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!:

• Thanks to Senate Minority (I can repeat that over and over all day long! – Ed) leader Tom Bakk, moose hunters are no longer encumbered by height limits on their moose stands!  All the better to eliminate the moose scourge!
• The state’s deficit in numbers of official mammals has been reduced from one to zero, thanks to the DFL!
• Joe Atkins (DFL, Inver Grove Heights), who is currently Ryan Winkler’s understudy as the DFL Minority Co-Snark (along with Rep. John “Jägermeister” Lesch [1]), tackled the vital work of trying to establish a state Pipe Band.

Thank you, DFL!

(more…)

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.

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;

• it’s a set of contractually-defined rights (from inheritance to power of attorney to standing in custody trials during divorce) and obligations (most noticable when things don’t go well)
• It’s an ordination for one’s Creator that you and another person are ordained to be together.

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?

I try to be civil.  I really do.

But it needs to be said; Heather Martens is a liar.

Maybe not in every single area of her life.  She may well be perfectly good, ethical human being in some areas of her life.  I don’t know.

But it is an unassailable fact that virtually everything Heather Martens has ever written about guns, gun laws, gun owners and the Second Amendment is wrong; it seems improbable that she’s unaware of how much of her oeuvre is just plain not so.

Yesterday, Minnesota Public Radio ran a “commentary” column by Martens (entitled, I kid you not, “Bill would encourage citizens to shoot first, even when they could walk away instead”) that may be the richest single trove of concentrated untruth in one place since Baghdad Bob strode the stage.

Lie #1: HF1467 Legalizes Murder!

[Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder] wants to legalize a kind of murder.

It’s hard to count the number of ways this statement screams “stupid”.

• Current law “legalizes” defending oneself with lethal force – under certain, rigidly-delineated circumstances.
• For that matter, the concept of self-defense is a part of Western legal thought going all the way back to the Bible.  It’s broadly and correctly recognized as the second-worst possible outcome – but it’s been legal, within limits, pretty much forever.
• Cornish’s law changes nothing about that “legalization”; as we’ve noted in the past few days, it only removes some of the ambiguity from the current law, and gives legitimate self-defense shooters the benefit of the legal doubt.

Either Martens is trying to scare people into submission, or she’s an idiot.

Reading this next bit, I could easily go both ways (emphasis added).

Lie #2: HF1467 Will Legalize Shooting People For No Reason!

I’ve read Martens’ piece at least half a dozen time as this is written. And every time I think “This is the most cynical lie of the bunch”, I remember some other part of the article that’s even worse.

But this one may be the dumbest – or most craven – lie of them all:

House File 1467, which ought to be called “Shoot First,” (sic)

[But it’s not.  Which doesn’t stop Martens from calling it “Shoot First” for the rest of the article.  I get it – rhetoric is rhetoric.  But it leads her down a factual dark alley later on – Ed]

will be heard in the House Public Safety Committee this Thursday. It would allow the killing of anyone who enters another’s yard, even when the person is unarmed and posing no threat; and it would allow the killing of anyone in a public place who seems threatening — again, even if the person is unarmed, and even if walking or driving away is a safe option.

Cornish’s law “allows” no such thing.  Self-defense with lethal force in Minnesota will still rest on four links in a chain; you…

• …must not be a willing participant
• You must reasonably fear death or great bodily harm (and “Great Bodily Harm” means “seriously maimed”; limbs, eyesight, brain damage.   “He seems threatening” won’t cut it.
• Lethal force must be reasonable.  “If the person is unarmed and poses no threat” doesn’t come close.
• You must make reasonable efforts to avoid using lethal force.  This is a gross ambiguity, entirely dependent on County Attorney discretion, and Cornish’s bill adds some black and white to the law.

And the fact is that if your case is missing any of those four elements, you are screwed.  And should be. And Cornish’s bill doesn’t change that; as I pointed out Wednesday, it merely removes some ambiguity from current law.

Martens should know this; she’s been getting her head handed to her on this subject for a solid decade.  That means she’s lying.

Lie #3: The Out Of State Rabble Will Kill Us!

Martens tries to address some of Cornish’s proposal’s technicalities

Also buried in this bill is a loosening of concealed-carry permit laws to recognize all other state’s pistol permits in Minnesota, even states with lax background checks that issue permits valid for life.

“Lax Background checks?”  All states use the same federal government system.

Notwithstanding that, it is a fact that there has never been any empirical link between  a state’s acceptance criteria and their carry permittees likelihood to commit crimes.  None.

Lie #4: It’ll Be Easier To Buy Guns!

Martens claims..:

It also makes it harder for local law enforcement to prevent prohibited purchasers from getting permits to buy guns,

On this Martens is 180 degrees removed from reality.  While Cornish would make a “permit to purchase” a handgun expire after five years, rather than one – it would also require them to be reviewed and if necessary rescinded for cause during those five years.

Current has no such provision.

Cornish’s

Lie #5: It’ll Hurt WomenandChildren!

