Societal Castor Oil

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My cousin constantly posts to Facebook how upset she’s become about gun violence. She insists we must Do Something by which she means Universal Background Checks. My response: moral problems do not have technological solutions.

The solution to the problem of alcoholism is not prohibition, but sobriety.

The solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy is not abortion, but abstinence.

The solution to the problem of murder is not universal background checks, but the Sixth Commandment.

Liberals are terrified of morality because it’s judgmental so they resort to ineffectual alternatives then complain when they fail. I fear I lack sympathy for intelligent people acting like idiots.   

Joe Doakes

That is the difference, of course, The difference between liberals and conservatives; conservatism offers relatively simple answers to most problems – but those simple answers require a lot of work.  Morality is easy to understand, and hard to achieve. 

Liberalism offers a byzantine array of “easy answers” – Heck, let’s just have everyone pay for everyone else’s health care!  – that really don’t work as answers. But boy, they sure seem simple upfront!

A Bad Idea Whose Time Will Never Come

Joe Doakes, of Como Park, emails:

Gun control proposals never die, they just rest a while. Mandatory insurance has staggered back to life. 

The notion is that guns cause injuries which require medical attention which the public must pay for; therefore, gun owners should have insurance policies to pay the cost of treating those injuries. It’s like car insurance, see?

Of course, unlike car insurance, the real hope is that such insurance would be so expensive, nobody would buy guns and if nobody has a gun, gun violence ends. 

Two things:

First, unlike driving, gun ownership is a Fundamental Right protected by the Constitution. We don’t require journalists to buy insurance in case an inaccurate, misleading article ruins someone’s life. On the contrary, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, the more likely the harm, the harder we make it for victims to recover. Remedies for problems caused by privileges don’t apply to problems caused by rights.

Second, I am forced to buy uninsured motorist coverage to subsidize law-breakers who drive without insurance. I am forced to buy Obama-care compliant health insurance to subsidize scoff-laws who lack health insurance. Neither of those schemes eliminated the uninsured, they simply shifted the cost to me. Similarly, forcing gun purchasers to subsidize criminals using guns to commit violence won’t eliminate gun violence. 

It’s wrong and it won’t work. So naturally, Democrats are all over it.


Joe Doakes


Voluntary gun insurance, driven by the free market, makes  sense.

Mandatory gun insirance is nothing but back door gun control.

The left must be counting on the idea that Second Amendment advocates turn over every couple of years, so all of these ideas sound new.

Betting Long On Ignorance

Like most of the Real Americans that support the Second Amendment, I am agog at the gullibility and willful illiteracy of most American gun control advocates, up to and including many of their leadership.

For years, I’ve thought “this just has to be part of a strategy to rope in the gullible, the badly-informed, the fear-driven, and the intellectual-legends-in-their-own-minds”.

And as with most of my flippant observations about human behavior that start out as sarcastic jokes and almost invariably turn out to be ironclad truths, it turns out I’m exactly,l precisely correct.

The “Violence Policy Center” – a “think tank” supported by liberals with deep pockets, that’s short on the “think” and long on the “in the tank” – did a report on gun control tactics in 1988.   While I was pro-Second-Amendment back then, I didn’t spend a lot of time reading the opposition on the subject.

And if I had, I’d have spent the past 27 years beating on this coming quote like John Bonham playing “Moby Dick”:

“The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

In other words, the past three decades of the gun control movement have been predicated on exploiting technical ignorance, fear and gullibility.

It extends to all areas of their agenda, of course – stats, policy, history – but rarely do you find a grabber putting it in as many words.


Joe Doakes from Como Park writes in re the Minnesota police union’s lawsuit against the NFL for barring off-duty officers from carrying their firearms at games:

The NFL says only on-duty peace officers can carry during football games.  An off-duty officer was relieved of his weapon at TCF Stadium.

The trial court held the NFL cannot exclude him from carrying his weapon because the Minnesota permit-to-carry law doesn’t give property owners that right.

The Court of Appeals punted.  It says the permit-to-carry law doesn’t apply to cops, on duty or off, so that particular law doesn’t determine whether the property owner must admit them, or can refuse to admit them.

