. But oh…with the same need.
At the very least, let’s get these red flag laws and background checks in place. We can always relax them later – if needed.
So Republicans really want gun owners to have the freedom to store a loaded weapon where a child can play with it and shoot themselves or someone else or where their troubled teen can take it to school and murder a classroom full of children? And they oppose a process where a family member deemed dangerous has to demonstrate to a judge that they aren’t? And why should private sales be exempt from background checks? Provide a reason other than people don’t want to be bothered.
OK, if Republicans can live with this and not own the consequences, then when these terrible but preventable things happen, the irresponsible adult faces criminal charges, jail time and civil suits that separate them from their wealth, their children and their right to have a gun. They enabled a killing and need to face justice. If it causes more people to be responsible gun owners, dead children are a lot more important than the adults that allowed it to happen.
Getting a lousy red flag law has become like pulling teeth, has it? Even among DFL? What, your lives mean that little to you? I won’t ask you about your children’s lives, then. I’ll assume that the gun is far more precious to you … protected by an antique amendment covering single-shot muskets firing lead balls.
You folks need to come up to the times. Try a little self-preservation.
A reasonable person would think the killing of a Pope County officer just two weeks ago might sway a few sheriffs towards a reasonable red flag law.
…is not to be infringed. the part before that is “a well-regulated militia…” 200 years later, we can’t come up with a common-sense way to protect Minnesotans from gun violence. safe storage and red flag laws don’t infringe upon any gun owner’s right to bear arms. responsible gun owners aren’t fearful of such requirements. that a mentally ill person (usually male) would be kept from owning or possessing a lethal weapon protects both him and the public from harm. that seems to be a reasonable approach. again, our focus needs to be on how to protect citizens from gun violence; the 2nd amendment doesn’t trump my right to be safe within my community.
Actually, it does.
Under the intentional misreading of the Second Amendment by 5 “conservative” activists masquerading as justices, I suppose you are correct. But Julie was speaking of a proper interpretation of the text, not a clearly flawed one that sought to justify a beloved rightwing fantasy.
Every time you that I say this:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Well not exactly me, I’m just channeling Justice Scalia. You liked him as I recall, or has he just joined the legions of fake news?
I believe LIFE comes before LIBERTY. Show me a way that it works the other way around. You can’t.
Another proposed law that is about feeling good but not attacking the problem. In 2021, 6,012 Americans were killed by handguns and 417 by rifles (includes assault weapons). Most mass shootings involve handguns not long guns. Getting illegal handguns off the street should be priority number one but that would require enforcing current laws. Much easier to say “assault weapons ban” to get Lefties behind a bill that doesn’t touch the real issue of gun violence in America…. Once again, watch the shiny object sheepeople and let’s avoid the hard truth of illegal handguns in the hands of criminals causing majority of deaths by far!
Once again, a conservative misses the point, intentionally or not. A piece of gun reform legislation doesn’t have to solve every possible incident of gun mayhem in order to be useful. And since assault guns are the weapon of choice in a substantial number of mass shootings, then a ban on such weapons would have a chilling effect on a known type of American gun massacres.
This is obvious, but I guess it needs to be spelled out for you…
Let’s avoid the hard truth of illegal handguns in the hands of criminals is a US specialty and nations with common sense gun laws don’t have the problem.
Right? My righty friend?
“Getting illegal handguns off the street should be priority number one but that would require enforcing current laws.”
Please be more specific. Where do all these ‘illegal’ street guns come from? Are they all ghost guns? Or are you suggesting all private sales should be subject to background checks to ensure guns aren’t sold to people who shouldn’t have them?
An illegal Mexican shot some people here illegally from Honduras. But he won’t be prosecuted for that either because he fled back to Mexico.
Where do you get your “news”? From MAGA Conspiracy Theory Fake News.com?
Not one news source has reported the shooter as an “illegal Mexican”. Not even the extremist go to source, Fox Not News.
Maybe we will find out more, but for now, it would benefit the discussion to stick to facts. So far, we have no facts to refute that the mass killer who slaughtered an 8-year old and 4 adults with a military weapon was anything other than legal.
