Mark Dayton, from a bit on the TV news yesterday, on his veto of the GOP’s budget bills:
“The problem…apparently…seems to lie with some of the extreme right wing members, especially the new ones, who don’t seem to know how government works”.
So Tom Bakk’s stupid remark about the GOP freshmen not being part of the government club…
…is the official DFL party line?
Along with the whole “everyone who opposes Dayton is an “extremist”” schtick?
To: GOP Legislative Freshmen Freshpeople Freshlegislators Newbies
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Good job.
Dear…you know who.
Good job. You took your unprecedented mandate and held the line against a governor who was never anything but hell-bent to uphold his special interest agenda.
So far so good.
Now – do something about your upperclasspeople. Keep ’em on the beam. Some of ’em make me nervous.
That is all,
Mitch Berg
Session ends and, if you believe the the media, the MNGOP spent the entire time sightseeing:
All that and more must now await a special session this summer, as the Republican majority and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton ended an acrimonious five-month session with very little business done and a $5 billion projected shortfall mostly untouched.
There’s no sign more time in St. Paul would spark a deal to avoid a bruising government shutdown. A long season of legislating only hardened and widened the deep, bitter divide between Dayton and the new legislative leadership.
Read: The Governor used the only tactic he has: stalling, and counting on the media to shape public opinion for him.
Expect a “Minnesota Poll” showing Minnesotans favor “compromise” 60-40, with a 3:2 oversample of DFLers.
And probably a “Humphrey Institute” poll showing it’s more like eleventy-teen to one.
Here you go, Star Tribune and KARE11 and Esme Murphy; it’s your moment to shine.
If you follow the “logic” behind Andy Birkey’s piece (and like all lefty memes, it came from Birkey’s superiors; Phyllis Kahn was mumbling the same sort of tripe a few weeks ago), that…:
If you have even been divorced – in other words, if some part of your life or paper trail is inconsistent with the position, Then you have no business debating what “marriage” is…
…then consistency more or less demands you apply that same logic throughout.
Don’t look at me. It’s Phyllis Kahn and Andy Birkey’s idea.
I’m not sure what bugs me more about this Doug Grow column; the fact that he deemed a bit of screeching DFL illogic newsworthy, or that he doesn’t seem to realize that it’s screechingly illogical at all.
He’s writing about the MN Senate debate over a Human Services bill which would change the way the state delivers health care to the poor, from a bureaucratic entitlement to a voucher system.
Grow:
Apparently, what’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander.
That little truth came to light during Tuesday’s Senate debate over health care for the poor.
Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, introduced one of the GOP’s plans for cutting Human Services costs by taking about 15,000 single adults out of MinnesotaCare and giving them vouchers so they can buy their own health insurance.
Hann sang the praises of the bill: It will save the state money. It will give the poor more choices. It will improve the health care of the poor. It will get government out of health care. It’s the American way!
No sarcasm clogging Grow’s keyboard there. Nosirree Bob! It’s the Twin Cities Media way! All them poor folks is too dumb to take care of themselves!
But that’s not really the issue here:
Then, Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, rose to speak. She offered a simple amendment to this GOP plan.
She said her amendment would require legislators to test the plan for two years, before the poor were forced into it.
“I hear what a wonderful deal this is for people,” Goodwin said. “We can determine if this plan is working as it should.”
Amendment greeted with silence
For a moment, you could have heard a pin drop in the Senate chambers. What? Us on this plan?
When columnists try to play mind-readers, it’s pretty my much their own minds they end up reading. Because I know that if I’d been sitting in that Senate chamber, I’d have been quiet, myself. But not from taking offense at someone thinking I’d dream of being lumped in with the hoi-polloi.
No, it’d be because I’d be wondering…:
Doubt it’d be fit all that into a politic statement if I didn’t have the floor.
A rookie senator, Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, stood, clearly offended by Goodwin’s amendment.
“We’re citizen legislators,” she said, adding that she’d waived her right to receive the health insurance benefits that most legislators receive.
After proclaiming her own goodness, she attacked the Goodwin amendment.
One wonders if Grow would ever call a DFLer a “Rookie”, or write off their defense as “proclaiming their goodness”.
“Political tomfoolery,” Hoffman said.
Again there was silence in the Senate. It had been years since anyone had heard the expression “tomfoolery.”
And later, Goodwin said that “tomfoolery” had never been applied to her before.
If “tomfoolery” means ‘incapable of carrying on a logical argument”, I’ll be it has.
Anyway, here’s what they’re arguing about;
Back up for a moment and look at the plan Hann sings the praises of but — as it turned out — wouldn’t want for himself.
Single working adults who have incomes of between 133 percent and 250 percent of poverty-level would no longer be covered by MinnesotaCare, the publicly subsidized health insurance program for the working poor that’s been in existence since 1990. Under MinnesotaCare, low-income working people pay premiums on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
The Republican plan would force those earning between $14,400 and $30,000 off MinnesotaCare and into the “free” market. With the help of state vouchers, they could select the health insurance they want for themselves.
Hann says that by “allowing” these people to go into the free market, the state would save $100 million per biennium.
And since they’re “single, working” adults – unlike Grow, I’m using using scare quotes in place of an actual argument – it seems like a great compromise. Grow’s, and Goodwin’s, only argument seems to be that Senators don’t want to trade their current plans for it.
By that “logic”, Goodwin and Grow should both shut up and go on welfare, including MNCare.
It’s come to my attention that there are Republicans flirting with a public “Racino” – a state run casino, intended to rack up tax money for the state.
There are so many reasons this is just plain wrong. I’ll give the Republicans the top ten. Any one of them should be good enough.
10. A new tax on the stupid is still a new tax. You were sent to Saint Paul to hold the line on taxes. That doesn’t mean “find reasons to rationalize them”.
9. Gambling has done such wonderful things for Nevada ‘s deficits, hasn’t it? Seriously. Panacaeas never works.
8. Ditto New Jersey. Sheesh. Gimme a break.
7. Guido Greaseaballa and his syndicate thank you. Don’t wanna pay up? F*** you!
6. Giving the state more money is like giving teenagers more booze.
5. Yeah, Biloxi, too. We can be a cold Gulf.
4. How does it help pass the budget? I’m sorry – the DFL says it all the time. Just thought I’d see how it felt.
3. Gambling addiction? No action on that bet! It harms Afro-Americans more…
2. We owe the Indians. We took this state from them. It’s only fair that we give them something in return. Best of all? It’s not “reparations”; it’s a free-market solutions. Everyone wins.
1. Mark Dayton wants you to support it. The state’s tribes have been solid DFL supporters for a generation- but that’s fading. Fast. It’s falling rapidly toward even. And Indian gaming has been a huge cash cow for the DFL for a couple decades now. If the GOP can be tied to a Racino, Dayton will veto it immediately, and claim credit with the tribes, turning the spigot back on into the DFL’s coffers.
So – it helps the DFL, and it hurts everyone else.