Other laws may apply so the case was sent back for a do-over.

Personally, it seems to me that an off-duty cop should be in the same category as a permitted carrier –  trusted to carry a weapon by society, but maybe not trusted by the property owner, so if it wants to turn us both away, that’s its right.   It’s also possible the legislature could have intended off-duty cops to be treated differently from permitted carriers, so I think the appeals court decided correctly when it sent the case back.

Joe Doakes

It’s a dilemma for a judge; how to serve both political correctness and the state’s monopoly on force.

The Wheel Of Justice Turns Slowly, But It Turns Toward Freedom

North Dakota finally recognizes Minnesota carry permits.

They didn’t, of course, because Minnesota didn’t grant reciprocity to North Dakota permits, because of a decade of pissy DFL and bureaucratic (but I repeat myself) stonewalling on carry permit reciprocity.  The GOP-controlled legislature changed that, finally, in the past session.

This is, of course, of hypothetical importance to people utterly unknown to me, who now have no reason whatsoever to stop in Moorhead anymore.

A Pajama Boy Night Out

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is at National Night Out, in Saint Paul, this past Tuesday.   While walking through the crowd at one of the neighborhood block parties, he notices Avery LIBRELLE, wandering from person to person,  accosting them.  BERG listens in. 

LIBRELLE ( reading off a sheet of paper, to a woman pushing a stroller):  Hey, maam!  Do you know what percentage of gun deaths in Minnesota are suicides?

WOMAN PUSHING STROLLER:  Er…(looks uncomfortable – then looks at her phone).  Oops, sorry – I think I have a call…(holds phone to ear) Yes?  Hi!  Oh, really…(makes international “sorry, I’m on the phone” signal to LIBRELLE as she quickly pushes stroller away).

(Undeterred, LIBRELLE walks to another bystander – an African-American man holding a beer and talking with his neighbors)

LIBRELLE:  Heh.  Hey!  (Man turns to LIBRELLE, looking mildly annoyed.  LIBRELLE reads off sheet of paper)  Do you believe that anyone buying a gun should first have to pass a background check to show they are not prohibited by law from owning a gun?

MAN:  Every time I’ve ever bought a gun, I had to take a background check.  It’s the criminals who don’t take the background checks, mis…er…si…er… (MAN stops talking)

LIBRELLE (reading off sheet)  I”m sorry you disagree with three-quarters of gun owners.  Have a good night”.  (LIBRELLE abruptly walks away – then notices BERG).  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!  I’m out changing hearts and minds about guns!

BERG:  Er, yeah.  Do tell.

LIBRELLE:  I’m reading from the “conversation starters” Heather Martens and “Protect Minnesota” sent to start conversations with the public on National Night Out.

BERG:  And how’s that going?

LIBRELLE:  About as well as my conversations with my family about Obamacare at our Festivus celebrations a couple of years ago.

BERG:  Naturally.

And SCENE.  

Bend Over, Citizen: Part I – Our Ignorant Priests Of Knowledge

Having been one level of activist on the Second Amendment or another for thirty years now, and having seen how far the issue has moved since the mid-eighties – when the Second Amendment seems to be on the ropes – it’s almost tempting to fall into a bit of complacent triumphalism.  This past twenty years has been one of the most impressive grass roots political campaigns in American history.  It’s also given us the class war that the left has always been predicting – in inverted form; the gun grabbers are overwhelmingly drawn from society’s lotus-eating NPR-listening Subaru-driving patricians; the bulk of the Human Rights camp is mainstreet, blue-collar and middle-class Real America.

But the temptation can’t be indulged too long; the bad guys are still out there, and they still have the media for their mouthpiece.   There were two notable calls for more gun control in the big media last week, ranging from the historically ignorant to the hysterically demented.

Continue reading

Protection For We, But Not For Ye

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Some local folks lost their home for non-payment of real estate taxes.  Their son allegedly showed up at the county offices, threatened some staff, broke a window.  A restraining order was issued but staff wasn’t satisfied.

“A piece of paper won’t keep him away, he might come back with a gun. We need protection,” they told the County Manager.

Like what?  A guy with a badge?  We have that, the private security guard at the door.