Martens claims that Cornish’s bill…:

…limits law enforcement’s ability to confiscate weapons in domestic violence situations.

This is just face-palmingly dumb.

The bill bans confiscations after disasters, and establishes consequences if government oversteps its authority.

Domestic Violence is never mentioned in HF1467.

Not only that, but the bill requires the state to provide more data to the Federal database against which background checks are run …

(a) When a court places a person, including a person under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, who is charged with committing a crime of violence, into a pretrial diversion program before disposition, the court must ensure that information regarding the person’s placement in that program and the ordered expiration date of that placement is transmitted as soon as practicable to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. When a person  successfully completes or discontinues the program, the court must also report that fact as soon as practicable to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

2.19(b) The court must report the conviction and duration of the firearms disqualification imposed as soon as practicable to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System when a person is convicted of a gross misdemeanor that disqualifies the person from possessing firearms under the following sections:

…meaning that “Domestic violence” convictions, among others,  will be more likely to turn up on Carry or Purchase Permit applications than under current law.

Lie #6: Everything You Do Is Deadly!

Martens’ selective cognition is especially on display in this next lie:

The Shoot First bill (sic) includes the words “self-defense,” but it uses obscure legalese and a bizarre redefinition of the common word “domicile” to make the bill apply to much more than self-defense. “Domicile” is redefined to include not just a person’s home, but also the “curtilage” (fenced yard), “appurtenances” (outbuildings or garages), and even occupied cars (or conveyances).

OK, that was actually factual; it may have been the first fully factual significant statement in Martens’ article.  It may well be the last.

It is a fact that Cornish’s bill expands a person’s “domicile” to include their yard, their garage, their car and the like.  This is a good thing.  Because while Minnesota’s “Castle Doctrine” law gives the citizen certain presumptions while in their home, those presumptions end at the door – which is why some ignorant but hopeful homeowners say, sometimes-but-by-no-means-always jokingly, “if someone tries to attack you on your porch, shoot him and drag him inside!”.  It will prevent absurdities like being convicted for failing to retreat into their house if they’re attacked in their garage.

Still, kudos to Martens; she managed one true fact.

The lie comes next:

If someone enters “by force or by stealth” — in legal terms, that means as little “force” as turning a doorknob or opening an unlatched gate — then the person is “presumed” to intend to badly hurt someone. In court, a presumption cannot be rebutted, so no evidence would be allowed that showed the dead person had entered the yard by error, by invitation of the homeowner, to rescue a drowning child, or for any other reason.

True, more or less.

Of course, there’d be the little matter of showing that lethal force was justified, and that the property owner had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.  Absent both of those, the property owner will more than likely be convicted of some sort of homicide.

(And it’s interesting to watch people like Heather Martens come up with scenarios that reflect their view of their fellow human; that an otherwise law-abiding citizen would sit in his back yard inviting strangers into his yard to “legally” shoot them to death.  Huh? How many moons orbit Heather Martens’ world?)

A Brief Divergence Into Facts – Which Prove Cornish’s Case, And Undercut Martens’, Anyway

Martens writes:

The main rationalization for this bill is the false claim that Minnesotans can’t legally defend themselves [it’s a strawman, of course; nobody said any such thing.  Merely that there are ambiguities in the law that would be well rationalized before a law-abiding citizen’s life is ruined – Ed] and that even if someone invades a Minnesotan’s home, the homeowner must run away. In fact, self-defense is legally protected in Minnesota; we already have “Castle Doctrine.” Here are three examples from recent years:

(For those of you who take Martens seriously, I’ll emphasize the bits that lead you to where she undercuts herself).

Minneapolis: Vang Khang shot two police officers who had invaded his home by mistake. Khang was not prosecuted and collected over half a million dollars from the city.

Coon Rapids: Gerald Whaley shot and killed an unarmed teenager who entered Whaley’s home, apparently believing it to be a vacant house. Whaley was not charged.

Rockford: Eric Cegon shot and killed his partner’s ex-boyfriend, who was armed and breaking into the couple’s home. Cegon was not charged.

One wonders if Martens thinks the cases above were mistakes; Khang’s home was assaulted by a SWAT team carrying out a no-knock raid on the wrong house.  Don’t think Khang was in the right?  How often do you think you can shoot cops and have it stand up in court.  The Cegon case was a blazingly legitimate shoot (I covered it when it happened).  And the Whaley case (I’m not intimately familiar with it) was dismissed by a county attorney who has shown himself not to be especially friendly to citizens and self-defense.

And all three are a digression – because, as I emphasized, all three occurred in the citizens’ houses.

So what if Samantha Simons’ (Eric Cegon’s girlfriend) ex boyfriend had cornered the two, and their child, in the garage rather than the bedroom?

Probably  nothing; Wright County is good GOP territory; the law-abiding can catch a break.

Proponents of Shoot First (sic) laws have no examples of Minnesotans who have been sent to prison for defending themselves.

