This Is What “90% Support” Looks Like

The gun control measures that “have 90% support” failed in conference committee yesterday, after having to be buried in the House Public Safety omnibus finance bill because the DFL didn’t have the votes to pass them as standalone bills, even in the Metrocrat-dominated House.

And I hope, hope, hope that the DFL keeps running with that “90% support line” in the Senate elections next year.

Absolute Moral Authority

I wonder if these kids will get lionized and treated as the authorities that David Hogg has?

Survivors of a Colorado school shooting walked out of a vigil for their slain classmate Wednesday night in protest of politicians and other groups using it as a platform for gun control, a local report said.
The students from STEM High School, where two gunmen killed a student and wounded eight others Tuesday, began yelling from the stands that they “wanted to be heard” after two politicians and pro-gun control advocates addressed the crowd, according to the local NBC affiliate, KUSA.
They then stormed out of the vigil after Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet and Democratic Congressman Jason Crow addressed the crowd, the Denver Post reported.
The kids chanted “Mental health” and hurled expletives at the media, according to the report.

And I don’t know about you, but suddenly I”m feeling kind of proud:

“What has happened at STEM is awful. But it’s not a statistic. We can’t be used as a reason for gun control. We are people, not a statement,” one student said, according to video by KUSA.
Speaking of the lone fatality, 18-year-old Kendrick Castillo, another student added, “We wanted Kendrick to be mourned. We wanted all of you to join us in that mourning, but that was not allowed here. We all walked out. We were not kicked out.”

This nation needs fewer tragedies.

But if we had more of this kind of moral courage, we’d have a great start.

Rotten To The Core

There are some facts about the gun control debate in this country that are pretty dead-lock cut and dried.

“Gun Safety” advocates don’t care about crime – they care about control.

White liberal gun control activists only really care about crime that affects white liberals – emotionally.

You can tell Nancy Nord Bence is lying when you see her lips moving.

But the fact is, if you dig deep, there really aren’t any good guys in the debate. The gun grabbers and Democrats, of course – but even the Republicans, at least at a national level. never faill to disappoint.

I’m going to drop the beginning of a Twitter thread – this is just the first, but please read the whole thing:

It’s the sort of thing that led me to leave the GOP 25 years ago – out of general disgust more than any actual ideological differences.

This Is The DFL

Rep. John Lesch wrote this on Facebook yesterday, in response to a post about Shoreview DFL gun-grabber rep Kelly Moller:

“Child Murder Apologists”. And he’s not referring to his own, Stepford-Eunuchs-like support of Planned Parenthood, here.

He’s talking about you, Ms. and Mr. Law-Abiding Gun Owner.

It’d be a mistake to call this another oe of the gaffes for which Rep. Lesch is famous. This is the mindset of today’s DFL – that you, the law-abiding citizen, are rooting for spree killers. Lesch only let his guard down.

Never, ever forget – they want the 2nd Amendment. And that’s just an appetizer.

Up From Zero

As I’ve pointed out in the past, “Protect” Minnesota and their director, the “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence, have never made an assertion about guns, gun owners, gun laws, gun crime, gun statistics, the Second Amendment or its history that is simultaneously:

  • Original
  • Substantial, and
  • True.

You might get two out of three, sometimes.

This next howler?:

The “Reverend” makes three assertions. In reverse order:

Banks stopped using armed guards because they were being targeted: The “Reverend”, or someone she read, apparently thinks people rob banks for the same reason they climb mountains or skydive – to surmount a challenge, to defeat an obstacle.

It’s baked monkey doodle, of course. Banks found that it was cheaper to give bank robbers “bait” money than to resist them, in terms of civil liability.

School shooters, being “suicidal” and wanting to go out in a blaze of glory, would jump at the chance to attack a harder target: Which explains how many mass shooters go straight for the nearby cops when they launch their attacks.

Wait, what? That never happens?

The “Reverend” is making things up again.

While death is part of some spree killers’ fantasy narrative, it only comes after killing as many people as they can first.