No, he’s just a rent-a-cop.  We are a unit of County government, we want a Deputy Sheriff.

Pull a deputy off patrol to babysit an office building?  How about a Reserve Deputy?  Wears the same uniform and badge, is that okay?

No, Reserve Deputies don’t carry a gun.  We want a real deputy.

So what you want is a Good Guy with a Gun to defend you from the possible Bad Guy with a Gun?

Not necessarily, it could be a female deputy; but basically, yes.

So we got one, she’s been sitting in the squad in the parking lot.  With her gun.

Amazing how being personally targeted clarifies one’s thinking.

Heather Martens would be appalled.

Joe Doakes

Well, I for one think Heather would looooove a police state.

The Improper Wiring That Dare Not Speak It’s Name

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Guy who’s nuts shoots up his own apartment and sets fire to it.

Another guy who can legally own guns because he wasn’t committed.  The judge let him go.

The problem isn’t guns.  The problem is nuts.  The civil commitment laws make it nearly impossible to put away nuts where they’re unable to obtain guns.  If it were easier to obtain civil commitment, there’d be fewer of these incidents and less work for ACLU lawyers . . . a win-win!

Joe doakes


Which is why it’ll never happen.


Deluded Again: Heather Martens’ Press Release Habit

Since Michael Bloomberg sent her and her rage-addled partner Jane Kay to the bench during the 2014 session, I feel like I’ve neglected one of my key jobs in blogging about Second Amendment human rights in Minnesota.

For those of you new to my blog, and to my coverage of the ongoing battle over that civil right, let me recap:

Heather Martens has never, not once, issued a substantially true original statement.  Ever. 

Not one. 

Her entire body of work – every last word – is demonstrably false.  The reason I say it’s demonstrably false is that I (and many better, smarter writers) have debunked, point by point, assertion by assertion, for well over a decade now, every single substantial thing she’s said.

And since Bloomberg has left town (’til the next session, anyway), she’s back at it.  On Monday she put out a press release regarding the GOP’s push to allow Minnesota National Guardsmen to carry their sidearms while on duty, in case someone tries to shoot up their office.

And the press release is, in its entirety, a stunning display of dozey, fact-averse, intellectually-lazy bilge.  Put more briefly, it’s a “Heather”.

The release is included below the jump – or, since it’s a “Heather”, I guess we should say “…below the trip and fall”.

Continue reading

Throughout History

SCENE: Washington DC, April, 1861. Heather Martens is being interviewed on the upcoming secession over slavery: “if abolishing slavery were a good idea, the government would’ve already done it”

SCENE: Honolulu, Hawaii, November, 1941. Heather Martens is being interviewed by the Washington Post or guarding complaints about the security at Pearl Harbor:  “If there was anything to worry about at Pearl Harbor, I’m sure the government would’ve already taken care of it.”

SCENE: quote from Heather Martens, heard this morning on the Jack and Andrew show, on the lesser talk station: “I’m sure if arming military personnel were a good idea, the military would’ve already done it”

Only one of the quotes above is “real” in the literal sense of the term.  But in another way, they’re all still perfectly accurate…

A Fearless Prediction

It turns out that a Marine and a sailor at the Chattanooga navy reserve office during the spree killing last week committed a bit of a naughty, and apparently fired personal sidearms at Mohammed Abdulazeez.

A report distributed among senior Navy leaders during the shooting’s aftermath said Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center’s commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage Abdulazeez, Navy Times confirmed with four separate sources. A Navy official also confirmed a Washington Post report indicating one of the slain Marines may have been carrying a 9mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the gunman.

Federal law, of course, protects spree killers against danger from anyone but law enforcement and military police on federal property.

My fearless prediction: once the politically-correct military leadership and the Obama Administration’s stonewalling falls away, it will be found that the return fire was what caused Abdulazeez to break off his attack.  Law enforcement now accepts as fact that getting shots off at a spree killer as soon as possible is the best tactic; it breaks the killer out of his psychotic reverie, and disrupts their lavishly-orchestrated plan.  They usually kill themselves, give up, or – as I strongly suspect will be discovered in Chattanooga, commit “martyrdom by cop”.

What the law enforcement establishment doesn

I never gamble money.  But I’ll stake bragging rights on this one.