What’s to like?
(Scene: Sergeant BUCK SLAUGHTER,a 29 year old veteran of two tours overseas in the War on Terror, is just home from his tour in Afghanistan. Hestops by the Veterans Affairs office. Looking worried he steps up to the desk. ANASTASIA BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER is sitting at the desk.
SLAUGHTER: Hello.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Take a number.
SLAUGHTER: I’m the only one here.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Then you shouldn’t have to wait long.
SLAUGHTER: Um, OK. (Takes a number).
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (Waits, typing passive-aggressively for about 40 seconds. Looks up at “Next Number” sign). “Number 1”.
SLAUGHTER: That’s me.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (Grimaces). How can I help you?
SLAUGHTER: Well, I’m just back from Afghanistan. I just wanna know what I can do about education benefits, and also VA benefits for the shrapnel I got.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (Hands SLAUGHTER a couple packets of information). Anything else?
SLAUGHTER: Well, yeah. I’ve never been all that into politics, but I’m hearing that they’re going to cut funding for Veterans.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Oh, yes. Republicans are trying to cut everything. Grandma, kids, veterans, even kittens.
SLAUGHTER: OK, well, what can we do?
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: You need to call your state representative and demand that they put the following language into the budget… (goes on her computer): ”
“Add specific language in The Ominous [sic] Bill…”
SLAUGHTER: “Ominous” bill?
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Whatever. Let me continue:
“…UES1047-2 on both sides (House and Senate) on page R19 when addressing any overall general cuts and on pages R20 and R21 at the opening of both Military and Veterans Affairs budgets.”
” To read:”
“In respect to the fact we are a nation at war at the Departments of Military and Veterans Affairs are paramount in those operations providing manpower…
SLAUGHTER: So far so good!
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (continues)
…support programs and services, the following special consideration is hereby adopted for the Biennium ending 2013: The Department of Military Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs are to be held harmless to any budget cuts…
SLAUGHTER: Excellent! They’ll hold all veterans benefits harmless! Right?
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: (continues)
…in salary, staff, FTE, personnel, equipment, programs and or services including any reductions of deputy commissioners, or the combining of commissioners of these two agencies.”
SLAUGHTER: Um – what’s that?
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: We’re going to make sure nothing harms any of the program administrators or management!
SLAUGHTER: And what about the actual veterans?
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: The what?
SLAUGHTER: US! The veterans!
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Oh, yeah…
SLAUGHTER: US: I mean, “holding harmless” the bureaucrats and administrators is like sending Military Police on patrol.
BECKETT-SCHLUMBERGER: Don’t care. Number two!
SLAUGHTER: There is no number two.
(And scene).
I don’t know that anyone is covering the stadum debate like Mr. D.
On the debate between Minneapolis and Arden Hills sites:.
The Arden Hills site may not make it through the legislature this time around, because there are far more important issues than a Vikings stadium. But one thing is clear — the Arden Hills proposal is the only one that has any chance. At this point, Minneapolis has to be rooting for gridlock.
Read the link to see why.
And re Sid Hartman’s crabbling about the team leaving downtown (and his employer’s backyard):
Sid’s been grumpy since well before any of us were born, so you have to take this statement with at least two grains of salt. He’s a company man and if the Vikings were to somehow find a way to stay near the Metrodome, it could potentially benefit his longtime employer, which owns a fair amount of real estate in the area. He’s also a Minneapolis man and in the eternal struggle between the Mill City and the Capitol City, he cannot in good conscience support any advantage going to the hated rival to the east (and I don’t mean the Packers).
He’s got several posts on the subject. Check ’em out.
Then call your legislator and tell them not one dime of taxpayer general fund money. Wilf is going to make out like a bandit on either site, especially the Ammo Plant site. His takeaway, and his progeny’s, is going to be well into ten figures in the nine figures.
About a week ago, I started seeing leftybloggers writing posts titled “Why Does The GOP Hate Teh Veterans”. I knew they were up to something…
The DFL, and Govenor Dayton, have moved from their usual tactic – beating us over the head with women and children and the elderly – to beating us over the head with veterans.
Via Gary at LFR, the commander of the MN American Legion begs to differ, in a letter from Senator Mike Parry (emphasis added):
Dear Governor Dayton,
This morning, I received a letter from the State Commander of the American Legion that recognizes the legislature has openly and publicly defended our stance to hold veterans and the Department of Military Affairs harmless in our budget. The State Commander correctly recognized that the honorable men and women that serve in our armed forces have been a top priority with both the Senate and House for the entirety of this session.
The rhetoric being used by your administration completely disregards the legislature’s intent to provide the funding necessary to provide care to our veterans in our state’s veterans homes, to assist veterans in securing federal benefits and to maintain the readiness of our national guard. At the first hint of discretionary authority, you directed your staff to cut veterans and military affairs.
And I loved this bit:
I grew up in a military household. I served eight years in the National Guard. I have been around the military and veterans my whole life and I know what leadership looks like. What you have done to the military and veterans community is not leadership.
Gary adds:
The sound you hear is Gov. Dayton’s facade of nonpartisanship shattering. The State Commander of the American Legion isn’t an honorary title given to someone for being a swell guy. They’re picked because it’s known that they’ll be the veterans’ fiercest advocate.
Furthermore, the American Legion isn’t a partisan organization. They’ve shown their appreciation for those legislators who’ve been the veterans’ staunchest allies, regardless of political affiliation. Testiment to that principle is the praise Republican Dan Severson and Democrat Larry Haws received in 2007 for their work on the veterans bill.
The real problem, of course, is that the DFL – faced with a GOP majority that has acted with unusual decisiveness to release a balanced budget that capitalizes on savings – is stuck arguing that the Minnesota Management and Budget office, whose commissioner (Schowalter) is appointed by Dayton and serves at his pleasure, is “non-partisan”, and that their fiscal models, which ignore realized savings, are valid in analyzing a budget that counts heavily on them.
MMB Commissioner Showalter has been at the heart of this administration’s attack on the truth. He’s insisted that his numbers are right even though the plain language of the House and Senate bills have mocked him.
Schowalter is a key part of Dayton’s campaign of obfuscation; he – they – are trying to make reform seem impossible…
Fisking Lori Sturdevant is the new Fisking Nick Coleman.
Like Coleman, Sturdevant is a reliably monochrome columnist; practically her every word is predictable. In fact, if anything Sturdevant is worse; Coleman at least had the occasional story about the community, something about a crime or a community institution where he could depart from “droning DFL hack” mode and actually write something worthwhile. And, as I acknowledge over years, he did that occasionally. Rarely, but it happened.
Sturdevant writes about nothing but politics – and her writing is entirely, 100% DFL chanting points.
Like yesterday, where she burned 20 column inches parrotting Tom Bakk.