If the “Reverend” can show us a single example of a spree killer specifically picking out an armed target, I’m all ears. I’ll wait.

And wait.

And wait.

Allowing teachers and staff to carry firearms would increase the number of shootings, thefts and accidental discharges: Here, the “Reverend” actually comes close to making a point. It’s possible that this could increase the number and rate of incidents.

Because when you’re at “Zero”, anything is an increase. And out of the thousand school districts that allow staff to exercise their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves and their charges, that’s how many incidents there have been in the past twenty years:

After the Columbine school shooting 20 years ago, one of the more significant changes in how we protect students has been the advance of legislation that allows teachers to carry guns at schools. There are two obvious questions: Does letting teachers carry create dangers? Might they deter attackers? Twenty states currently allow teachers and staff to carry guns to varying degrees on school property, so we don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns.

And how about accidents, or boistrous or larcenous students stealing teachers’ guns?

Again:

Fears of teachers carrying guns in terms of such problems as students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all, and there was only one accidental discharge outside of school hours with no one was really harmed. While there have not been any problems at schools with armed teachers, the number of people killed at other schools has increased significantly – doubling between 2001 and 2008 versus 2009 and 2018.

So, technically, the “Reverend” had a point, here – since in 20 years in 20 states there have been no incidents – none, zero, nada, nichevo – then the first incident would, literally, be an increase. And in a nation of millions, bad things happen. They’re inevitable.

But with a very significant sample, over a significant time span, we’re still waiting. Knock wood.

So The Final Score…: But we don’t give points for techical correctness, since it was in the furtherance of a lie.

So out of a potential three points for her statement being original, substantial and true, the “Reverend” rates…:

Habitually Fabulistic And Intellectually Slothful Nancy

I’ve said it in the past – the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence, the director of “Protect Minnesota“, has never, not once made a statement about guns, gun laws, gun owners, the Second Amendment, the history of the Second Amendment, or gun crime that is simultaneously substantial, original and true.

Not once.

Yes, I can back that up, if you want to sit down and go through her record point by point. It’s not even close.

She may have sunk to a new low today; she sent this out in her email blast to her organization.

Of course, she is (let’s give her the benefit of the doubt) mistaken; the relentlessly civil and polite to a fault Rob Doar said no such thing. She is referring to Benjamin Dorr , leader of the fraud/huckster Fundraising scam “Minnesota Gun Rights”, Who is (in my relentlessly accurate opinion) a fraud and a loathsome person to boot.

Nord Bence has been informed of her “error” and told to retract. She still has not.

This is the voice of gun control in Minnesota.

UPDATE:  As of Monday night, the statement had been removed from Facebook.  However, as yet no retraction has gone to the dozens who get “P”M’s emails.

This Is What “90% Approval” Looks Like

Last night, the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence called out to the frenzied hordes of “grassroots”activists with “Protect Minnesota”; a “rally” was needed to support the DFL’s gun grab bills, and a rally they got.

Behold the might of “Protect”Minnesota:

This was at 7:05 PM – five minutes after the rally started.

Or, as people who watch “Protect” Minnesota refer to it, “peak frenzy”.

Sign O The Times

Back about the time I took my first carry permit training, the late great Joel Rosenberg told the story of the time in the early 2000s, during a spate of attacks on synagogues, when a very “progressive”, DFL-leaning local congregation called him and a few other prominent gun rights activists who are also of the tribe, and asked if they might not mind – privately and discretely, mind you – bringing a little “insurance” to services with them.

Just in case.

To the best of my knowledge, they did.

It was probably 2-3 years ago I interviewed the guys from Archway Defense, who discussed how frequently places of worship of all faiths are targeted, by everyone from mentally disturbed vandals to outright hate-criminals and terrorists. The rate – for Christians and Muslims, but especially Jews, is far out of proportion with their numbers in society.

And for all the smug, self-righteous virtue signaling of some congregations, the record is pretty clear; congregations who at least quietly take self-defense into their own hands and leave temporal forgiveness to God tend to do better when someone decides to stage their final blaze of glory in their “sanctuary“.