Had they lived in Susan Gaertner’s Ramsey County at the time?  Gaertner would have had every means (and likelihood!) of prosecuting them for murder, because they didn’t retreat as fast and far as they could.  She might have lost – but Cegon and Simons would have had to prove their innocence in court, against the full weight and budget of the Ramsey County Attorney’s office, even though the shoot was in every possible way legitimate.

And that is, in fact, just plain wrong.

Lie #7: State Boundaries Make A Difference

Martens mixes up her laws in the next bit:

But in states that passed Shoot First laws [I keep asking lefties who use that terms – “does it make sense to you to shoot second when your life is legitimately in danger?  They never, ever answer – Ed] (over law enforcement’s objections), [to be accurate, “big law enforcement” is a political, not ethical, organization] unintended consequences abound.

But will Martens favor us with any?

As Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, pointed out, such laws “basically giv[e] citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review.”

That is a completely absurd statement, presented without the faintest support; police in every jurisdiction have deadly force rights that are vastly more lax than private citizens.

There are some states who passed “Make My Day” laws which moved some presumptions of innocence in favor of citizens…

…but not in Minnesota. Because Minnesota’s criteria for legal self-defense aren’t changing; not under Cornish’s bill, or any other!

In Minnesota, the associations of police chiefs, peace officers and county attorneys all opposed Shoot First (sic) in 2008, when it was rejected by the House Public Safety Committee.

And I showed where at least one of them – Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom – was a liar in doing so, too.

Lie #8: If I Repeat A Strawman Over And Over, It Becomes Fact!

Undeterred by the fact that Minnesota has no “Make my day law“, and Cornish isn’t proposing one, Martens presses on with a trail of irrelevancies:

One consequence of Shoot First (sic) laws in other states has been the shooting of unarmed people in incidents that go uninvestigated or unprosecuted. For example, Jason Rosenbloom of Clearwater, Fla., was in his neighbor’s yard – unarmed and wearing a T-shirt and shorts — when the two were disputing how much garbage had been put at the curb. Kenneth Allen shot Rosenbloom once in the stomach and once in the chest. There was no investigation.

And this could have happened for a lot of reasons; facts in the case that Martens doesn’t know (or bother) to report, vagaries of Texas law, even error on the part of law enforcement (it happens).  We don’t know…

…and it’s irrelevant, because the criteria for legal self-defense in Minnesota aren’t chanaging.

Lie #9: The Biggest, Reddest Herring There Is!

Martens continues:

Another consequence has been to encourage people to take a life, even when they face no danger. Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, called 911 from inside his house when he saw two apparent burglars leaving his neighbor’s house. The 911 operator told Horn to stay inside. But Horn said, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it,” referring to the passage of Shoot First (sic) in Texas. “I’m going to kill them.” He did, shooting both men in the back, and he was cleared by a grand jury because of the Shoot First (sic) law. Afterwards, Horn himself told the Houston Chronicle, “I would never advocate anyone doing what I did. We [human beings] are not geared for that.”

Maybe it’s not a lie – provided that Martens truly believes Minnesota is somehow governed by Texas law.

I don’t know the details of the Horn shooting – and it’s for damn sure that Martens doesn’t, not really – but reading the text of HF1467 that Martens herself quoted above, and Minnesota law, shows that Martens is just raving; Horn was outside his “domicile” as defined in the bill; if you shoot two people in the back, the odds are good that they presented you no danger of death or great bodily harm, and lethal force (under Minnesota law, present or proposed!) would not be reasonable!  It doesn’t look like the kind of shooting that’d fly in a Minnesota court.

Martens either doesn’t know that, or doesn’t want you to know it.

Diversion Into Illogic: All Killing Is The Same!

Martens next indulges in the logical fallacy of “questionable cause“:

Horn said it well. Normal people don’t take another person’s life unnecessarily. People who are inclined to do so are considered sociopaths. Shoot First (sic)laws encourage normal people to act like sociopaths, and provide a way for sociopaths to kill with impunity.

“Sociopaths kill.  The Cornish law makes it (ostensibly) easier to kill in self-defense.  Therefore, self-defense shooters are like sociopaths”.

You don’t even have to approve of the Second Amendmente, like guns, or believe in self-defense to see that this is just plain twaddle.

Lie #10: We Don’t Need To Match No Steenking Causes And Effects!

Martens continues to romp and play in the world of law:

According to an Orlando Sentinel article, in the first five months Shoot First (sic)was in effect in Florida, 10 central Florida people were shot in cases where Shoot First (sic) came into play. All but one of the people shot were unarmed.

Unmentioned – quite possibly because it’s inconvenient to her case, but more likely because she’s parroting chanting points from a  national anti-gun group; no details about any of those ten shootings.  Were the “unarmed” people ex-spouses stalking ex-wifes?  Were they in a kitchen, surrounded by knives that were one thrust away from becoming a deadly weapon?

Is an unarmed ex-boyfriend harmless and innocent because he’s not carrying a weapon?  Ask your local feminist advocate.

We don’t know whether the ten casesd Martens cited were legitimate or not.  Martens wants you to think they weren’t – but she doesn’t know.  And in any case

Lie #11: Minnesota is not Florida!