There’s nothing in the column that couldn’t have come from DFL Legislative PR flaks Beau Berendtson or Carrie Lucking; indeed, it reads in every particular like it does:
It must be acknowledged that the official line from the Legislature’s GOP majorities is that they don’t need to look for more revenue for the state’s 2012-13 budget, even though it’s $5 billion short.
(Of course, it’s not, and never was, except in comparison with the DFL’s wish list).
But it also must be noted that the GOP’s proposed fix to said budget contains a little north of $1 billion in presumed cost savings that no credible nonpartisan analyst will vouch for.
Sturdevant is repeating the DFL’s chanting point. Minnesota Management and Budget is no more “non-partisan” than, well, Lori Sturdevant. And the DFL was saying exactly as much, back when they were trying to pass off a bogus budget:
In the meantime, the GOP has gotten, well, “credible nonpartisan analysts” – ones” that don’t report to Mark Dayton, anyway – to “vouch” for their budget.
I’d love to see someone from the Strib defend the notion that Lori Sturdevant is anything but a DFL propaganda tool.
Let’s be clear, here: “Public Art” is to art what “public restroom” is to rest. I’m at a loss to think of any publicly-supported “art” that advances “art” in any way. It could exist – my art trivia-fu isn’t the same as my music-fu – but it’s not leaping to mind.
I think public subsidy of art is a bad thing, both as government fiscal management and as art.
So when the idea of the “Legacy” amendment – diverting part of a one percent sales tax to the arts as well as natural resources – came up, I was skeptical.
But I thought “as long as the money goes to art education, it’d be the lesser of the possible evils”. Art education is sorely neglected in our society; having some appreciation for art in its many forms is one of the things that adds depth and color to life, and it doesn’t matter if that art is a trip through the Minnesota Museum of Art or a little music or the occasional play (from the Ordway to some waaaaay-off-Nicollet startup house) to a good book. Music – along with foreign languages – was one of the few things that kept me engaged with the idea of “education” at all during those miserable years from seventh through tenth grades; I’m hardly alone.
So if you have to spend money on “arts”, for the love of pete, spend it on bringing art in its various forms to schools and community centers and kids who, in our society, just don’t get exposed to much of it at all.
So how much could we have done for $45,000?
A Stillwater library paid that much in Legacy funds to bring in Sci-Fi author Neil Gaiman. And Rep. Matt Dean was unhappy about it, and called Gaiman a “pencil-necked weasel”, which got Sci-fi nerds and GOP-haters all up with the victorian vapours:
(“Um, hullo? It’s “SF”, not “Sci Fy”. Doy. And don’t call me a “Trekkie”. It’s Trekker, thank you very much” There. I wrote it so you don’t have to).
The feud between celebrity author Neil Gaiman and House Majority Leader Matt Dean took several bizarre twists Thursday, when lawmakers threatened retaliation against local libraries, Gaiman threatened retaliation against Dean, and the cast of characters expanded to include Snooki from MTV’s “Jersey Shore.”
Neil Gaiman, starving artist.
The action started when a House Republican committee chair said he is recommending a $45,000 cut in the Twin Cites’ regional library system budget to make up for the state Legacy money it paid last year to Gaiman for a speaking appearance.
Gaiman quickly defended his speaking fees, saying they are comparable to those charged by Snooki, the reality TV star.
And to be fair to Gaiman, if taxpayer money had gone to “Snooki”, I’d be even more irate.
“I won the Newbery Medal. I won the Carnegie Medal,” said Gaiman, who said he has 1.5 million Twitter followers. “I’ve written movies that were the Number 1 movie in the entire world.”
Well, that’s great. Kudos.
You, Mr. Gaiman, are someone who has been rewarded bountifully for your talents. I don’t begrudge a nickel of what you’ve earned…
…from the private sector.
But can anyone say, honestly, that $45,000 expropriated from all of us working schlubs for “arts and culture” is better spent on allowing locals to bask in the presence of a millionaire sci-fi writer than on, say, buying rental band instruments for a high school music program? For keeping an after-school art program open? For anything else?
Dean, R-Dellwood, got things rolling Tuesday by calling Gaiman a “pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota,” has since apologized. He said Thursday he did not direct Rep. Dean Urdahl, R-Grove City, who chairs the House Legacy Funding Division committee, to trim $45,000 from the regional library system’s proposed budget.
Dean’ comments, however, underscored the ongoing concerns of the Republican majority about Legacy money being spent on arts and cultural projects as the Legislature struggles to solve a $5.1 billion budget deficit.
Concerns?
Try outrage. As someone who supports the arts, I’m stupefied at the tone-deafness of the library’s action.
Although my inner cynic isn’t surprised (I’ll be adding some emphasis):
The Legacy amendment, passed in 2008 with considerable financial support from arts groups in Minnesota, raised the state sales tax for 25 years to fund outdoors, clean water, parks and trails and arts and cultural heritage projects.
And when Republicans point to things like…:
…as evidence that the public art funding bureaucracy is out of control, and the arts and culture advocacy communities are fighting against a legislative majority committed to cutting government waste, really, it seems it’s more than just arts education that’s lacking.
Gaiman is a successful “artist”, and a pretty wealthy guy:
Gaiman, reached Thursday afternoon, said he found the entire episode “very weird” and said he could win court damages from Dean, the leading Republican in the Minnesota House, should he choose to do so.
“If I actually wanted to come after you, dude, I could,” Gaiman said of
[For what? Defamation? Buncombe. Dean made no factual assertions; he stated an opinion. The opinion isn’t going to harm Gaiman’s standing in his community or his livelihood; it’ll likely do quite the opposite. And malice? Gaiman must be a sci-fi writer – Ed]
Gaiman said he would not file a lawsuit, but was considering other options that would be “so much more fun than going legal.”
There’ll be a Klingon character named “Deangrfx” in his next book, I’ll bet. Socially-maladjusted twentysomething computer geeks will titter with glee. Life will go on.
Gaiman also maintained that he received $33,600 for the four-hour appearance — a booking agency received the remainder — and said other appearances, outside Minnesota, have paid him more than $60,000.
And if they were paid for with tax money, then we really need to talk.
Anyway, fine – Gaiman’s not a pencil-necked weasel.
He’s just an unconscionable waste of tax money.
How many writing programs, or art teachers, or after-school music programs, could we have supported for what we wasted on this narcissistic frippery?
First, the good news: the call to civil rights activists earlier in the week was answered, big-time. The Senate was overwhelmed with calls from human rights activists asking for a hearing on Senate File 1357, the companion to HF1467, the “Stand Your Ground” bill. And the hearing will happen today.
And that’s the…well, not “bad” news. Just another job that needs to get done.
The Senate is holding hearings today:
The Defense of Dwelling and Person Act of 2011 (SF1357) will be heard in the Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee tomorrow (Friday, May 6) at 5:00 p.m.
There’s a catch:
Seating is extremely limited: you will need to arrive at 3:30 p.m. to line up for tickets, which will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at 4:00 in Room 15 of the Capitol.
This is our first and best chance to really show the Senate that Minnesotans back this common-sense civil rights bill.