And common sense is driving some of those congregants and congregations to ask the questions that need to be asked.

And Minnesota’s Second Amendment community has some answers.

We've been contacted by a number of folks in the past day inquiring about arming parishioners at their church, mosque,…

Posted by Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus on Sunday, April 28, 2019

Remember – if you want to deter a spree killer, the only thing that needs to be publicly recognized as “potentially armed” is your congregation, school or group’s reputation.

A Nation Of Logrolled Sheep

Gun violence is schools is a quarter what it was 25 years ago, even with the tragic mass shootings in recent years thrown in.

But Big Left and Big Media have succeeded in convincing a fair number of people that 2+2=5:

Twenty years after the Columbine High School shooting made practicing for armed intruders as routine as fire drills, many parents have only tepid confidence in the ability of schools to stop a gunman, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
And while most Americans consider schools less safe than they were 20 years ago, the poll finds a majority say schools aren’t at fault for shootings. Bullying, the availability of guns, the internet and video games share more of the blame.

If you tell people the sky is falling often and consistently enough, people will start carrying umbrellas.

Silence Is Golden

When the police and prosecutors talk with you in relation to allegations of criminal activity, you have the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer to keep you from saying something stupid or even just inadvertent that can end up putting you in jail.  

And it doesn’t even have to be anything you say to the cops. 

A few  years ago, during the “Black LIves Matter” protest at Minneapolis’ Fourth Precinct, a fellow with a carry permit, Alan Scarsella,  shot and wounded someone from a group of protesters that was chasing him.   His fear of immediate death and great bodily harm was real; he attempted to retreat, running a whole block before firing back; he used the force needed to end the threat (the chase stopped cold when he fired).  

But on the way to the protest, he and his idiot friends made some videos, including some statements (which may or may not have been quotes) that the county prosecutor managed to get before the jury as racist provocations that, in the end, negated Scarsella’s attempt to prove that he wasn’t the aggressor in the jury’s eyes.  He got convicted and sentenced to seven years.  

So if you’re a good guy or gal with a gun who, heaven forfend, winds up shooting someone in self-defense, everything you say can and will be used against you – even things you say long before the episode in question, unrelated to the shooting.  

I thought about that when the media started covering this story – a Saint Paul homeowner shot a suspected car thief. 

And what picture did the Strib, and then every single gun-grabber group, run with?

Photo via the Strib’s Sharon Prather.

From the Strib, with emphasis added:

A 36-year-old man with a gun was with the suspect when police arrived, and he identified himself to officers as the homeowner, police said. He cooperated with the investigation and was arrested Tuesday night on suspicion of aggravated assault.
The Star Tribune typically does not name suspects who have not been charged.
Police found the man who had been shot in the side yard of the house after hearing gunfire, said Sgt. Mike Ernster.
A sign in the window of the house read, “No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again!” The sign punctuates the message with drawings of bullet holes.

The guy – guys, really – are innocent until proven guilty. And Berg’s 18th Law is still in full effect.

But will the police and county attorney – who both cordially detest the law-abiding gun owner and dislike the notion of the Good Guy With A Gun, use this sign as evidence to logroll a jury, if necessary, into believing that the homeowner, whatever the actual situation, was looking for a chance to use his right to keep and bear arms on someone who “had it coming”?

Yes.

Why embroider it?

If you are a gun owner who is concerned about self-defense, it is imperative that you stop writing on social media, putting stickers on your car, or posting your house with signs talking about what you intend to do to alleged criminals with your firearms.

It’s the same thing I wrote back when I did own guns. I’d never buy another, of course. Guns terrify me.

Five Good Guys, Two With Guns

The FBI designated 27 “active shooter” situations in 2018. 10 of them, they called “Mass Shootings”.

So keep that in mind as you look over the stats from the FBI’s annual report on active shooter situations.