The NY Daily News informs us that last week’s shooting in Chattanooga, claiming four Marines and a Navy petty officer, all unarmed – where a person whose motive can’t possibly be determined, but whose actions absolutely do not define his entire race the way Dylan Roof’s defined all white people – has “renewed the debate on gun free zones“.

That’s incorrect, of course.

There is no “debate” about “gun-free zones”.

There is a faction of society that clings to the notion that telling people to be nice will make everyone be nice.

And there’s a faction of society that notes, correctly, that nearly every mass-shooting in recent years – schools, post offices, the Crosswinds Mall in Nebraska, the Fort Hood massacre, the shootings at Virginia Tech, and even the Charleston shooting – either took place in a “gun free” zone, or in a state with restrictive gun laws.

That’s not a debate.

That’s the smart people being nagged by the ignorant.

Fact:  You are at much greater risk in a gun-free zone than elsewhere.

Every Ghoul Demands Action For Gun Safety

Looking at the financial statements from major gun control organizations shows us a couple of things;  Michael Bloomberg owns the industry, and they sure raised a lot of money – some of it from people other than Bloomberg, sort of – after Sandy Hook.

The essential PAGunblog rounds up the usual suspects:

First, let’s look at the Brady Campaign. In 2012, the Brady Campaign made 4.91 million dollars in revenue, which was up from 2.93 million in 2011. We suspect most of that money poured in during the few weeks after Sandy Hook on December 15, 2012. It was the fight into early 2013 where it became apparent that Bloomberg and the White House were running the gun control agenda, and Brady started falling off everyone’s radar. So it is not surprising that in 2013, the Brady Campaign did not raise as much money as it did in 2012, most of which was probably raised in the first several weeks of that year.

For all their decades of blather, Brady is actually relatively moderate.  The “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” is not…

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence had a similar story to the Bradys. They had raised 333 grand in 2011, and 492 grand in2012. But again, in 2013, they were down to 484 grand. EFSGV, their 501(c)(3) branch, also tracks the Brady Center. In 2011, 460 grand in revenue, then 638 grand in 2012. In 2013, EFSGV raised 950 grand, almost a million dollars. I guess maybe that foaming at the mouth stuff works! They outperformed the Brady Center in terms of revenue growth.

…and it seems a lot of extremist money came out of the woodwork in the fever swamp this last couple of years.

The “Violence Policy Center” – whom I’ve made my personal kick toy in this space for well over a decade now – is perhaps the ultimate gun control group; literally, as well as morally and financially, controlled by liberals with deep pockets:

VPC is largely supported by wealthy foundations, but their revenue was also up in 2013. They managed to boost their public support percentage to 21.50%, which is actually still pretty sad, but better than 2011 when it was 17.28% and2012, when it was 18.17%. I’m sure they are hoping since their public support is heading in the right direction, the IRS will stay off their backs.

That’s so cute – thinking Obama’s IRS is going to go after a gun control group.

And now, the big kahuna – Bloomberg:

It is without doubt Everytown is now king of the gun control movement, with 2103 revenues of 36 million. Their 2012 revenue was 4.86 when they were [Mayors Against Illegal Guns]. I’d note that Everytown spends previous little on fundraising, which means most of that money is likely coming from Bloomberg. We all pretty much knew as much.

If it weren’t for progressive plutocrats with deep pockets and deeper agendas, the gun control movement would have to hold a bake sale to raise money.

The long story short?  Part 1:  Michael Bloomberg has basically purchased the American gun control movement.

Part 2?  One liberal plutocrat can’t fight five million Real Americans (emphasis added by me):

I would not get despondent over their improved fortunes, however. Why?

Because in 2012, NRA’s revenues went from 219MM to 256MM, and in 2013 they went to $348MM. Get that? Between 2011 and 2013, NRA’s revenue increased by 129MM. That’s more than 3x the amount of every other gun control group’s revenue increase from 2011 to 2013 combined. And that’s just NRA proper.

And unlike the alphabet soup of gun-grabber front groups, the NRA is actual grassroots Real Americans.

Take heart.  Conservatism isn’t winning every issue – but the gun issues shows that it can win in today’s America.