Minnesota civil rights activists have always shocked the legislature with the depth and power of their support.
Now’s no time to stop.
I’m going to try to make it.
Remember – the way to tell when “progressives” are lying about gun laws is “check to see if their lips are moving”.
Since we have hearings this afternoon, and there wil likely be a floor vote soon, it”ll be good to get clear on a couple of the “points” in the left’s “argument” against the Stand Your Ground bill:
The Bill Does: Adds “Stand Your Ground” to Minnesota’s self-defense law. It removes the requirement that an intended victim of violent crime must retreat from a place where he has a right to be before using deadly force in self defense.
The Bill Does Not: Allow people to shoot people who wander onto their property. While the unclear and capricious “duty to retreat” is eliminated, the requirement that lethal force be reasonable, and the fear of death or great bodily harm be legitimate, do not change. This is a point that Twin Cities’ “progressives” have been playing fast and loose. Read: Lying.
The Bill Does: Enhance the “Castle Doctrine”. The proposal clarifies when and under what circumstances individuals can legally use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes and vehicles. It also creates a presumption that, when faced with an apparent home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping attempt, a person may use deadly force in self defense.
The Bill Does Not: Allow people to shoot people for trivial reasons. “Progressives” want you to believe that the bill will allow you to shoot people who “give you the stink eye”. They say this because lies are all they have.
The Bill Does: Prevent Gun Seizures During States of Emergency. It bans government agencies from seizing guns or ammo, revoking permits to purchase or carry, closing gun shops, or otherwise suspending our constitutional rights during civil emergencies. It also prohibits law enforcement officers from seizing a person’s gun (unless the person is arrested, and the gun is evidence of a crime).
The Bill Does Not: Give people a “get out of jail free card” for killing people when self-defense is not justified.
The Bill Does: Improve State Background Checks. It requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services and state courts to make their background check records available electronically to authorized agencies, including the National Instant Background Check system (NICS), the “instant background check” database that controls handgun sales nationwide. This process was supposed to have been in place 16 years ago – that’s your bureaucracy at work! It should reduce purchasing delays and ensure that state and federal checks produce the same results.
The Bill Does Not: Make it easier to kill people in domestic arguments. Just the opposite.
What The Bill Does: Create a more robust appeal process for denied purchase permits, and requiring that police chiefs and sheriffs whose purchase permit denials are overturned must pay the applicants’ legal costs. Y’know – requires them to follow the law, rather than their bureaucratic whim.
The Bill Does Not: Give gun owners the right to kill deputies and cops that irritate them. No “progressive” has suggested it would – yet – but you know those wacky “progressives”; it won’t take ’em long.
The Bill Does: Adds Universal Carry Permit Acceptance. It updates Minnesota’s carry permit reciprocity standards, allowing people holding carry permits from any other state to carry in Minnesota (subject to Minnesota’s laws). This should result in a large increase in the number of states where Minnesota permit holders can carry, since many states allow other states’ permit holders to carry on a reciprocal basis.
The Bill Does Not: Let anyone kill anyone for trivial reasons. Period. End of sentence. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
The Bill Does: Give self-defense shooters the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Currently, self-defense shooters must, in effect, say “yes, I’m guilty, but here’s my excuse” – a profound legal risk that not even serial killers face.
That’s really all that matters.
Some Republicans have claimed that the DFL has spent the six weeks since the GOP introduced a balanced, tax-hike-free budget “loafing” and “running out the clock” (when they’re not clutching their pearls about the GOP ignoring the suddenly-“non-partisan” Minnesota Management and Budget fiscal notes).
But we know better.
The DFL has whiled away its free hours tackling the legislation that matters, dammit!:
Thank you, DFL!
Mark Dayton, 2010, goes all tactical on an outstate audience while pimping for that outstate vote:
“I have two loaded .357 Magnum pistols in my home right now in a lock box,” DFL candidate Mark Dayton told a crowd gathered Saturday at Game Fair, a hunting and fishing expo in Anoka. “I have a 9mm pistol at home. I have a twelve-gauge shotgun at home.”
Mark Dayton in 2011, acting like a Democrat with a lifetime “D” rating from the NRA:
Earlier in the day, by a voice vote, members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill, the first showdown of the legislative session over gun rights. Having now passed two committees, the bill is on its way to the full House.
The committee hearing was a low-key rerun of a separate one held last week that was jammed with supporters of the bill, who call it the “Stand Your Ground” measure, and opponents, who call it the “Shoot First” bill.
(I hope at least one supporter asked at least one of the antis “what do you think happens when you “Shoot Second” in a life-or-death situation?”)
Gun control advocates and organizations representing the state’s police chiefs, sheriffs and officers reiterated their opposition to the bill, which, they say, could endanger their members. “To us, this is a huge officer safety issue,” said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.
Dayton, himself a gun owner, said he will “listen carefully to the concerns of the law enforcement community.”
Dayton “listened to the concerns of law enforcement” in the same sense as he “listened to the concerns of grassroots liberals” at “Alliance for a Better Minnesota“. The organizations “representing” the cops are, almost without exception, pro-DFL lobbying groups, run by cops that must, as a matter of survival, suck up to the Metro DFL mayors and city councils to push their agendas.
He added: “I understand and believe that somebody has a right, if somebody enters their home and is threatening their spouse or their children or themselves, to take preventive action, and I recognize the police are not going to always be able to be on the scene immediately. I’m sympathetic to those concerns, but this goes way beyond that.”
Um…how?
(Seriously. Expect lots of DFLers to repeat the line “this goes way beyond that” – because that’s what DFLers do, repeat the lines their superiors tell them to use. Ask them. They never, ever have an answer).
Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, the bill’s sponsor, repeated his contention that “we like to call it the self-defense bill — it attempts to give more latitude to the homeowner.”
Brushing aside opponents’ contention that the change in the law would lead to an increasing number of dead trespassers, Cornish said it “doesn’t allow you to shoot someone toilet-papering your tree.”
The bill would expand what is known as the Castle Doctrine and has long been close to the top of the wish list for gun rights supporters, who say they should have no obligation to flee an attacker…
…while on their own property.
Although DFL majorities have been able to block it in recent years, it’s expected to face few obstacles in this session’s Republican-dominated Legislature.
Other than from Republicans who think that “Stand Your Ground” is a negotiating chit.
I don’t think that’ll work.
Republicans (and outstate DFLers), remember; we gunnies know who the real enemy is. But we have looooong memories. We remember, in particular, the 1980’s and 1990’s, when our endless support was answered with…not much in the way of legislative progress.
We did our waiting, long before most of you were in office.
Nachman at Loyal Opposition notes the endless entertainment that is Representative Phyllis Kahn.