“The FBI has designated 27 shootings in 2018 as active shooter incidents.”
“10 of those 27 met our definition of a mass shooting”

Now, remember – in most states that allow civilian carry of firearms, maybe 2% of the population has a permit to carry; in permitless (“Constitutional”) carry states, I’d suspect the total carrying might be higher, but I’m going to also suspect the subsets of people willing to undergo the hassle and responsibility of carrying and the subset willing to go through the hassle and red tape of getting a permit are pretty close).

That’s about one person in fifty. Maybe more in some places; I’d imagine a pretty fair share of people in rural Wyoming, Kansas or even Minnesota might have a firearm on nor near their person much of the time. Definitely less in other places – California, Illinois, or any school, federal office or posted business.

Keep that in mind with this next set of stats:

In 5/27 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. 3 of those 5 were unarmed and were successful in ending the shooting.
In 2 of those 5, armed citizens possessing firearms permits exchanged gunfire with the shooter.
In one of those incidents, armed citizens shot and killed the shooter (oklahoma)

So 2% of the population might have a firearm – but they were able to intervene in about 6% of active shooter situations last year – successfully in both cases:

It’s also worth noting that the other three episodes involving civilians included a wounded teacher subduing shooters. He was in an environment where 0% of the population could be legally armed. Salute.

16/27 happened in a business, 5/27 happened at schools (4 HS, 1 middle school)

It’s worth noting that nine of the episodes at businesses occurred in places where the public had access -including both episodes where armed civilians intervened. That’s 22% – not that percentages carry that much weight with numbers this small.

The other seven occurred in non-public parts of businesses; it’s not stated in the report how many were posted or otherwise no-go for law-abiding civilians

As to conclusions?

I stress – this next bit was written by the FBI. Not the Gun Owners Caucus. Emphasis added:

“As in past years, citizens were faced with split-second, life-and-death decisions. In 2018, citizens risked their lives to safely and successfully end the shootings in five of the 27 active shooter incidents. They saved many lives. Given this reality, it is vital that citizens be afforded training so they understand the risks they face and the options they have available when active shooter incidents are unfolding”

Since we’re assessing risk – all of the deadliest episodes – the Stoneman Douglas and Santa Fe NM schools and the Sutherland Springs Texas school shootings – took place in “gun free” zones where 0% of the people can lawfully be armed.

When Making Plans For The Next Three Nights

Tonight: The House DFL may be trying to amend their Universal Gun Registration and Red Flag Confiscation bills to the Omnibus Public Safety bill. Debate may well happen tonight. It’s entirely possible we’ll need to get a huge turnout of people down to the Capitol or the State Office building to show the Legislature what Minnesotans really think about the erosion of our civil liberties.

That’s still up in the air. What I’d suggest is that you sign up for the MN Gun Owners Caucus’s email blasts – then, you’ll be getting the latest news. Also, make sure you “like” the MNGOC’s Facebook page – that’s also being updated constantly.

And maybe I’ll see y’all at the Capitol (or somewhere in the Capitol complex) tonight!

Friday and Saturday nights: My band, “Elephant in the Room”, is playing at the Stillwater Eagles both nights from 8-midnight. We do everything from Elvis to Nirvana, from the Cars to, well, The Eagles. I mean, we gotta do Eagles at the Eagles, right?

Stop on out, have a drink, say hi!

Many Good Guys With Guns

A good guy with a gun is involved in ending one out of twelve mass shootings in recent years, according to Ted Nugent.

Just kidding. It’s according to the FBI.

And they may be under-reporting even that figure:

The FBI’s two latest reports state that there were 40 active shooter cases from 2014-15 and 50 cases from 2016-17.  During these two periods, the FBI reports that two and five shootings, respectively, were stopped by individuals with concealed handgun permits.  The two reports each describe an additional case where a permit holder was involved but wounded or killed by the attacker.
For four years, the CPRC has been collecting cases of concealed handgun permit holders stopping mass public shootings. As we will show below, permit holders saved lives in between 13 and 16 cases from 2014-17.  This includes the seven cases that the FBI lists, seven cases that should have been included (one of the seven is debatable), and two cases that the FBI had on its list but doesn’t include as instances of permit holders saving lives.  Thus, concealed handgun permit holders saved lives in 13.5% to 16.5% of 97 cases. We only started collecting these cases were permit holders stopped attacks in 2014, so a comparison is limited to the last two active shooting reports put out by the FBI.
It is entirely possible that in the two cases where a permit holder was wounded or killed by the attacker that the permit holder’s actions allowed others to escape the scene. But even assuming that was not the case, permit holders were successful between 87% and 89% of the time that they intervened.