From The Top

Caught on Twitter a little while ago, Minneapolis Police chief Harteau said:

@ChiefHarteau: @CrimeWatchNE @MSP my officers and the community see too much gun violence and little if any is due to self-defense.

Not sure when Chief Harteau got so bloodthirsty.  Self-defense only rarely ends with someone dead.

In theory, you’d think someone with 28 years in uniform would know that.

In Effect, Y’all

All the effort from this past session paid off starting yesterday. The five new gun bills passed this past session are now in effect:

  • Governor Flint-Smith may not order firearm confiscations during states of emergency.  To me, this is the big daddy of ’em all.
  • Minnesota is now one of forty states that is compliant with Federal law regarding suppressors (aka “Mufflers for your Gun”, an accessory that is mandatory for hunting in some countries) and purchasing of long guns in non-contiguous states – both areas where Minnesota lagged federal law by three solid decades.
    • Also – on August 1, it’ll be legal to use suppressors while hunting.
  • Now, your carry permit is valid without any additional muss and fuss at the Capitol complex – the Capitol (not that you can get in there), the SOB, the SLOB (when it opens), the Supreme Court, the Minnesota Historical Society, and probably a few more buildings I’m forgetting.
  • Finally, our carry permits are now reciprocal with more other states.  No more stopping at gas stations in Moorhead or East Grand Forks to transfer something that’s legal in Minnesota but a gross misdemeanor in North Dakota from your pocket to your trunk.  So says a friend of mine.

This is all to the good.  But the question is – what next?

Obviously, we, the Real Americans of the Minnesota Second Amendment movement, need to focus on the big two; Stand Your Ground, and Constitutional Carry.  Both of those will be long-term jobs, though, depending on an even more human-rights-friendly legislature than we have, and a pro-gun, likely GOP governor.  That’s going to take some time and effort.  We can do it – and this blog is going to focus on both.

But in the short term?  I think banning physicians from asking about guns as part of routine patient screening would be a great place to start.  It’s an entirely political exercise, suggested by the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians and adopted by doctors both maliciously anti-gun and, mostly, those who don’t care.  And it’s nothing but an attempt to use the prestige of the medical profession to bully people out of owning firearms.  Several states have already acted; Minnesota should get doctors out of doing Michael Bloomberg’s work for him.

There are many things that need doing – but I think that’d be a good project on the way to the big win.

Community Hygiene

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Sen. Harry Reid wants expanded background checks:  “Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill . . . from purchasing guns?” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Den. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va) specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.

President Obama noted last week that once again, someone got a gun who shouldn’t have had access to it.

The South Carolina church shooter sparked the talk but he wasn’t mentally ill, not according to existing law.  So Democrats are using bait-and-switch tactics to argue for restrictions on people who have Not been diagnosed with mental illness but who act strangely, hold unpopular opinions or have few friends.  After all, we must Do Something, before those lone-wolf weirdos snap and kill people.  Sounds perfectly reasonable, right?

One small problem:  it’s unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment was adopted to ensure Congress would not regulate firearms, because the Founders feared an arbitrary and powerful central government like the one they’d just thrown off.  In the Founders’ time, it was universally understood that children, felons and the mentally ill shouldn’t have firearms and those limitations continue, under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008).  But who are “the mentally ill?”

Federal law prohibits ownership by a “mental defective.”  There are court cases discussing whether “mental defective” is different from “mentally ill” for gun control purposes (mental defective might mean “retarded but not dangerous” and thus not be a disqualifying condition).  Leaving aside that hair-splitting, Federal law defines “mentally defective” as having been adjudicated such or committed to a mental institution. 18 USC 922(g)(4).  The Code of Federal Regulations, 22 CFR 478.11, further clarifies that “adjudicated” means a determination made by a court.

Yes, but so what?  Federal law, federal regulations, Congress can simply change them, right?  That’s where it gets tricky.  There are a long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that when the government acts to deprive a person of a fundamental Constitutional right, that person is entitled to Due Process consisting of, at a minimum, notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before a neutral decider.  That means a court must make the decision, after hearing, at which the burden is on the government and the accused has a chance to rebut the state’s case.