Speaking in committee yesterday re the Marriage Amendment:
After some other elected official complained that the Legislature should be working on the budget shortfall and not on unimportant things like defining the core unit of civil society, Representative Phyllis Kahn (DFL-Minneapolis, the one who signed on to a bill sympathizing with the supporters of murderous anti-Semites), questioned why there is no statutory enabling language in the amendment, then wondered aloud if defining marriage as “only between one man and one woman” means one time only, or successive marriages?
The bottom of stupid fell out of the world at that point.
With a nod to Glenn Reynolds: heh.
The Senate GOP is trying to sandbag the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill. This just in from the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance:
Senator Warren Limmer, chair of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety committee, claims that his committee does not have time to hear SF1357 — the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act of 2011. Refusing to hear the bill would kill it for the year.
This is not acceptable!
Gun owners had enough of being taken for granted back in the ’80s and ’90s. We’ve lost the taste for it.
This is one of those moments where the rubber of grassroots politics meets the road.
Please – call:
…and tell them both to schedule the bill for consideration THIS WEEK.
Then, please email them both:
And then call your own Senator.
This is go time for the human right of self-defense, and taking it out of the realm of bureaucrats’ discretion.
Please get on the phone ASAP.
And remember, Senators Koch and Limmer and the rest of the Senate GOP caucus; nobody in Minnesota politics has a longer memory than us bitter gun-clingers. And I get it – it’s a busy session, and there are a lot of priorities.
We are asking you to make the time to get this bill through.
UPDATE: I talked with one of Sen, Koch’s assistants. Her question; is this bill more important than all the other bills that need to be heard?
It’s right up there, yes.
There’s a blizzard coming in from the southwest.
A blizzard of common sense, that is. Senators Ortman and Roebling, and Representative Hoppe have introduced an amendment requiring the state budget to be not only “balanced”, but in fact statutorily two percent inside our means; government spending would be liminted to 98 percent of revenues:
“This amendment establishes spending limits based on current law revenue sources,” said Senator Ortman. “The proposed amendment also ensures steady and reliable budget reserves by directing excess dollars into the reserve, which cannot be spent except in emergencies involving health, safety or welfare of citizens of Minnesota.”
There’d be my one quibble; that’s $600 million per biennium that should, by all rights, stay with the taxpayers.
But it’s a great start.
Senator Ortman added: “This is a positive solution for Minnesota’s spending problem. State Government budgets in the 21st Century cannot maintain a 1970’s tax-and-spend mentality. We should limit spending to only 98 percent of the actual funds available, which will force prioritization of spending that is long overdue.”…
Here’s the important part (emphasis added):
…“We have more government than we can afford; this amendment will end the problem of auto-pilot growth in our state budget,” said Senator Ortman.
“If we would have had this amendment in place, we would not be in such a difficult financial situation now,” said Senator Robling, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
This is a must-pass.
Representative John Kriesel is getting plaudits from the crowd that normally wouldn’t spit on a Republican if he were on fire, because he opposes the GOP’s Marriage Amendment proposal:
John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, is the first Republican in the Minnesota Legislature to announce his opposition to a proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage, according to the Star Tribune. The bill has cleared a committee each in the Minnesota House and Senate, and Kriesel said he’s working hard to convince his Republican colleagues that the amendment is a bad idea.
“I look at it as: We are all equal,” Kriesel told the Star Tribune. “It is not right. I can’t do it. I’m very upset about this vote. I don’t like it. I think it sends the wrong message. You live once in your life and I’ve learned that the hard way. You never know when it is going to be your time. People fight to find happiness….You find someone you love and now other people are saying because I don’t consider that normal, you can’t do it?”
Two things to set straight first:
One: I have nothing but respect for Rep. Kriesel. He’s earned it, over and over. The fact that he got elected to the House was one of the most satisfying victories of a very satisfying election season last year.
Second: As a libertarian-conservative, I’m perfectly fine with letting people live their lives their own way; I support legalizing many drugs, and support civil unions as a civil contract.
But I – along with a sharp majority of Minnesotans – believe Marriage is a fundamentally religious institution, above and beyond its status as a civil contract. Every one of the world’s religions, barring the odd splinter (shaddap about Episcopals), agrees.
And when we say “marriage is, to us, a religious institution”, the best argument the gay marriage proponents have come up with so far is “no it’s not”.
Which is where I have to push back. “Marriage” is really two different things, depending on who you ask;
Of course, not everyone believes in the same Creator, or even that there is one; notwithstanding this, we are all created (by whatever you think created us) equal before the law of the land.
Most of the gay marriage activists I’ve heard are after the former; the latter seems to draw fewer (although there are plenty of people who want to induce major Christian denominations to recognize gay unions).
So there’s the dilemma for the principled libertarian Christian; in a secular sense, I can agree with Rep. Kriesel, that in re forbidding gays from forming civil contracts…
“It’s just wrong,” Kriesel said. “There is not anything that can move me on this.”
…while on the other hand being equally unmoved to renounce what I (and most Minnesotans) believe about the sacred institution of marriage.
In a sense, I think the Amendment would be a good thing for the proponents of gay marriage, inasmuch as it’d force them to state a case for radically changing the institution that sways the people. The gay movement’s current strategy is to take everything to court (or to radically “progressive” legislatures), and chant that everyone that opposes them is a “hateful” “bigot”. They desperately need to do better, if they want to convince anyone but a judge.
Especially someone like me – who doesn’t believe marriage is a “right” (or even necessarily a great idea), even for straight couples, but that equal protection before the law absolutely always is.
It’ll be interesting to see what issue it’ll be that demotes Kriesel back to “just another Republican” to the Minnesota Independent. There’s always something.
Lori Sturdevant demands that we “Just say no to wedge politics” in a piece called, conveniently, “Just say no to wedge politics…”
As six middle-aged, white male Republican legislators — all married in the eyes of Minnesota law — left the briefing room Tuesday after announcing their push for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, they couldn’t avoid passing DFL Sen. Scott Dibble on his way inside.
…bv invoking a really, really stupid wedge.
(Dibble is, by the way, middle-aged and very, very white. He happens to be gay).
How does one look a colleague in the eye or speak a civil greeting, right after announcing an intention to make that colleague’s marriage forever illegitimate?
I craned my neck to see what expressions passed between them. Darn. Too far from the door to get a good look.
“They nodded,” Dibble, a three-termer from Minneapolis and currently the Senate’s only openly gay member, reported afterward. “One or two might have said ‘Hi.’ … That’s what makes it all the more odd that they are willing to effectively dehumanize me.”
We’ll come back to this in another post later today.
But hey, Lori – good job avoiding those wedges.
Let’s be clear on this – the only reason the DFL (as opposed to gay activists, like Dibble) care about this is that when the vote comes for the amendment, the DFL is going to lose. Maybe lose big. As I pointed out during the election, there’s polling out there that suggests that Minnesotans strongly oppose changing the traditional definition of marriage.