But let’s take the FBI’s 8% figure at face value. 8% of the American people do not carry firearms. Likely no more than a fraction of that, even in gun-friendly states.

And almost all spree killings happen in gun-free zones, where nobody is supported to be carrying.

So – as the DFL tries to jam down the gun control agenda Michael Bloomberg paid them to work for here in Minnesota – where, one wonderss, on earth does “Protect” Minnesota get the idea that attazcking a spree killer, unarmed, is 20 times as effective as using a firearm?

According to a 2013 FBI study of 160 active shootings between 2000 and 2013, in only one incident was an armed civilian
able to stop the attack–and that was a US Marine– but 21 of those shootings (13%) were interrupted by unarmed civilians.
Thus, unarmed civilians are 20 times more likely to stop a rampage shooting than armed civilians.

Source: The Latest Research on Rampage Shootings Show that Gunmen Rarely Target Gun-Free Zones. Jennifer Mascia The Trace. November 30, 2016. Yes, they actually believe this crap.

Unmentioned – the ratio of successful attempts vs. fatalities for armed vs. unarmed people.

Because one might think that if attacking spree killers without weapons were a viable tactic, SWAT teams would be using it today.

Their Own Slimy Petard

Some Minnesota Second Amendment activists – many of them misinformed by a fraudulent “gun rights” group – are upset that Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka has left the door open to holding hearings on the Dems’ two gun grab bills, HF8 (the Universal Registration bill) and HF9 (Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders).

They’d like to see Gazelka just let the bills die in committee when they reach the Senate, assuming they pass the House (which they likely will. But. There’s gonna be a but. We’ll come back to that).

Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms notes:

First, the Senate is going to make the House vote on the bills, knowing that if it fails, they can’t be blamed. If it does pass, they’ve only agreed to let it be heard in committee, which doesn’t mean it’ll even make it to the floor for a vote.
Further, they’re making it clear that they’re also going to talk about some pro-gun legislation and Democrats who don’t like it can deal.
To be honest, I like it.
Now, I’m not thrilled with committees even hearing gun control legislation, but since that’s inevitable, the least we can do is watch pro-gun lawmakers make anti-gunners squirm.

And it’ll give the good guys a chance to descend on the capitol in biblical numbers, to melt the switchboards, and to show the legislators just how motivated Real Americans are – at least, on defense.

And most importantly, it gets peoples’ votes on the record. Because as much smack as the DFL talked about gun control swinging them the last election, polling shows that even among anti-gunners, outside the lunatic fringe at least, gun control was not an important issue to voters.

But it most certainly is to the good guys.

And the DFL doesn’t want those votes on record any more than US House Democrats wanted votes on the “Green New Deal” counted.

I’ve not always agreed with Gazelka on the gun issue – I think he played it waaaaaaaay too safe when the GOP had majorities in both chambers – but here, I think he’s playing chess while his critics are demanding loud, fast checkers.

Magazines

One of the constant refrains of gun grabbers in recent years is “Nobody needs a thirty round magazine”, stated as an absolute.

This pretty much inevitably comes from people who’ve spent less time studying self-defense than I’ve spent on interpretive dance.

But if you (or they) are curious as to “why”?

I’ll answer that with a question. Three of them, actually.

First: are you ever going to be attacked by someone who wants to kill you, then and there? If you answer “I have no idea“, that’s a perfectly valid, honest answer. Violent attacks – robberies, kidnappings, rapes, aggravated assaults, spree killings, terror attacks – are exceptionally rare. Rarer still if you have no criminal record, don’t associate with criminals, and don’t work in a business where a lot of criminals are part of the clientele. That accounts for the vast majority of people.

