“Protect” Minnesota – most likely their “executive director” and one of very few actual members, the Reverend Nancy Nord Bence – reported on what the belived to be their bete noir, a good guy with a gun, doing something allegedly stupid and horrible.
Oh, no!
On the one hand, it touches all “P”M’s hot buttons: a gun and a civilian. Sounds bad.
But on the other hand, you need to remember – the Reverend (and, really, any anti-gun leader) has never, not once, said anything about guns, gun owners, the 2nd Amendment or its history, gun laws, crime or statistics that is simultaneously substantial, original and true.
With that in mind, you need to merely cast a wider net. Was this an example of a “good guy with a gun” getting into a squabble and blazing away?
Remember – in 2018, the DFL wrapped itself around gun control, claiming that the issue flipped the metro, and that “90% of Minnesotans” supported their agenda of Universal Registration and Red Flag Confiscation.
Fast forward to April and May, when Ryan “Uncle Tom” Winkler’s DFL majority didn’t have the votes to bring either to the floor as stand-alone measures – which, if Minnesota were behind the measures by a ratio of 9:1, would be kind of unthinkable.
Fast forward still more, to paragraph 10 of her op-ed – the very last graf about policies discussed during the session, the one before the closing, the graf about the measures that supposedly swept the DFL into power last year.
Smell the distancing:
Beyond our core values of education, health care and economic security, Minnesotans have called on legislators to make communities safer by addressing the epidemic of gun violence. Republicans have said “no” to common-sense gun violence prevention measures that have become law in Republican-led states — criminal background checks for all gun sales and red-flag laws to prevent people who have indicated an intent to cause harm from possessing firearms until the danger has passed. These measures would save lives. DFLers will continue efforts to enact these provisions into law.
Catch that? “Minnesotans called…”. “Republicans said no”.
As if Hortman is saying “don’t look at us! MInnesotans asked for it, and the GOP said no! We are just simple vessels of others’ will!”. Of course, they get so much money from Michael Bloomberg that they have to keep making with the hopey-changey.
But – and it could be just me – it doesn’t sound like her heart is in it.
One could almost say you can detect the faint aroma of that albatross around their neck starting to go bad.
Scott Peterson – the Parkland deputy who seemingly did everything he could to avoid doing anything useful during the Parkland massacre – arrested, released on bond:
As CBS News reported, Peterson was arrested late Tuesday afternoon after a 15 month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which said Peterson was “derelict in his duty” and “failed to act consistently with his training and fled to a position of personal safety while [Nikolas] Cruz shot and killed students and staff.” The report also states Peterson was “in a position to engage Cruz and mitigate further harm to others, and he willfully decided not to do so.” While out on bail, Peterson cannot possess a firearm or take any job involving children, Scherer said. Peterson, dressed in beige jail clothes, did not speak during the hearing
I said it at the time, and I’ll say it now – I’ll always be circumspect about commenting on peoples’ reactions when faced with an immediate, lethal threat. History is full of tales of blustery men who shriveled when the bullets started flying – the lesson being “don’t bluster about how you’re gonna behave when the chips are down”.
But Peterson is one of the people we bless with a lot of extra power, rights and training to do exactly the things he didn’t do when Nik Cruz started his killing spree. He’s one of the people even “progressives” think should have the right to keep and bear arms. So while I mute my criticism of the man, I do in fact criticize the badge. Peterson’s behavior was all over the Orlando Sun-Sentinel’s excellent minute-by-minute breakdown of the breakdown.
But then, so was that of every other Parkland cop, up and down the chain of command, up to former chief Scott Israel, who parlayed his own incompetence and his entire department’s dereliction into a career as a gun control activist.
And Peterson’s actions, at least in re some charges, will be judged by how they comported with policies Israel established for his officers, and trained (or failed to train) them in. And one of those policies.
And, as the Sun-Sentinel noted (emphasis added):
Since Columbine, officers are taught to rush toward gunshots and neutralize the killer. But the first Broward deputies don’t rush in. Broward Sheriff Scott Israel later reveals that he personally changed department policy to say that deputies “may” instead of “shall” rush in.
And just you watch – it’ll be Israel’s policy that will allow Peterson to skate on at least some of the charges against him.
Scot Peterson is facing trial. Scott Israel roams free.
For the past couple decades or so, anti-gun hamsters have been chortling that “Australia cured its mass shooting problem by banning guns”. They “Hadn’t had a single mass shooting!” since they banned most semiautomatic firearms.
The response for most of that decade, was “so far”.
At least four people were killed in the city of Darwin and several injured when a gunman opened fire with a pump-action shotgun late Tuesday night in several different locations, police said. A suspect was apprehended soon afterward, and has been identified as 45-year-old local Ben Hoffmann, according to CNN affiliate 9 News. Hoffmann was on parole at the time of the killings. It is the worst spree shooting in Australia since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, which resulted in the country radically overhauling its gun laws, and the worst gun-related crime since a murder-suicide last year in Western Australia, in which a grandfather killed his entire family and himself.