Oh, I think this assault weapon toting gun nut will be apprehended, whatever status you imagine he is. And just so all are aware, it’s even illegal to murder undocumented workers (and their helpless children) with guns! Scandalous, but what is the country coming to?
And can’t some sort of “stand your ground” defense be concocted? Probably!
“An illegal Mexican shot some people here illegally from Honduras.”
And if we read between the lines:
“Whew… At least they weren’t one of us…”
You could hear sighs of relief from gun-fondlers all over the country when that became the official line.
“Thank Moloch! A distraction!”
Well, I also read that the police (according to the Sheriff) had previously warned the shooter not to shoot in his yard. And yet, somehow the police didn’t seem concerned that he was supposedly here illegally (the only source for this claim I can find is a tweet from Ted Cruz, who isn’t among the most honest people I’m aware of), let alone that he was shooting a gun unsafely in his yard. And the only source of the victims being here illegally is a statement by Gov. Abbott – again, of dubious credulity. Notably, no one believable has actually confirmed the immigration status of any of the individuals involved, and have made a point to say that said status is unconfirmed. But, I’m trying to figure out how any of this makes murder ok. I’m beginning to wonder just how low you’ll go…
Would you like to revise and extend your remarks?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/us/cleveland-texas-neighbor-shooting-fugitive-tuesday/index.html
Caught within a few miles of the crime…
15 people shot in Chicago this past Friday, Saturday . Statistically 14 out the 15 will have been shot with handguns. Criminals arrested for murder in Chicago have an average of 10+ past arrests. If 15 people had been shot at a school with a long gun the Leftie’s would be up in arms. 15 people shot in Chicago by criminals with handguns…….. Crickets!!!
The question is, do YOU actually care about the 15 people shot with hand guns in Chicago on Friday, or are they just props for your pro-gun blather? And how many of the shootings could have been prevented by sensible gun control?
The question is, does Joe or any other conservative care about children being slaughtered in a school building with a long gun?
Oh, I think the nation’s “conservatives” have pretty much answered that one…
And just so you know, the 5 conservative activists on the Supreme Court declared Chicago’s handgun ban unconstitutional in 2010, extending their string of willful misinterpretations of the Second Amendment to the states. (The states whose right to regulate militias and weapons was supposedly being protected under the Amendment. But I digress.)
I wonder if that Chicago handgun ban would have prevented some of the (handgun) mayhem you (supposedly) lament? Almost certainly not, I’m sure! Criminals! Arrests!
BK, Chicago has one of the strictest handgun laws in the country, still doesn’t stop criminals from shooting people. Criminals DO NOT follow laws, hint, that is why they are criminals! “Look at me, feel good laws” do nothing to stop the biggest issue with guns in America, criminals with illegal firearms shooting people. Good try though.
This gun enthusiast bromide is endlessly repeated and is largely false, since the federal courts struck down most of Illinois’ tougher gun laws over the past decade. Illinois, of course, has stricter gun laws than a Red State “conservative” paradise like Texas, that’s a given. But its laws are not much stricter than other Blue states. Chicago also has to deal with the close proximity of easier gun accessibility states, notably Indiana. But that just shows the need for stricter federal legislation, however impossible.
And in any event, you have no idea if the handguns involved in the Chicago shootings you claim to lament are “legal” or not. No one does. And your “solution” of “Stop criminals!” is no solution at all; it’s certainly not a solution to mass shootings. But of course gun enthusiasts don’t care too much about working towards a reduction of gun mayhem, they just want continual inaction, gun adoration and reliance on platitudes like “Stop crime!”
How are criminals getting guns and what do you propose to prevent them from doing so?
The other question is, where are these guns coming from? Unless the firearms manufacturers are truly cynical and amoral (and I’m not discounting either possibility), they are being manufactured for lawful sales. The guns are manufactured in sufficient numbers to meet demand, and are lawfully put into what the kids are calling the “stream of commerce.” There is no separate manufacturing or distribution process for “illegal” guns. The guns start their existence as legal and become illegal later, through circumstances of the transfer of ownership or use.