You’ve heard it’s nearly impossible to get a person committed these days, no matter how much they need it?  Clayton Cramer’s book “My Brother Ron” is a heartbreakingly frank, scrupulously researched account of how civil liberties lawyers created the case-law that now controls.  And the case-law is not limited to civil commitments: Due Process extends to mental illness for purposes of gun control, which means the government cannot deny guns to people merely because they are weirdos, act strangely, hold unpopular opinions or have few friends.

What the President and Democrat Congressional leaders propose to do is precisely what the Founders explicitly designed the Constitution to prevent.  The plan is unconstitutional on its face.  Of course, that’s never stopped Democrats before.

Joe Doakes

As we saw last week, the left isn’t above writing new law from the bench to suit “community” demands.

Doctors Orders

If you’ve had a checkup over the past ten years, you may have noticed your doctor (or their nurses) asking you or your kids if there are any guns in the house.

It is, of course, part of a politically-motivated campaign to a) try to compile “public health” data attacking our right to keep and bear arms, and b) an attempt by left-leaning medical organizations to use the prestige of the medical profession to bully people out of owning guns.

I’ve always answered “No”. I figure “backdoor to registration”.

Turns out there may be a better approach to take. 

I Love A Happy Ending

In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, the vultures at the Brady Institute for Gun Grabbing filed a large, punitive lawsuit against Lucky Gunner, an ammunition vendor where Adam Lanza apparently purchased his ammunition.

The courts threw out the suit with prejudice, ordering Brady to pay over $111,000 in court and legal costs to Lucky Gunner.

Lucky Gunner is donating the entire cash award to gun rights organizations around the country – depending on their vote totals in a national poll.

And the good folks at the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance would deeply appreciate as many votes as they can get.

Whilst Travelling

What is one thing, besides mountains, that Colorado has that Minnesota doesn’t?

Amy Klobuchar giving them the unvarnished facts about her beliefs:

Senator Klobuchar was the first woman elected to represent the State of Minnesota in the U.S. Senate when she took office in 2007. She was interviewed by Walter Issacson, CEO of the Aspen Institute, in one of the first events of the 2015 Aspen Ideas Festival.

“What I will never, ever forget was this one mother who said they were all in the firehouse after the shooting,” [at Sandy Hook] said Klobuchar. “And one by one, the kids would come in from the school. After about a few hours had passed, the parents that were left knew that their kids were never coming back into that firehouse.”

Her story left the entire room quiet, the silence only being punctured by sniffling and crying.

“So when you sit there with those parents and think of the courage that they have and think that the Senate did not have the courage to pass a simple background check bill, it was really the lowest,” said Klobuchar, adding that the possibility that the Senate could do something about gun control would be a step forward.

Hmm.  She seemed pretty quiet about background checks in 2012 and 2014…

…here at home, at least.

Amateur Hour

Let’s say, hypothetically, that you want to join a gun rights group.

Let’s say that you don’t read this blog – or worse, you read it, but don’t take it seriously. So you don’t know, or haven’t taken seriously, the news that the group “Minnesota Gun Rights”, is basically a Potemkin fundraising front the transfers money from Minnesota to Iowa, and spends a bare minimum of it on Minnesota political campaigning.

You send in your hard-earned money.

And when you do, the website shows you this: 

“These are the people that we report to – not a boss 1,000 miles away who doesn’t understand Iowa and what Iowans want”.

That may be the most hilariously ironic slip of all this group’s hilariously ironic slips.

If you were this fictional person, who might now be wondering “hey, maybe there’s a point to all the things that people’ve been saying about Minnesota Gun Rights“, you might follow up by asking the people looking out for your Iowegian Minnesotan gun rights a few questions:

  • What “backroom deals” are you referring to, and what specifically was wrong with them?  What rights did they cost me, or anyone, in Iowa Minnesota?
  • Precisely what “bribes” are you referring to?  That sounds pretty serious, so please be very specific.
  • What rights have existing groups – the NRA, GOCRA and others – “bargained away”?   Again, since I’m a concerned shooter, this sounds really serious.  Please be very, totally, utterly specific.

Let me know if you hear back from them.

Wherever you live.