Minnesota is not adopting Florida law. no matter now much Martens tries to obscure the difference!

Lie #12: Minneosta’s current system is the model of uniformity!

Martens continues babbling about Florida:

A clear result of the Shoot First law (sic) in Florida is wide disparity in the way cases are handled by different police departments. In some shooting cases, there was no investigation at all, while in others, detectives investigated for up to 20 hours. Uninvestigated cases in Florida and Texas included ones in which drunk or disoriented people went to a stranger’s door and were shot.

Which is, by the way, exactly how things work in Minnesota.  A shooting – any shooting – in Ramsey County will be investigated to a fine sheen, and will almost inevitably result in an arresat.  A shooting in Kandiyohi County that looks like a legit self-defense case will likely be off the books before the ink is dry.

Lie #13: If Only We Banned Anger!

I almost feel too sorry for Martens to continue – but principles are principles!

In Shoot First (sic) states, disputes between neighbors have turned deadly.

As they do in Chicago, where civilians gun ownership is still effectively banned.  And in New York, Washington and Los Angeles, where it’s strongly legally discouraged.  And in Newark, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Flint, which have more restrictive laws that Minnesota has now.

“Shoot First” laws don’t kill people – people do!

Lie #14: The Law Is Still The Law!

Martens steers for the big conclusion:

People can now shoot others over small provocations.

As we’ve shown, over and over – no, they can’t. It is simply not true.  Under Minnesota law, self-defense with lethal force does, and shall continue, to require reasonable fear of mortal danger, and must be reasonable under the circumstances.  This remains utterly unchanged.

For the last time;  all Cornish’s bill does is remove ambiguity in favor of people whose self-defense shootings are blazingly, obviously legitimate.

That is all.

Not A Lie, But Just Stupid

Martens closes:

Any legislator who votes for Shoot First (sic) places a very low value on human life.

Heather Martens places no value whatsoever on honesty and integrity.

It’s nothing new – except, perhaps, to Minnesota Public Radio.

So Before We Go…:

Why does Minnesota Public Radio publish crap like Martens’ chain of lies – which is all she ever has to say about the issue of firearms – without question?

It’s perhaps a sign that Minnesota is becoming at least incrementally less “blue” over time, that Rep. Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill is, er, drawing fire only from the most  extremes of the Twin Cities left.

But being the Twin Cities, the extremes get disproportionate coverage from the regional media.

And so as HR1467 works its way through the process,  likely to a floor vote in the fairly near future, it’d probably be useful for you, the Real American who supports Second Amendment rights for the law-abiding citizen, to get a jump ahead of the Extreme Left’s chanting points, to help you respond effectively when you run into it among your crazy aunts, the mailroom staff in line at the cafetria, your worthless professor, or wherever.

With that in mind, I’d like to walk you through a few of the Extreme Left’s chanting points about the “Stand Your Ground” bill – either memes they’ve used already, or ones that my 24 years’ experience in this field tells me will pop up eventually – and provide you with some responses.

Because I’m a helper, that’s why:

“If HF1467 passes, a murderer will be able to claim “self-defense” to get immunity from prosecution”:  Well, no – at least, not as a function of the Cornish bill.  It’s not unusual for murderers to claim self-defense;  the guy who shot St. Paul Police Sergeant Jerry Vick six years ago tried it.   Of course, most such attempts come a-cropper;  the standard for self-defense…

• …one cannot be a willing participant
• There must be reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm
• The use of lethal force must be reasonable
• The shooter must make reasonable efforts to avoid the use of lethal force…

…is already a pretty high one.  Imagine what it’d take to meet that standard, under any circumstances (whether self-defense is an affirmative defense or if the state must disprove it); a killer would have to find a victim with whom they had no history of animosity; they must set up a situation where that victim appears to attack the perpetrator with lethal force (and remember – planting weapons on a body is a very risky proposition, and if you don’t know exactly why, then there’s probably a good reason not to tell you), and to create the impression that they had tried hard enough not to shoot…

…in other words, they’d have to want to plan the “perfect crime” to kill their intended victim and claim self-defense – which is both equally feasible under current law and First Degree Murder.   Cornish’s bill does nothing to make psychopathic killers’ jobs any easier.

And let’s be honest; the number of killings that start as planned hits is infinitesimal.  The vast majority of murders are crimes either of passion, depravity or stupidity; wives shooting husbands, drug dealers killing each other, morons blasting people at bars.  Not planned assassinations.

Go over the story of any random murder committed from passion, depravity or stupidity – say, a gang banger shooting another gang banger  (let’s call them Josh and Taylor, respectively) outside a nightclub.  Let’s say Josh and Taylor get into a fight over colors, turf and drug sale territory and adjourn to the parking lot, where Josh shoots Taylor, and flees the scene.   Upon arrest, Josh tries to claim self-defense.  But…

• …there’s a club full of witnesses who report that they were arguing, pushing and shoving, and threatening each other.  Under MN law, you have to strenuously avoid participating in the fight.
• Witnesses, and possibly surveillance video, shows that Josh drew his pistol after Taylor took a swing at him with a beer bottle; fear of Death or Great Bodily Harm is not reasonable.  They also show  the shooting was not”reasonable” to protect Josh’s life, and that from the moment they left the bar Josh was aggressively pushing toward, not away from, the late Taylor.

