We don’t really know what happened behind the Cub store near Lake and Hiawatha last week, in an incident in which one Darren Evanovich allegedly robbed a woman in the parking lot, pistol-whipped her, was chased by a Good Samaritan, allegedly drew a pistol on the samaritan, and was in turn shot dead.  I published the details that were available in the media last week; not much else seems to have come up, other than the fact that the Minneapolis Police declined to arrest the man – generally a good sign – and the Hennepin County Attorney’s office is evaluating whether or not to prosecute.

This didn’t stop Channel Five’s Tim Sherno from running a – I’m going to pick my words carefully – bizarre piece interviewing the sisters of the victim in the shooting.

Evanovich’s sisters say they know what their brother was doing was wrong, but they say the police should have handled the response because they’re trained to deal with crimes in progress.

I heard the audio from this piece – which is, sadly, not online at the moment.  And I almost drove off the road.

What do you think police “training” tells a cop to do, Evanovich sisters, when he sees a guy with a gun?

They are trained to order him to drop it and, if he doesn’t, shoot him without a lot of further ado!

Johnita Beal says the witness should have dialed 911, “Police could have been easily contacted, easily, and my brother would have been behind bars, or something like that, but no, he’s gone now.”

That is true.

And he’d have gotten away, since the police simply can’t be everywhere, and he’d have gone on to pistol-whip (allegedly) some other woman sooner than later.

But what about your brother, Madames Beal and Evanovich?  Leaving aside the robbery that started the incident – your brother is dead because he allegedly drew a gun on a guy who was chasing him for robbing and beating an old woman. Your brother could easily have killed the other man.  That – if the story checks out – is why it’s called “self-defense”.

Have you thought about that?

I’m sorry for your loss.  A brother is a terrible thing to lose.  But he might have made some different choices, under the circumstances – we see this, right?

And all the rest of you would-be robbers out there – if this story pans out, and the case is ruled justifiable (I’m crossing my fingers), does it give you any pause about, oh, I dunno, attacking and robbing people, and waving guns in the faces of people who lift a finger to stop you?

UPDATE: Rick Kupchella’s “Bring Me The News” spoke with Evanovich’s mother, who is claiming he was “the victim”.

Two stories doesn’t make a trend – it’s possible that two simultaneous, produced, sympathetic stories just happened to appear at almost the same time.

I don’t believe it, but it’s possible.

If you see any other media coverage, let me know.  Two is a coincidence.  Three’s a campaign.

I’ve got a bit of a dilemma here.

In trying to address the claims made in h this piece from Ian Millhiser in “Think” “Progress”, on a federal-level proposal for national reciprocity for carry permits, I faced a gnarly dilemma:  do I do a piece on “Think” “Progress”‘s efforts to cull selectively through facts to try to trash a conservative initiative, or do I do a piece on the congenital liberal inability to think through an argument logically?

The answer, unfortunately, is “both”.  Why choose?

The “National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act” has broad support in both chambers of Congress; Right-to-carry has been an untrammelled success throughout the United State for the past thirty years, with immense, intense support on both sides of the aisle at the federal and state level.

If the bill becomes law, it would allow nearly anyone to shop around for the one state that is willing to issue them a license to carry a concealed firearm, and then force other states to honor that license.

I’m not sure if Millhiser has really thought this through.  For example, they indulge the “progressive” conceit of looking in mock horror at the “red” state gun laws…:

Many states’ licensing rules for concealed carry are shockingly lax. Florida, for example, issued 1,700 concealed carry permits to people with “criminal histories, arrest warrants, domestic violence injunctions and misdemeanor convictions for gun-related crimes.”

…while, leaving aside for a moment the fact that the Florida story is a bit of bogus scare-mongering – the issues cited didn’t involve convictions, or “gun-related” misdemeanors serious enough to warrant denying their permit applications – it shows both “Think” “Progress”‘s myopia and ignorance of facts; carry permit holders’ crime records in “lax” states like Florida [1] are statistically no less impeccable than those in “strict” states like New York or, for that matter, states requiring no permit from the law-abiding, like Alaska, Arizona and Vermont.