If it were harder to own a gun, there would be fewer in circulation, with fewer opportunities for criminals to obtain them.
Well, Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban was struct down.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3979446-federal-judge-blocks-illinois-assault-weapons-ban/#:~:text=Pritzker%20(D)%20signed%20into%20law,the%20law%20earlier%20this%20week.
And Nebraska just became the 27th state to have constitutional carry.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/nebraska-becomes-27th-state-pass-constitutional-carry
As predicted, even the most sensible gun control laws in Blue states can be struck down under the egregious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment by the conservative activists on the Supreme Court.
And all Nebraska’s Repubs are doing is increasing the murder and gun violence rates in their unfortunate state. Simply another state to avoid.
The death march of the country continues, thanks to the noble “conservative” movement…
And our nation’s fourth graders breathe a sigh of relief???
No. But our gun enthusiasts can celebrate another victory for (their) “freedom”, and that’s what really matters!
How would those laws make kids any safer?
My point exactly: Thank you for confirming that a “Constitutional Right to Carry Law” is right wing craziness that even Antonin Scalia would have recoiled from:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
As I have said repeatedly:
A hundred kids a day could be killed for a hundred days straight and you would still spout this same nonsense until it’s your kid or a relative’s kid or a friend’s kid and then you would be moved to action like Tennessee’s Governor:
“Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed an executive order Tuesday to strengthen background checks and called on the General Assembly to pass the equivalent of a red flag law.
Lee said at a news conference that the order would ensure that information-sharing “more closely guarantees the safe, lawful purchase of firearms in Tennessee.”
He also said legislation was needed to address shortcomings in existing gun laws.”
Edward, reality check, 90% of violent gun crime is committed by folks who DO NOT have conceal carry licenses. Like most Lefties you would rather talk about assault weapons than take on the real issue of gun violence, criminals, known to law enforcement, using handguns in carjackings, robberies, drug deals, gang hits and just basically terrorizing communities.
Stopping conceal carry is throwing off a deck chairs from the Titanic, won’t stop ship from sinking! Good luck throwing chairs!
Another made-up “statistic”. But I had been informed by confident “conservatives” for more than a decade that more guns in society would make us all safer, everywhere. Somehow the strategy seems not to have succeeded, despite all the millions of guns sold to “consumers” like toasters…
Joe, what’s your solution? Where do the criminals get their guns and how do we stop them?
My primary point, which is ignored, is simply this:
A hundred kids a day could be killed for a hundred days straight and you would still spout this same nonsense until it’s your kid or a relative’s kid or a friend’s kid and then you would be moved to action like Tennessee’s Governor:
“Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, signed an executive order Tuesday to strengthen background checks and called on the General Assembly to pass the equivalent of a red flag law.
Lee said at a news conference that the order would ensure that information-sharing “more closely guarantees the safe, lawful purchase of firearms in Tennessee.”
He also said legislation was needed to address shortcomings in existing gun laws.”
Your primary point, why you need to carry an AR into Target to shop in order to gain Constitutional freedom is just a side curiosity for me to my primary point.
Here is the statistic: Just . 03 percent of concealed carry permittees in Minnesota committed a gun crime last year. That’s according to last week’s release from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA).
Always trying to be a solution oriented, win / win kind of guy, how about this:
You write whatever you please on concealed carry.
And…
On the concealed carry permit application you agree that every gun owned is listed with make, model and serial number. You know, all in support of a well regulated militia.
I just love it when a plan comes together…
The reply “ratio” (.03) given here is at best laughable:
Can we apply the airplane analogy first?
Very few airplanes crash each year. However, of the ones that do crash, typically – most ALL the people on board die.
It is not a one plane to one person ratio.
There was ONE gun used by its Legal Gun Owner at the Ulvade Texas School shooting.
NINETEEN children and TWO teachers died.
(If you look at the Texas Tribune website, the LE responders called this a “battle gun”. Not a “hunting rifle” as some posters in the past have claimed.)
In the most recent Texas shooting again, ONE person with ONE gun, however the death count from that single shooter and that single gun was in multiples.
I could list more but why?