So sure – Josh could claim self-defense.  The police at the scene would likely have all the evidence they needed to render that claim a bit of black comedy on Josh’s way to prison.

Just like under current law.

“It’s a “Shoot First” Bill!”: I’m not sure if anti-gunners even think about this one at all.  Has it occurred to them that, in a situation where one reasonably fears death or great bodily harm, that “shooting second” would be a really, really awful idea?

Do they honestly believe that the penalty for being the unwilling target of a lethal attack should legitimately be death?

Or do they just not think that hard about their chanting points?

“Claiming “Someone gave me the stink eye” will get you off the hook for murder“.  Only in a world where every investigator and prosecutor is a gabbling moron.

What this particular meme – and yes, “Spotty” from Cucking Stool used it, word for word – really means is the extreme left thinks, or wants the public to think anyway, that the Cornish bill will put an end to the investigation of killings, provided the shooter claims self-defense.

Anyone wanna put some money on that bet?

Killings – and shootings, and for that matter drawing and brandishing of firearms – should always be investigated.  Even if it’s a potential victim shooting a Level Eleventy Sex Offender who attacks her in a parking lot at the office while he’s wearing only a “Scream” mask and carrying an assortment of meat cleavers and chainsaws; the cops and prosecutors must go over the incident to make sure it was legitimate.  Nobody argues that, and Cornish’s bill doesn’t even try.  It merely says that someone who appears to have a solid case for self-defense – if the shooter legitimately appears to be…

• …an unwilling victim…
• who reasonably feared death or great bodily harm…
• in a situation where lethal force was reasonable, and…
• who did a reasonable job of trying to avoid killing anyone…

…should be considered innocent until proven guilty, rather than forced to prove they’re guilty-with-an-explanation – bearing in mind that if any of those four criteria are in question, it’s really not an issue at all.

“It says people can kill people who walk in their yards!” – Well, no.  Currently, if you shoot someone in your home – as in, between your front and back doors – there’s a presumption that that person was up to no good – provided there’s a reasonable fear that person is trying to kill you, etc, etc.  Cornish’s bill expands that presumption to the rest of your property – your yard, your garage, your car. A rapist in a woman’s garage is no different than a rapist in your house; there’s no rational reason for the law to treat them differently.

There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Cornish’s bill; all of them are based on a political, or emotional, rather than ethical, agenda.

Which will bring us to Heather Martens’ piece at MPR.  More at noon.

It’s likely that Minnesota voters will be able to decide on a constitutional amendment defining “Marriage” as a dude and a chick.

Or, as every single leftyblogger and tweeter put it, “THE GOP APPEALS TO HATE”.

Not sure where “hate” comes from; if gay marriage supporters make their case, they’ll get their way.

Of course, they won’t; most Minnesotans oppose gay marriage.  Which is why the DFL is appealing to really, really crude rhetoric.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk yesterday demanded that the GOP “focus on the budget” – notwithstanding the fact that the GOP caucuses got their budgets in weeks earlier than the DFL ever did in recent memory.

Look – I believe marriage is intended to be a mixed-gender thing, but a contract is a contract, so I’ve always supported civil unions.  Gay marriage isn’t a major issue to me; gays’ per-capita income is reportedly higher than that of straights, and marriage will rectify that soon enough.

But the DFL’s habit – crutch – of calling everything they don’t like “hate” is getting comical…

When I coined the various “Berg’s Laws“, they were – doyyyyyyy – tongue in cheek.

And yet for all that, they are absolutely impeccable reflections of human nature . Especially Berg’s Seventh Law:

Berg’s Seventh Law of Liberal Projection – When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds.

It popped into mind this past week, when Governor Dayton, the DFL and the media (pardon the serial redundancy) accused the GOP of “theatre of the absurd” in its budget process.

The House GOP Caucus reponded – but “Berg’s Seventh Law” could have sufficed.

Becuase for all of the Governor’s chatter about “absurd drama”, it’s he that’s been stalling.  Which is, naturally (and according to Berg’s Seventh) behind the chatter:

To help the process along, the Legislature requests of all governors that they submit their bills within 15 days of their recommendations. This year, that deadline was March 1.

How mal has the governor’s feasance been?

Agriculture funding bill, introduced March 28, 27 days late.

State government finance bill, introduced March 28, 27 days late.

Health and human services budget bill, introduced March 28, 27 days passed deadline.

Transportation finance bill, introduced March 22, 21 days too late.

Environment and natural resources funding bill, introduced March 22, 21 days too late.

Higher education bill, introduced March 21, 20 days too late.

Governor’s tax increase bill, introduced March 21, 20 days after the deadline.