If it were otherwise – if there had been any indication that Minnesotans craved single-sex marriage – the DFL would have introduced an amendment legalizing it in 2007, when they took complete control of the legislature, or in 2009, when their control became utterly stifling. Even had Pawlenty vetoed it, they’d have gotten GOP votes on the issue made public, and hammered them on it in the ’08 and ’10 elections. If there were a majority of Minnesotans who favored gay marriage.
But there is not.
And so the DFL is desperate to avoid being forced to put votes on the line on this issue. Because they know that, along with the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” Bill and Voter ID, most Minnesotans, especially outstate, Gay Marriage is a loser for them – and since the DFL’s only hope is to expand outstate (they can hardly control the Twin Cities and Duluth and the Arrowhead more thoroughly than they do), this is not part of the plan.
More on Gay Marriage itself later today.
(SCENE: A DFL Legislative Caucus meeting over breakfast at the bar at the Kelly Inn. Paul THISSEN, Ryan WINKLER, John LESCH, Phyllis KAHN, Scott DIBBLE, Carly MELIN, Sandy PAPPAS, Alice HAUSMAN, and Linda BERGLIN are sitting at a large table.. They are whispering amongst themselves as they wait for Tom BAKK)
LESCH: (to MELIN): If a Birther doesn’t believe The President is American, what is a Winkler?”
WINKLER: Hey, shut up!
BAKK: (Enters with a flurry and a bustle, takes a seat at the head of the table): Hey, all.
THISSEN: Hey, Tom!
ALL (mumble their greetings)
BAKK: Sorry I was late. I got held up in the Central Corridor construction getting here.
HAUSMAN: But Tom? The construction is like four miles away. You just had to walk across the street.
BAKK: I think my driver was running out the clock ’til his pension!
(ALL chuckle)
BAKK: OK, we gotta come up with some messaging. But I need a cuppa coffee first. (Turns to MELIN) Get me a cuppa coffee, wouldja?
THISSEN: One for me, too…
MELIN: Er, I’m not a waitress…
BAKK: I didn’t ask for an autobiography, toots. Cream, five sugars, and hustle. (MELIN, visibly upset, gets up and walks to bar). OK – so what’s on the table here?
PAPPAS: The Gay Marriage Ban amendment, for starters.
BAKK: OK. Big one. 2/3 of Minnesota will vote for it. How do we spin this?
THISSEN: Yeah! Ideas, please! Ideas!
WINKLER: Maybe introduce a ban on all marriage?
(BAKK looks at Winkler for a beat or two, as…)
LESCH: How about “Vote against it, or John Lesch will uncork a can of whoopass on you?”
WINKLER: Ooh, bitchin’!
BAKK: No…no….
KAHN: How about “Goddess Will Strike You Dead”….
BERGLIN: Let’s just spin this as “Hate”.
BAKK: Hm. Hate. The GOP is Hateful. I like it!
THISSEN: Brilliant! Brilliant!
(MELIN returns, puts coffee on table in front of BAKK and THISSEN).
BAKK: OK – now, the budget.
DIBBLE: How about “The GOP are acting like a bunch of pansy Nazis?”
LESCH: Yeah!
THISSEN: Good! Goooood!
BAKK: Hm. A little aggressive.
THISSEN: Good Goddess, what a dumb idea, Dibble…
(Silence for a few moment)
HAUSMAN: How about “The GOP exhibits their hate by not passing a budget”
BAKK: Hmm. It’s got a zing to it. I like it.
THISSEN: I could kiss you, Alice!
HAUSMAN: (Facepalm)
BAKK: OK, next item…
(Former Senator Ellen ANDERSON stops by table).
ANDERSON: Hi, guys!
(PAPPAS, LESCH, KAHN, DIBBLE, BERGLIN, HAUSMAN, MELIN and other greet the Senator).
THISSEN: Hey, Ellen! Great to see you!
BAKK: Ellen, we’re kinda busy here…
(THISSEN draws a can of pepper spray and discharges it at Anderson, who beats a hasty, coughing retreat).
BAKK: OK. What’s next?
BERGLIN: Jobs.
BAKK: OK.
LESCH: How about “Why do Republicans hate jobs?”
BAKK: Bingo!
THISSEN (claps with excited glee).
BAKK: Keep ’em coming!
DIBBLE: Union pensions?
BAKK: “Why does the GOP hate public employees!”
THISSEN: Yaaaay! Keep going!
KAHN: Publicly funded art!
BAKK: “Why does the GOP hate artists!”
(THISSEN hops up and down with glee)
WINKLER: The Vikings stadium!
BAKK: Why do the ReThugLiCons hate sports fans!”
(THISSEN does a spry cartwheel between the tables)
MELIN: Racino?
BAKK: Why do Republicans hate Indians!
(THISSEN loses consciousness in a paroxysm of unfettered glee, falls face-first into the omelet in front of Mary Lahammer, sitting at a neighboring table).
BERGLIN: Native Americans.
KAHN: Ahem. First Nations.
BERGLIN and BAKK: Doh!
LESCH: The Ku Klux Klan!
BAKK: Why does the GOP hate hate?
(Everyone stops).
BAKK: Wait. Back up.
PAPPAS: Sheesh.
BAKK: OK. Well, we got the basics down. Let’s get to work, people!
(ALL adjourn to drinking coffee and eating breakfast).
LESCH (Digs in briefcase, pulls out sheaf of paper). Hey, what the hell is this?
WINKLER: (Reads front page) Governor…Dayton’s…budget…proposal…? Huh?
BAKK: Never heard of it. (Handing coffee cup to MELIN) Hey, cupcake, put a head on this, huh?
This morning, we went over the claims from “Spotty” from Cucking Stool that Rep. Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill (HF 1467, which we discussed at great length last week) would allow people to make spurious claims of self-defense and, literally, get away with murder.
It won’t, of course – although Minnesota’s “progressives” want you to think so. We’ll come back to that.
What it will do is bring some much-needed rationality to Minnesota’s self-defense law.
Let’s go through a hypothetical example that, unlike Spotty’s, actually occurs in the real world.
———-
Say that you are a woman. You’re walking from your garage back to your house, coming home from a picnic. It’s dusk. Your two kids are indoors, but the back door is open. Suddenly, you hear a shout; it’s that stalker-y collections lawyer you met on Match.com, the one you told to pound sand after a noncommittal first date and a weird second one. You told him you weren’t feeling it, and he’s been stalking you ever since. You’ve even explored taking out a restraining order – but there’s no restraining him now. He’s standing where he could come between you and the back door of the house. He has a knife – a big, long knife. Being a carry permit-holder, you grab your pistol and point, frantically remembering what your carry permit instructor taught you about the law last year:
Back to “Spotty”.
And here are two subdivisions that deal with the consequences to the user of deadly force after the event.
The bill says that if some one even claims self defense, they are immune from arrest — which might include even detention at the place of an incident of the use of deadly force — until an arresting officer weighs all of the circumstances. The would be hard to gainsay the absurdity of subdivision five and the complete impracticality of its application. It makes the police into arraignment judges.