But…but…guns were banned!
Police confirmed the alleged weapon, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, “may have been stolen as far back as 1997.” Authorities are now trying to piece together how the alleged Darwin shooter acquired his weapon and any motivations he may have had for the shootings, which made front pages across Australia Wednesday.
Pass the word to your gun-illiterate friends: a 12 gauge pump action shotgun isn’t “semi-automatic”, there are likely at least half a million of ’em in Minnesota alone, and inside a room they may be even deadlier than an AR15.
The problem is, the enemy isn’t the right of the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms – even if that gun is an AR15, or a fully-automatic machine gun, artillery or flamethrowers, for that matter.
Well, that’s one of the reasons I started this blog, now, isn’t it?
My response to the PiPress:
——————–
In her May 22 letter to the editor (“Democrats offered plenty of compromise on gun bills”), Jo Haugen criticized Senate Majority Leader Gazelka for kililing the DFL’s gun control bills, because “a vast majority of Minnesotans as well as law enforcement support these bills”
If “mandate” were real, then Speaker Hortmann and Majority Leader Winkler should have had no trouble passing the measures – “Red Flag” confiscation and “Universal” registration bills – as standalone measures, confident that that massive support would be greeted with hosannas at election time.
Curiously, they could not. Winkler didn’t have the votes to do that, and snuck them into the omnibus Public Safety bills against bipartisan opposition.
Either the House DFL leadership are cowards for ignoring Ms. Haugen’s supposed mandate, or the “vast majority” of Minnesotans support nothing of the sort, and the polling to which Ms. Haugen refers was a bogus piece of propaganda.
Minnesota’s gun control movement: The few, trying to control the many with the acquiescence of the gullible.
Former President Obama continues his life’s worth – sliming the United States at home and abroad. This time, it’s in Brazil:
Barack Obama told an audience in Brazil that “our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense” and claimed machine guns could be bought legally online. The former president, 57, said the most difficult day of his eight years in the White House was after the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., when 20 elementary students and six staff were shot dead. “And my daughters were only a little bit older than these young children that have been shot, and I had to go and comfort the parents. And some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time,” Obama said to an applause.
So Obama is lying about guns.
Unexpectedly.
Of course, in Brazil – which until recently had a strict ban on civilian gun ownership – violent crime, especially with guns, is vastly higher than in the US; Brazil suffered 64,000 homicides in 2017, 45,000 of them with firearms. That gives “gun free” Brazil a homicide rate roughly 12 times that of the United States – dwarfing even Democrat-run American cities like Obama’s Chicago.
Given his record, and the record of his pet policy, it’s probably not a surprise he’s lying.
When you’re a civil liberty supporter, it’s easy to get discouraged. And with most libertarian issues, sometimes it seems as if the train has left the station for good.
But to borrow a cliche, it’s easy to miss the forest for the trees, especially when the Big Media and Big Left (ptr) are bombarding you with weed elms.
Gun rights are winning – not just the legislative, judicial and demographic battles, but the biggest battle of all, the social battle.
Even with polls like this, claiming 90% of the people support gun control?
Yep.
Even with states like California and New Jersey doubling and tripling down on gun control?
Not only is it “even with” them; their radical gun control is a symptom of and reaction to the near complete victory in the courts, legislatures, Congress, the marketplace of ideas, and society as a whole.
Even outside the traditional “white male conservative” groups?
Especially outside those groups.
The conclusion of the piece, by Kareem Shaya:
On one hand you have an idea that has been growing for almost 30 years across almost all demographic groups; is more popular with young people than ever; spread permissive carry laws from just nine states in 1986 to 42 states and DC today; grew the installed base of its dearest shibboleth by a factor of 30 since the 1990s; and by its nature grows exponentially after reaching critical mass, because it spreads via the same natural laws that drive social networks, compound interest, and nuclear fission (see Kevin Simler’s incredible “Going Critical” for more on how that works).
Definitely check out “Going Critical”.
On the other hand you have an idea that went from grand national ambitions to eking out compromises in a small minority of states, and which gets less popular the more people learn about it. (That’s also compound interest, but with a negative sign in front of it.)
That’s one thing that is missing from the “debate” most people see, the one in the media – the sense of history.
Shaya’s piece points out that 35 years ago, complete bans on handguns and national registration of hunting rifles was the mainstream, pushed by groups like “The National Coalition to Ban Handguns” and “Handgun Control Incorporated”.
Today – barring polls taken after emotionally wrenching events like mass shootings – gun rights tends to outpoll gun control, and the grabber groups have had to continuously scale back not only their ambition, but their marketing: “Handgun Control Inc.” became “The Brady Organization”, among others.
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.
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.
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:
This is something I might be able to shed a little light on. Buckle up, kids, for a brief thread https://t.co/XuUCPdSx51
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.
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.
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…:
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