Education finance bill, introduced March 17, 16 days passed the deadline.

To recap: After failing to meet the deadline to even get his own budget bills considered by the Legislature, Governor Dayton is now demanding the Legislature meet his new arbitrary deadline.

The reason for this – as for most instances of Berg’s Seventh – is simple; Dayton can count on the fact the media will carry and promote his narrative, to cover his own slow, ponderous tracks.

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:

• He’s got a knife – so you have reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself and your children.  Check.
• You are not a willing participant in this incident; you’ve made your lack of interest clear (which is one of the things that’s set the little fella off). Check.
• If someone is coming at you with a knife, then you can probably convince a sane jury that lethal force is reasonable. Check.
• You are in the back yard of your house.  The law re self defense says that you have to be sure of all of the above and make every “reasonable” effort to disengage and avoid the use of lethal force.  As you stand in the back  yard facing a stalker moving toward you with a knife, you need to decide; do you retreat toward the house to protect your kids, even though he could cut you off?  Or do you retreat back toward the garage (because defending your children means, conceivably, advancing on him)? And if he follows you, do you retreat completely off your property?  You need to decide this immediately, under life or death pressure, with your adrenaline pumping, in dimmer-than-ideal light, under mind-boggling stress.  However, the question “did you make every reasonable effort to avoid shooting” will be decided by a cop at a secured crime scene after the fact, and – more importantly – by a county attorney in a nice, warm, brightly lit office, protected by sheriff’s deputies and a metal detector.  How will they decide?  If you live in Kandiyohi County, you’ll probably get the benefit of a doubt.  If you live in Ramsey?  Your fate will be decided by a former frat boy who graduated in the top 60% of his class at the U of M Law School, who got his job because of his DFL party connections with Susan Gaertner, and who keeps his job based on how he pleases his city and county’s DFL leadership, who believe as a matter of policy that a shooting is a shooting is a shooting, whether it’s a woman defending herself or a gang-banger shooting a 15 year old girl.  Feel safer now?  Uh-oh.

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:

• In cases where the shooter has met all of the criteria for self-defense (not a willing participant, and the fear of death or GBH, the lethal force and the attempt to disengage are all “reasonable”), it would allow law enforcement to recognize the fact that it was a justifiable shoot, without putting the defendant behind the legal eight ball from the very beginning.
• In shootings that meet all the criteria, it switches the burden of proof to where it belongs; the state.

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…:

• …who was not a willing participant in a fight, and…
• …who had a legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm, and…
• …in a case where his use of lethal force was reasonable, and…
• …where he did whatever was reasonable to avoid the use of lethal force…
• …in a place where he had, as Cornish’s bill spells out, the “legal right to be”?

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.

(more…)

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.

(more…)

The Strib editorial board takes a whack at balancing the state budget.

And it makes some of the noises you’d expect of an editorial board that trends left, but like most media makes noises of “bipartisanship” and defers to “process”:

Sharing the burden of hard times comes naturally in Minnesota.

That value is preached from the state’s pulpits, is reinforced by a highly inclusive democracy and is demonstrated through countless personal acts each day.

Shared sacrifice should be the overriding principle for Gov. Mark Dayton and the 2011 Legislature as they complete the work of balancing the state budget in the next month.

Here’s the problem; if you read their budget proposal, everyone “shares” the “sacrifice”…

…except the group that caused the problem.

The Government.

Read and decide for yourself.

Let’s say you need to measure the presence of a chemical in the atmosphere.   Since we’re talking politics, let’s say that chemical is methane gas.

You’ve been smelling methane in the air (because there are politicians nearby, or so you’re told).

You have a methane gauge.  You look at its specs; it says its sensitivity is down to 10 parts per million – which is fairly sensitive.  You take a measurement, and the gauge says zero.

Does it mean that there’s no methane in the atmosphere?

Or does it mean that there are 9.985 parts per million, which is just a tad too low for your gauge’s sensitivity?  Because if that’s the case, then your measurement does not mean there’s no methane – it means your instrumentation can’t detect it.

The point:  if you’re trying to measure something, your results will only be as valid as your instrumentation is sensitive.

Via Gary Gross, we see that Washington County is running a vote fraud investigation, focusing for the most part on 11 felons (so far) trying to vote even though they haven’t gotten that right restored.  There are other items of interest, of course:

[A WashCo prosecutor] said two more people were being charged late Tuesday afternoon. And there were other cases still being investigated. Investigators were also looking into allegations that the same person voted in both Wisconsin and Minnesota in the 2010 election.

Now, with the Voter ID bill coursing its way through the GOP-controlled legislature, the assembled Twin Cities leftymedia has been taking their shots at Voter ID and, more germanely (since 26 states already require some sort of ID to vote including “proressive” cesspools like Hawaii, Michigan, Connecticut,, Delaware and Washington, and two more will require it by New Years, and democracy seems to be standing) the notion that there is just no need for it because “Minnesota elections are already free of fraud”.