Because Illinois is the only state that does not have a concealed carry law, the NRA’s bill would render out-of-state visitors immune to every state but Illinois’ licensing laws — so long as they obtained a license from a state that practically gives them away.

Right.  Because goodness knows if that happens, Illinois might get overwhelmed with gun violence or something.

OK,. back to my dilemma.  We established above that “Think” “Progress” is, like most (but by no means all) liberals, clueless about the reality of guns rights. Now, it’s on to the whole “couldn’t do logic in the throes of a full-bore Vulcan Mind Meld” bit.

Because Millhiser wants to throw out fifty years of “progressive” social policy!

Yet… forcing New York to honor Florida’s poorly vetted carry licenses…flies directly in the face of the right’s professed views on the 10th Amendment’s guarantee of states rights. The NRA’s bill is a direct attack on each state’s ability to determine on its own how best to protect the public’s safety.

Ultimately, however, this kind of fair weather tentherism is nothing new. Conservatives hate federal regulation of health care, until they want to invalidate state tort law or immunize the insurance industry from state consumer protection law.

There is a difference – legally and, if you care about America’s history and liberties no matter what your political stripe, morally – between “human rights”, especially those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and the niggling impedimenta of government policy and regulation on  issues that are, let’s just say, a tad less exalted in this nation’s legal canon.

This country decided – with the 13th Amendment and, also, the blood of 600,000 dead Americans – that the Bill of Rights’s exaltation of inalienable human rights trumps the states and, for that matter, The People.  The Supreme Court, and generations of decisions pushed by generations of lawyers pushed for everyone from Dred Scott to the ACLU, has established that the states do not trump human rights.

Like the right to free speech and the press.  Or freedom of (and, apparently, from) religion.  And assembly.  And unreasonable (whatever that means under the prevailing legal winds) search and seizures.  And, now that Heller has been incorporated by McDonald, the right to keep and bear arms.

Health care?  It’s not a constitutional right.  It’s an entitlement; we can argue over whether it’s something that should be dealt with at the federal level, or that of any government, and indeed we have been arguing about it for the past two years, and I have a hunch we’ll renew it in 2013.  And while “progressives” have used FDR’s courts’ bogus interpretations of the Commerce Clause to federalize a lot of things, there is no rational way you can say Health Care exists on the same plane as Speech and Jury Trials.

Most conservatives and libertarians recognize this distinction; we are more or less absolute (with prudent exceptions) on issues of human rights, and reserving lesser issues to the states. Most “progressives” blur it, but at least recognize (and push!) federal supremacy on civil liberties issues, as they constantly remind you.

…provided they’re not scary, like commoners with guns.

So Mr. Millhiser is mistaken when he writes…:

In other words, the right’s lockstep embrace of the NRA’s concealed carry bill is just one more example of conservatives’ willingness to claim that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

…because, indeed, it’s Mr. Millhiser, not conservatives, with the case of moral confusion.  Are human rights a federal issue, or not?

My stance is clear.  Mr. Millhiser seems to want it both ways.

UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION:  Why yes, my stance is in fact consistent.  I believe that specifics of gun laws should be a state issue, provided that they are consistent with the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a right “of the people”.  Most state qualify, although I personally campaign for more “liberalization”.  Illinois’ law does not qualify.

A shooting  by reported carry-permit holder in South Minneapolis may just illustrate the problems facing the law-abiding citizen.

We’ come back to that.  First, the reported details:

A man was fatally shot Thursday night in south Minneapolis in what may have been a case of self-defense by another man who interrupted a robbery, police said.

Just before 10 p.m., police got a 911 report that someone had been shot in a parking area behind the Super Grand Buffet restaurant about a block west of Cub Foods near the intersection of Lake Street and Minnehaha Avenues, according to police spokesman Sgt. William Palmer.

Among all the shootings that have plagued that neighborhood – which is, by the way, my old neighborhood – over the decades, this one is distinguished by one factor:

When police arrived, a man with a gun who said he had a valid concealed-weapon permit told them he had interrupted the robbery of a woman in her 60s. The man said that he chased the robbers, a male and a female, exchanged fire and killed the male robber.