Not a single person who gets robbed, kidnapped, raped, suffers a home invasion, or is at a location where a spree killer decides to stage their blaze of glory, woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to be the target of a violent incident today!“ Did they?

Second: if the person decides to attack you with the lethal force we mentioned above, and you decide to defend yourself, how hard is it going to be the end the threat to your life?: impossible to predict, right? Many robberies, assaults and rapes, and even a few spree killings , have been ended by a good guy pulling out a gun, with no shots fired. Sometimes an attacker falls over unconscious, or dead, after a punch to the face. On the other hand there are records of people who’ve been shot 20 times and still had the strength to shoot, stab or hit before they bled out. I know one story of a woman who barricaded herself and her kids in an attic during a home invasion; when the guy broke into the attic, she shot at him six times at a range of 2 feet, hitting them five times in the face and head – and he lived without a lot of complications ( other than a lengthy prison sentence). Alcohol, drugs and mental illness all affect this as well – drunk people are harder to deter from doing stupid things; people who are extremely high may not experience pain, even pain from a gunshot wound. There are cases of people who were very, very high who never noticed they’d been shot until they bled to death.

So the question is: how many shots (if it’s a gun you choose) will it take to stop one person from following through on trying to murder you? The answer, given the evidence we have seen above, is “0 to 20 shots – maybe”.

Bear in mind that, under stress, almost nobody hits their target with every shot. Even at close range. Even if you practice shooting a lot (although that helps) the police, in self-defense situations, hit with an average of about one shot in every six. Put another way, the police fire an average of 17 shots to end an engagement.

So – you don’t know how many hits you’re going to need to end a lethal or threat to you (or your family, or innocent bystanders), and you don’t know how many shots that you fire are going to hit the person who is trying to kill you.

That’s with one attacker.

Which brings us to the third question

Third: how many people will be trying to kill, Rob, attack, rape or kidnap you?: The scenarios above are predicated on one attacker. Can you predict how many people are going to attack you?

In Saint Paul a few years back, there was a series of home invasions. Four people would break into a house, violently subdue any occupants who were present, and take what they wanted.

Nobody died in that series of incidents – but other home invasions do lead to murder, almost always murder of unarmed people.

Remember – none of the victims woke up that morning thinking “I bet I’m going to have a violent home invasion today”.

Now – if you hear somebody kick in your door in at midnight, ask yourself – how many of them are there? Are they armed? Are they drunk or on some sort of mind altering substance that warps their perception of risk, danger, and/or pain? How will they react to someone resisting (or not resisting)?

You are not going to know. All you know is that there is a potentially lethal threat to your life down there. Maybe the sound of a pistol racking up will send all of them scampering from your house. Or maybe the sight of one of them falling over, gushing blood after you shoot one of them will send them running.

Or maybe you pull out your six shooter, and fire all six shots of the first attacker you see – leaving you holding an empty revolver while robbers two, three, and four come at you with baseball bats, ice picks and a shotgun.

So the answer to your question is “When we are responsible for defending ourselves, our families and our community from a violent threat to our lives and we can’t predict who is going to carry out that attack, how many of them there will be, and what it will take to deter/stop them, we want a magazine that will leave you with at least one round in the chamber when the attacker runs out of attack”.

I hope that answers your question.

Driving The Herd

In response to the welter of mass shootings that’s cropped up lately, Malcolm Gladwell observed that it’s a fairly predictable example of mob behavior. I wrote about it almost a year ago.