From the U of M’s Minnesota Daily:

Supporters claim requiring a photo ID to vote is crucial to prevent voter fraud and ensure the reliability of Minnesota’s voting system. But voter fraud is an extremely minor problem in Minnesota. In 2008, of the almost 3 million ballots cast in Minnesota, there were a grand total of 47 people charged with voter fraud, only four of which were charges of double voting.

Remember the methane gauge?

If you measure convictions, you’re measuring the extent to which county prosecutors and police troubled themselves to investigate claims of voter fraud.  Those 47 chargers of voter fraud were what remained from hundreds of cases referred to them in one county, Ramsey, by the Minnesota Majority.  Those 47 cases were the slam-dunk, open-and-shut cases where a felon had signed a piece of paper saying they acknowledged that they knew they had to stay out of polling places, and that they’d be breaking the law if they tried.

For the rest?  It happens that voter fraud is one of the areas where ignorance of the law is a defense; saying “I didn’t know”, and not having a parole form acknowledging that y9u really did know, is enough to make a county prosecutor close the folder and say “Well, fair enough then!”

Don’t try that with a parking ticket.

So Mark Rithie can say “there are only 47 cases of fraud” with a straight face – because, like the methane gauge, the system isn’t designed to detect and deal with fraud.

And saying “we have no fraud” is the same as our friend at the top of the article saying “we have no methane”.

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

Dayton “wants the GOP to be honest ” about their budget cuts:

Gov. Mark Dayton is renewing his challenge to the Republican-controlled Legislature to come up with a balanced budget without raising taxes — and without hurting the state’s most vulnerable residents.

“They aren’t being honest about the cuts they would have to make to achieve their budget targets,” Dayton told MPR’s Morning Edition on Tuesday. “Tell us the truth about what the results of that would be and then we can discuss whether that would be in the best interests of Minnesotans.”

…in an argument where all cuts, or even cuts to the DFL’s planned increases, are assumed to be catastrophic, and the “best interest of Minnesotans” means “keeping government fat and happy at all costs”.

Lest you thought the DFL had trouble staying on message (emphasis added):

Dayton, a Democrat, has said balancing the budget through $5 billion in cuts would hurt nursing home residents and others, but he acknowledged that something must be done to slow the growth of health care spending. Dayton has proposed some cuts to health and human services spending and has asked health care providers to return profits to the state.

“We can’t just throw people out of nursing homes or deny them the care that they need,” Dayton said of cutting health and human services spending. “It has to be done skillfully.”

Interesting how Dayton figures that the budget can be done “skillfully”, but he figures the state’s nursing homes and health care providers are too stupid do figure out how to do their job with a lower budget – the sort of things that Minnesota families do every day when budgets shrink.

The DFL is vamping.  The GOP has beaten them; the only venue they have left is to tell the public that something that walks, flaps and quacks like a duck is really a schnauzer.

The Strib’s Bob Van Sternberg apparently was at the Tea Party on Saturday.

He noted correctly that the attendance was down a bit; while there were 5-7,000 at the rally in 2009 and close to 2,000 last year.  There were a couple hundreds there on Saturday:

A mere shadow of its showing in recent years, the annual “tax day” rally at the state Capitol attracted only a smattering of adherents on a cold, wet afternoon Saturday.

Van Sternberg is too modest.

Cold and wet is a May drizzle.

It was 33 degrees at noon, when I spoke, and there was snow on the ground, and a cold wet wind was howling from the north giving wind chills in the teens.  Not prime rallying weather.  More like Valley Forge.

And it’s an off year.  No imminent elections, no serious presidential or Senate campaigning, the Legislature is settled for another year.

But he noted I was there:

“Is the Tea Party dead because it could only bring out a couple hundred people on a cold, snowy day?” asked radio talker Mitch Berg, adding, “No, the Tea Party is watching them. The Tea Party is coming for them.”

After the 2010 Tea Party, some in the media and left (ptr) said “look at the turnout!”.  They were wrong, of course; they multiplied by a couple orders of magnitude and showed up at the polls in November.

By the way, an observer at the Capitol told me that attendance at the annual LGBT rally with Governor Dayton was “way down” from previous years.

Is it because the gay rights movement is dead?

Or is it because it’s an off-year, and the weather was  in the fifties and “wind-swept?”

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.

…, Elko, Mankato, Moorhead, Albert Lea, Shakopee, Wilmar, Dilworth, Bloomington, Maple Grove, Mound, White Bear Lake, Middle River, Apple Valley, Coates, Salem, East Grand Forks, Rokori, Albertville, Monticello, Cokato, La Crescent, Lake City, Princeton, Shoreview, Shorewood, Meire Grove, and many, many more:

The voters of Saint Paul have spoken; “working for Saint Paul” means making you pay for our city government, as well as yours.  To pony up for our fire and police departments, so that Chris Coleman can budget for electric cars, and the city council can push down the tax base.

No, really.  They say it in as many words; the job of SD66’s Senator is to “work for Saint Paul” by supporting Local Government Aid.