And he goes on to say…:
But subdivision six contains the most monumental change in the criminal law. Under current law, in both federal and state courts in Minnesota, a defendant has the burden of establishing self defense. Once the acts are established beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., the weapon was used by the defendant, the defendant must show that the killing or wounding was justified. The proposed statute flips that burden around, placing it on the prosecution.
Now, I’m nothing if not a civil guy (unlike more than a few of my critics, including “Spotty”). But between this passage, and his little opening fantasy, it’s pretty clear he hasn’t the foggiest idea how “Self Defense” works.
Let’s say that you are the woman in my example above. As the stalker charges toward you, you shoot. Two shots to the chest; he drops like a dog. The cops respond; and say “Good shot, he had it coming, you had to protect yourself and your kids, there was no way you could have done it differently under the circumstances”. But there’s a body – so the county attorney opts to press charges, based on the fact that, in the County Attorney’s opinion (sitting in his brightly-lit office, with a cup of coffee on his desk and all the time he needs to think through all the angles) the fact that there was a shooting is all that matters; county policy is to “arrest and charge the gun” – no matter who used the gun, and why.
Which means the woman in my example will be arrested, and charged with murder, and have to float bail and hire a lawyer and go to court and say “yes, I killed the guy – but he came to me, he had a knife, and it was clear my kids and I were in lethal danger, and my response was reasonable, and under the circumstances retreat was, if not impossible, unreasonable “. After which the County Prosecutor gets to tell a jury – also working in a nice, brightly-lit room, with sheriff’s deputies guarding them and all the donuts they can eat – that no, you should have run up the stairs, or out the back door, or put your gun down and negotiated with him, or anything but end his unstably-minded life.
The best you can hope for is that your attorney can convince 12 people who couldn’t get out of jury duty that you were in the right (for between $10,000 and $50,000 in court costs and attorney fees); your life’s savings will be exhausted, your credit will be shot, you have a good chance of losing your job – but you will have proved your innocence of murder – something no actual murderer has to do (because they’re innocent until proven guilty, remember?) while you, a law-abiding citizen who shot in self-defense, are “guilty with an explanation”. The worst? That your lawyer does a bad job, and that your judge – a DFLer, maybe? – gives jury instructions that virtually ensure your conviction, and a prison term, and a lifetime in court defending “wrongful death” suits, because you were found guilty of…well, not “wrongfully killing” someone, so much as of not retreating far and fast enough. And in between the two, there’s the chance that the County Attorney fights you so aggressively on the case that, even though you were right to shoot, you have to take a plea bargain, because you are bankrupt and can’t afford to continually fight the entire weight of the County’s legal bureaucracy by yourself; to take a smaller felony in exchange for maybe, someday, getting your life back.
Unlike “Spotty’s” little flight of fancy at the top of the post, this scenario actually happens. Ask Martin Treptow.
So Cornish’s bill would allow two things:
Spot:
The bill also immunizes the vigilante from civil liability — to anybody, including bystanders waiting at the bus stop or walking down the street.
Well, sort of. Here’s what Cornish’s bill says, with emphasis added:
7.23 Subd. 5. Criminal investigation; immunity from prosecution. (a) An individual|
7.24who uses force, including deadly force, according to this section or as otherwise provided
7.25by law in defense of the individual, the individual’s dwelling, or another individual is
7.26justified in using such force and is immune from any civil liability or criminal prosecution
7.27for that act.7.28(b) A law enforcement agency may arrest an individual using force under
7.29circumstances described in this section only after considering any claims or circumstances
7.30supporting self-defense or lawful defense of another individual.
In other words, it gives clear-cut cases of self-defense a chance to be resolved without making a thoroughly-lawful shooter go through the entire judicial process as a criminal on trial, and protects people who carry out thoroughly legitimate self-defense shootings from retribution in civil court from the people they shot. (Not bystanders; the law would not legalize shooting bystanders; the imperative to “know your backstop” doesn’t change).
Back to Dog the Red Herring Hunter:
The practical effect is that if a defendant says “I felt threatened,” it is the prosecutor’s burden to show that the defendant was not “reasonably” threatened.
Again, I’m not the one who is going to come around with the personal insult – but “Spotty” is a lawyer in real life. I’m not sure if he’s just unfamiliar with how the system works, or if he’s being willfully disingenuous. But it’s not enough to say “I felt threatened”; it isn’t now, and it won’t be under Cornish’s law. If the body on your floor is not holding a knife or gun, it’d be well within the cop’s discretion to say I know you claim to have shot in self-defense, but it appears at the least you were mistaken” under Cornish’s proposal, whereas today he’s more likely forced to say “I know you’re innocent, but our county policy is “arrest the gun””.
The burden of proof for demonstrating, for example, insanity or diminished capacity as a defense to a crime also rests with the defendant. If this bill becomes law, it would give the user of deadly force a procedural advantage not shared by any other defendant seeking to use an affirmative defense.
“Spot” is begging the question here – using Minnesota’s current treatment of self-defense as “evidence” that Minnesota’s current treatment of self-defense is the right approach. It’s illogical, notwithstanding that it’s wrong. “Affirmative Defense” – saying “yes, I committed the crime, but there are some factors due to which you should modify my culpability” – makes sense, arguably, for modifying the consequences of acts committed under diminished capacity. An obviously legitimate self-defense shooting should not be treated as analogous to someone who hacks someone up and offers up the bits and pieces as a sacrifice to his invisible masters. Defending life and limb from predators is an unalloyed good; it should not be treated as an anomaly to be carefully screened and treated.
Under the bill, if an insane man shot somebody, he would have a better chance of beating the rap by claiming he used the gun in self defense than defending on the basis that was insane.
Only if you assume cops and, yes, county attorneys are complete idiots. Can “Spotty” spell out a case where an insane man…:
I’m guessing this doesn’t even rise to the level of a reasonable hypothetical.
And for my money, if you shoot somebody, or knife them, it ought to be you who has some explaining to do.
If “Spot” thinks no explaining will be involved after even a perfectly legitimate shooting, he’s clearly floating free of all reason.
Fortunately Spot’s “money” isn’t what governs us. Our elected legislature and governor are.
Cornish’s bill will come up in the Public Safety Committee on Thursday. It’ll likely pass on a straight party-line vote (although outstate Dems will likely support it as well – they know the power of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) outstate), but please contact everyone on the committee anyway (info below the jump). After that, it’ll likely pass the House and Senate the same way, and go to the Governor.
Who will face a conundrum; sign the bill and keep his promise to the outstate but largely pro-Second-Amendment DFLers who believed him when he said he kept a pair of .357s in a lock box in his bedroom for self-defense, and that he was (against his entire voting record) a pro-Second-Amendment guy, or veto it and lose still more outstate legislative seats in 2012 (because outstate DFLers who forget the power of GOCRA will live to regret it).
Update: Forgetful old dog that I am, I neglected to mention that the post was prepared with the able editorial assistance of MNO.