And if you’re a normal person with a living soul (and, of course, all the facts check out), that’s all it takes; guy interrupts two pieces of vermin not just robbing but (according to some media reports) pistol-whipping an older woman; and gives chase. Robber turns to shoot the good samaritan; samaritan shoots first.

But the Hennepin County Attorney’s office aren’t people – they’re prosecutors.  People who not only focus on the letter of the law, but the letters of the law that their bosses want empasized; they work for an office whose tacit purpose, run as it is by a DFL elected official, is to enforce DFL social policy, which is that only urban thugs and the police should have guns, and that we, the law-abiding, should be disarmed and docile.

Police took both the alleged female robber and shooter into custody while they investigate his account of the shooting. Two guns — one from the slain man, one from the shooter — were recovered, Palmer said.

On the one hand – especially if you’re a resident of a long-blighted neighborhood, or have ever had a grandmother – you can sympathize with the guy chasing the scumbags down. You might even root for the guy – I sure would.

But there are two problems here:

Self Defense Law Starts Our Shooter Out With Two Strikes – The problem with self-defense is that it is an “affirmative defense” – you’re saying “Yes, I killed the guy, but I have an excuse”.  In other words, you essentially plead guilty to murder, and spend the trial process fighting that admitted guilt by proving four things:

• You had reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. No problem in this case (as reported): scumbag, who had just pistol-whipped a defenseless woman, points a gun at the samaritan.  It’s reasonable.
• Lethal force was justified under the circumstances – Hello?  It’s a gun.  Two down.
• You weren’t a willing participant in the incident – This is intended to prevent people from claiming self-defense after, say, bar fights.  This wasn’t (reportedly) a bar fight.  Any rational person gets this.  But some pencil-necked dweeb with big political ambitions who is trying to parlay a U of M Law degree into a political career, sitting in a nice warm office with metal detectors and cops protecting him, can decide “the letter of the law is you can not be involved in the scuffle first”, forcing the samaritan to spend his life’s savings defending himself at trial.
• You made reasonable efforts to avoid using lethal force – And that same pencil-necked lawyer can say “he made NO effort to avoid shooting the alleged robber!  He chased the poor disadvantaged fellow!”.

This – if all the facts are as reported, as I am assuming they are – is why we need more reforms to Minnesota’s self-defense laws like those proposed in the past several sessions by Tony Cornish.  A key reform would be to do what many states do, with great success; give self-defense the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; make the Assistant County Attorney prove the self-defense shooter didn’t meet the criteria of a self-defense shooting.

“But that’ll make it easy for people to shoot each other over fender-benders!  Or because someone thinks they got the stink-eye!”  Nope.  Think of every non-justified shooting – like, second-degree murder – that you can remember.  Find one that that meets the four critera above.  Good luck with that.

I’m going to hope that saner heads prevail in this case.  Of course, the Henco Attorney’s office has a long record of not having many of them, when it comes to the law-abiding citizen’s right to self-defense.

Remember 1982, when Willy DeVille’s twitchy paranoid masterpiece “Due To Gun Control” drew brickbats from (invariably smug left of center) “music critics” because of its “right-wing message”?

Take a listen:

“Only thieves on parole and cops out on patrol walk the street feeling safe anymore”.

Look at the news from Chicago – in this case the story about the the teeth they’ve added to their juvenile curfew.

Chicago has, of course, been racked by gang violence in recent years, “despite” the most comprehensive gun ban in the United States.

Look how it’s working:

“When it’s dark, people can hide in the shadows,” said Da’Quan, somersaulting to the ground and landing firmly on his feet. “In every little corner, there is a piece of the dark where they can hide.”

Even at 10 years old, the fourth-grader grasps the dangers facing children on Chicago’s streets. “It’s in the nighttime that violence breaks out,” said Da’Quan, with a glance toward his mother, who smiled in approval.

Nope.  No post-traumatic stress in little Da’Quan’s future or anything.

With the aim of protecting children from that violence, Chicago officials passed a tighter curfew that takes effect Sunday. Fines for parents who repeatedly ignore the law are going up to $1,500, under the new rules.