They – 80% of them –  told you “pay up, bitches”.

What are you going to do about that in 2012?

It’s election day in Senate District 66.

If you’re a Republican – or a black parent sick of the racism of low intentions your kids get from the school system, or a Latino family tired of having the DFL take your vote and repudiate your beliefs, or an Asian family tired of having your votes harvested and then having your businesses regulated out of business and your neighborhoods destroyed by the Central Corridor, or a Democrat who works a day job and is sick of seeing how your taxes rise even as your property values plummet – then you need to vote for Greg Copeland.

If you’re a Democrat?  Well, you own this city.  Your leadership is giggling and saying there are no Republicans in Saint Paul and Greg’s got no chance.  Seriously, you do have better things to do, don’t you?

Here’s the SOS polling-station finder site.

Disclosure – I’m a volunteer on the Copeland campaign.

It’s election day in SD66.  More on that in a bit.

The Pioneer Press didn’t endorse a candidate through the front door.  But that didn’t prevent them from taking their shots through the backdoor.

Dave Orrick spent about a column-foot painting Mary Jo McGuire’s toenails – and then turned to Greg Copeland.  Or at least the part of his bio that fits the DFL’s narrative:

How each arrived at Tuesday’s election is different, too. One bowed out of a political career rather than battle a friend, while the other was run out.

McGuire, 54, a St. Paul native, declined to seek re-election to her House seat in 2002 after a once-a-decade redrawing of the boundaries put her in the same district as her friend and fellow DFLer Rep. Alice Hausman.

How very, very noble!

Copeland’s political history has more turmoil. He left his longtime home of Florida, where he had served as a county commissioner, for Minnesota in the early 1990s. He ran for office unsuccessfully several times.

He served on the Payne- Phalen District 5 Planning Council until 1996, when the board voted him out for allegedly publicly bullying, slandering and humiliating staff and board members, former board members have told the Pioneer Press.

That sounds like some serious allegations.  If only we had a group of people whose job was to investigate things like this.

Except Dave Orrick did.  From Greg Copeland’s response to the PiPress, with emphasis added:

Mr. Orrick reported that I was removed as President of the Payne-Phalen District Council in September 1996, that is true. I can only wonder why as Mr. Orrick looked through your newspapers’ morgue, why did he skipped the story printed in your paper which reported the firing by the Board of Directors of the Community Organizer and the Secretary-Bookkeeper for violating district council financial policy, which is what I blew the whistle on six months earlier. The allegations made by these staff members against me to oust me as President, were reported by Mr. Orrick, why did he not report these same staff were fired six months later for the very serious mis-behavior I brought to the board’s attention as Board President.

Huh.

Wonder how that didn’t make the story.  Seems…germane to me.

As does this:

Also missing from Mr. Orrick’s report was the fact that I was re-elected to the Board of Directors in April 1997 and the Board issued an apology to me and another Board Member who blew the whistle on the then-former staff. The Board of Directors also voted to name me to the St. Paul Mayor’s Honor Roll for distinguished community service to my neighborhood.

Back to Orrick:

In 2006, despite concerns about Copeland — such as his having been delinquent in property taxes and being pursued by creditors — the Maplewood City Council hired Copeland as city manager. Twenty months later, after a series of staff resignations and on the eve of revelations that the city’s finances weren’t being well tracked, he was ousted from City Hall following a political upheaval that also led to the defeat of former Mayor Diana Longrie, Copeland’s chief defender.

The whole story?

Not really, notes Copeland:

Regarding my service as City Manager of Maplewood from April 2006 to January 2008 Mr. Orrick reports I was I was “ousted” on the “eve of revelations” concerning city finances. The fact is all city managers serve at the pleasure of city council majorities. In the November 2007 city election one of the council members lost her re-election contest and when the new city council met for it’s initial organizational meeting I was placed on Administrative Leave, I was not “ousted”, and the city agreed in February 2007 to pay me a five month severance agreement and I left in good standing.

That’s a part of the story that everyone leaves out.

Orrick punches the “balance” ticket, sort of:

On his campaign website, Copeland says of his tenure in Maplewood, in part: “I made significant administrative cost reductions and hired new police officers and firefighters/paramedics, while freezing the property (tax) rate in my first year.”

Copeland elaborates:

There was no “revelation” of fiscal mis-management, quite the contrary, in fact the 2007 City Audit prepared by the Accounting firm of HLB Tautges Redpath, LTD dated August 8, 2008 reported a 2007 budget surplus for my last year as City Manager of $903,873. The audit showed an ending fund balances of $24,269,853, with a 38% unreserved General Fund balance; working capital of $6,858,366 which was a 12% increase over the previous year. I reduced the city debt service as a percentage of total expenditures and under-spent the city’s $29.9 million operating budget saving taxpayers $575,162. All while freezing the 2007 property tax levy and adding new police officers and firefighter/paramedics.

The Pioneer Press – all the news that helps the DFL.

Come on out and vote today.

Disclosure – I’ve been volunteering for the Copeland campaign.