As I’m a kind and gentle guy, I’ll let that blooping slow-ball sail outside for an easy ball.
Because “progressives” are telling fairy tales about guns again.
Back in 1987, when Florida became the first major state to pass a “shall-issue” law, Senator Ron Silver set a standard for rhetoric (“It’ll be like Dodge City”, “there’ll be blood running in the streets”) that he, at least, had the decency to admit was overblown ten years after the fact, when it turned out that not only had nothing he or the bill’s other detractors predicted came true, but that law-abiding citizens with carry permits were about 1/100 as likely to commit any crime at all as the general public.
The standard was “topped”, of course, here in Minnesota during the final debate on the Minnesota Personal Protection Act. During the final debate on the floor vote in 2003, the Senate DFL caucus came out to the floor wearing flak jackets. Wes “Lying Sack of Garbage” Skoglund continued his years-long trail of just-plain delusional fantasy, claiming that “gang-bangers will be able to get permits” and “I’m worried carry permit holders will be stalking me”.
Of course, every single casualty of post-MPPA carry permits to date – I can think of one, actually – was ruled justifiable. The Hiawatha Light Rail line kills more people in a typical year, none of them justified.
Still, you can’t blame “progressives” for resorting to fantasy and delusion when attacking pro-Second Amendment legislation; since the facts are against them and the law (from the SCOTUS on down) is against them, it’s really all they have.
And “Spotty” from Cucking Stool is reliably cliché-driven on the subject (yep, he’s even done the “gunnies are teh compensating” narrative, a few years back). So he’s not exactly breaking new ground with this post on the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill (which I wrote about last week). Although it’s an interesting little view into a “progressive’s” fantasy life:
But officer, I felt so threatened
Sir, I see you standing over the dead body of that man, and you’re holding a gun. Care to explain yourself?
Well, officer, I shot him.
I figured that. But can you tell me why?
He threatened me.
What did he say?
Well he didn’t say anything, actually.
Did he pull a gun or a knife, or take a swing at your?
No, not really.
What do you mean, “not really?” What did he do that you felt justified in killing him?
He gave me the stink eye and well, he kind of sucked his teeth. It really scared me.
Okay then. Sorry to bother you. Say, can you move aside so we can get at this guy? We have to take him to the morgue and call his family and stuff; I need to pull his wallet.
Sure; no prob.
Scary!
This may be a scenario coming to a corner near you.
But only if the cop and the county attorney don’t bother figuring out if the shooter had a legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm (“stink-eye” doesn’t cut it, even in the most conservative counties in Minnesota), or if lethal force was appropriate under the circumstances (ibid), or if the shooter was a willing participant in the squabble.
Which are, I’m sure, annoying technicalities to “Spot”, but pretty much life-and-death to anyone who needs to defend his/herself.
Also, the law.
I’m just picking on Cornish because’s he the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee in the House — of the chief authors of HF 1467, a bill that, inter alia, removes the obligation of a person to retreat from a threatening situation, if possible, before opening fire. Under the bill, if an individual “reasonably” (ah, the devil is in the details, isn’t it?) believes there is a threat to him or her or a third person, they’ll be justified in using deadly force to meet the threat. It’s a little more complicated than that, but you can read the whole bill at the link. And here are some of the key sections of the bill. It’s in pdf format,
[Well, not just PDF . See 609.065, Subd. 2 in the linked bill – Ed.]
Here are the circumstances when deadly force is authorized. The first subsection is already permitted under Minnesota law, the second probably is, too, save for the issue of a safe retreat. The third subsection is quite vague, and it is a complete departure from current Minnesota law. A “forcible felony” might include something like breaking and entering (burglary) on property that is not occupied, and which is not even yours. This is the true vigilante section of the bill.
I’m getting tired of typing “this is just patent rubbish”. I need a hot key of some kind. But you get the idea.
There is nothing “vigilante” about it. One of the biggest ambiguities of Minnesota’s self-defense law is that while current law – dating back to well before the Minnesota Personal Protection Act – allows citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves “or others” from death or great bodily harm (henceforth “GBH”), it gives prosecutors immense, and arbitrary, power over how they treat self-defense shooters – and force self-defense shooters to go down a very hazardous legal path to justify their actions.
The next subdivision of the proposed statute is the part that eliminates the duty to retreat if you can. The law has always permitted you to defend yourself, with deadly force if necessary, if you can’t retreat. But you do have a duty to avoid violence if you can.
“If you can”.
“Spotty” writes it with the blasé tone of someone for whom the concept is utterly academic.
If you’re ever in a life or death situation, it’s not.
Let’s delve into reality over the noon hour today.
I gotta confess, when I hatched the “Dayton Dust Bowl” idea way back last fall, I had no idea it would catch on like this.
But then, I didn’t think Minnesotans were dumb enough to elect a governor whose entire platform was “killing dynamism and growth in Minnesota” and “going back to the seventies”.
But Minnesotans surprised me – not in a good way – and so here we are, having serious discussions about raising taxes during a crippling recession after the idea of “raising taxes during a recession” has gone 0 for 300 worldwide in the past 200 years or so.
The Minnesota Majority, thankfully, is on the case. About an hour ago, they rolled out…
…the Dayton Soup Truck!
From MNMaj’s press advisory:
“Soup Truck” Launched in Response to Dayton’s Job-Killing Taxation Proposals.
Aims to inform Minnesotans and help them prepare for tough economic times ahead.
Coming soon to a bread line near you.
Unless the GOP wins the budget battle this session, of course.
Coming soon
You remember the old lawyer’s bromide; “if the facts are against you, argue law; if the law is against you, argue facts; if both are against you, argue like hell”.
The DFL is arguing like hell.
The Dayton Administration and the various DFL cauci have been claiming that the GOP’s budget proposal is a billion dollars short – based on numbers from Minnesota Management and Budget. As we pointed out the other day, MMB is run by Commissioner Schowalter, who was appointed by Governor Dayton and serves at his discretion. And its forecasting methods, according to a legislator closely involved in the process, are highly sclerotic, well-calibrated to ring up costs but not to account for savings.
And now – not only is MMB’s leadership not “non-partisan” (as the DFL and its minions continually claim), but either is its data:
The Dayton administration engaged in a new level of hypocrisy today in the ongoing dispute over fiscal notes used to back up spending bills. Today’s example: a fiscal note from Governor Dayton’s Department of Administration regarding the photo ID bill which cited information from Common Cause Minnesota, an overtly partisan liberal group.
The Department of Administration used numbers from a Common Cause Minnesota report to back up its contention that a multi-million dollar ad campaign is necessary to inform the public about a new photo ID requirement at the polls. They also used information from two other outside groups cited in the Common Cause report, the Brennan Center for Justice and the Pew Center on the States.
Which is a little like declaring the National Ketchup Board a “non-partisan” source in a bill aimed at making ketchup a mandatory part of school lunches.
You are currently browsing the archives for the MN Legislature category.