David French (again) worries that we’re living Gladwell’s prediction out in the worst possible way:

In both my military and my civilian careers, I’ve been in meetings and discussions where someone points out a potentially unsolvable weakness in our systems and says, “Well, I hope the bad guys don’t figure this out.” I have a sick, sinking feeling that a vicious terrorist just “figured out” a path to even greater notoriety.
After mass shootings, we often focus on the instrument of death to the relative neglect of the culture of death. There are very human reasons for this — the cultural problem feels so big, so impossible to address, that we fix our eyes on the things we think we can control. We seemingly can’t control whether shooters become famous. We can’t control the fact that there are young men drawn to their example. We can’t control which aspects of their murders will capture the imagination of the next wave of killers… I’m old enough to remember Columbine vividly. We all recoiled in horror but, in hindsight, weren’t horrified enough. We did not realize that a new cultural script was written right in front of our eyes. I hope and pray that I’m wrong, but the New Zealand shooting feels more momentous even than the killings of the recent past. This was online darkness brought to life, then streamed back online. Another threshold has been crossed, and I fear there is no going back.

The worst among us are causing the herd to logroll the entire society into really, really bad decisions. The New Zealand shooter in particular – he calculated his atrocity’s approach to the media (!) precisely to logroll dim-bulb Americans.

And the herd doesn’t make great decisions even in the best of times.

More Of This

Gun grabbers had a cute little rally the other day at the capitol.

It drew about a third what the Second Amendment rally two weeks ago managed – not that the media coverage of either would convey the difference. Not honestly.

But I digress.

They – the metrocrats who took power last fall – think guns are the wedge that’ll pick up the Senate for them:

One of the loudest voices leading the charge at Wednesday’s rally inside the State Capitol rotunda came from First Lady Gwen Walz, who vowed electoral consequences if measures to expand background checks and adopt a red flag law don’t receive hearings and a vote this session.
“If they do not put it up for a vote, there are seven senators sitting in seats where Tim Walz won — and we are coming,” Gwen Walz said.

By all means do, Mrs. Walz. You may have forgotten 2002, the last time the DFL made opposing the law-abiding citizen a beach worth dying on. I sure do, though.

The GOP majority in the Senate has apparently been listening to the overwhelming majority of phone calls and emails:

But Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, has promised to stand in the way of any new gun restrictions in his chamber. Gazelka, in an interview this week, said the issue would instead be taken up next year.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, who chairs the Judiciary and Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee, echoed Gazelka’s wishes.
“With divided government that we have now, I think any gun bill will have to have a wide consensus in order to be seriously considered and passed in the Minnesota Legislature,” Limmer said.

If you haven’t been beating your legislators’ doors down, what are you waiting for?

“These Bills Don’t Do Nothing”

Sick as I was, I managed to rally to spend a chunk of Wednesday night down at the State Office Building for the Judiciary Committee hearings on HF8 (the Universal Registry bill) and HF9 (Red Flag Confiscation Orders).

And if you missed it, the highlight of the night was Reverend Tim Christopher, from a church in North Minneapolis, testifying about the uselessness of the bills to the community where the violence actually is. He even managed to shut up John Lesch’s bored, snide heckling for six minutes, which may require some laws of physics to be rewritten.

My favorite quote:

“I see some of the people with “unarmed and unafraid on their shirts [a button that “Protect” Minnesota had been handing out to its lilywhite droogs]. I’d love to see them stand in the parking lot of my church on a Friday night”.

Watch it. Share it.

Because gun control has nothing to do with saving lives. Least of all poor black lives of color.

Jim Backstrom, Wannabe Petty Tyrant

Watching the testimony in front of the house judiciary committee last night, I was most struck by the Testimony of Dakota county county attorney Jim Backstrom.

Where “struck by “= “terrified”

It would seem Mr. Backstrom considers due process to be a hindrance in doing his job.

Photo courtesy Rob Doar

Mr. Baxter may be one of the most loathsome people in public life in Minnesota – as we showed some years ago, this very same topic.

Fore-Informed Is Forearmed

Most of you know this already.  Perhaps a few of it have heard it but don’t believe it. 

But since Big Left and its subsidiary, the DFL, is busy trying to roll back the 2nd Amendment in Minnesota – with hearings coming up Wednesday in the Judiciary “Division” – it’s worth reinforcing the point for those who don’t know the facts:

The armed citizen is overwhelmingly successful in ending or reducing the death toll in active shooter situations , over 90% of the time.  

So the below graphic does just that. Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Read the whole thing.