By all means: put the law-abiding under a state of siege.  That always works with violent crime…

…well, not really “siege”.  Siege is when the besieged can defend themselves.  What do you call a “siege” where you are completely at the mercy of your besiegers?

“Being held hostage?”

“Prison?”

During the 2010-11 school year, CPS reports that 256 students were shot, and 27 of them were killed.

Good thing those guns were all illegal, huh? 

Nonsense.  Chicago’s nightmare is due to gun control – and the disdain for the rights and worth of the individual that inevitably accompanies it – not in spite of it.

This past weekend was the Gun Rights Policy Conference – a nationwide gathering of the people who’ve driven the biggest sustained grassroots political push in recent American history, perhaps the most important human rights campaign in this country since the mid-sixites,the Second Amendment movement.

And with glorious savoir-faire, it was held deep in the belly of the beast – Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago, a city that serves as the Custer’s Last Stand of the anti-gun extremist:.

Gun rights activists from all over the country are heading home after two intense days of panel discussions, networking and comparing notes; energized to continue fighting at the local and national levels to protect and expand their firearms civil rights, now that the final gavel has fallen on the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference.

I didn’t get to attend, naturally – although at least one regular commenter to this blog did; perhaps he’ll chime in.

I did notice a few key remarks from the convention:

 They were treated to a luncheon address by Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh (R-8th District). He said matter-of-factly, “Thank God President Obama got elected because he woke this country up.”

He’s right, you know.  With a moderate Republican or responsible Democrat, gun control would have slumbered along in its 2006-era status quo for the better part of a decade.  Faced with an existential threat to our right to self-defense, Americans startled awake and redoubled the efforts that were already feverish before The Obamascenscion.

An old friend turned up in the story:

 Minnesota attorney David Gross, a veteran activist and former NRA board member, referred to “gun-free zones” as “OSHA zones for criminals.”

One of the men of the hour was Otis McDonald, lead plaintiff in the pivotal McDonald V. Chicago case two years ago, which groin-kicked the gun control movement with pointy boots.

Otis McDonald: a real american hero, and a Real American hero. The only reason to oppose his SCOTUS case, by the way, was racism.

McDonald agreed to be a lead plaintiff in the case, which was considered before the U.S. Supreme Court, because as he told ABC News the restrictive firearms laws made him feel like “the city cares more for the thugs than they do me, and I’m the one paying taxes.”

McDonald, four other Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court apply another Second Amendment case, the District of Columbia v Heller, to Chicago and other cities and states across the country…McDonald’s case expanded the Heller decision when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2010, that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment applies to the states.

By all accounts I’ve heard, McDonald’s address was a major highlight:

Chicago’s law enforcement has had to deal with gangs and mob violence, and in 1982, officials there thought the best solution was to ban firearms. But McDonald and many others said it left them unable to defend themselves.

Looking back on his experience, McDonald told Hawaii Reporter today that this experience has meant a lot to him. “In the beginning, I was just thinking about me and my family and my neighborhood, but it quickly increased size wise and effected so many people in the country.” He said his “anger” at being unable to protect himself and his family from criminals – along with prayer – gave him the courage and strength to go forward and continue the legal fight.

McDonald is a hero to all Real Americans.

In related news, Chicago continued to fight for Chicagoans’ “freedom from violence” by mandating children be locked up at night:

With the aim of protecting children from that violence, Chicago officials passed a tighter curfew that takes effect Sunday. Fines for parents who repeatedly ignore the law are going up to $1,500, under the new rules.

According to police statistics, the hours immediately after the new 8:30 p.m. weekday curfew are some of the most deadly.

An analysis of homicides in the first half of 2010 found that slayings spiked between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., for a total of 29 over six months. According to figures provided by Chicago Public Schools, young people are often the victims.

During the 2010-11 school year, CPS reports that 256 students were shot, and 27 of them were killed.

Good thing they don’t allow guns in Chicago, or Goddess only knows how bad it’d be.

The Star/Tribune Editorial Board puts the happiest, rah-rah-local-team-iest face they can on the aftermath of “Operation Fast And Furious”, the “Justice” Department’s infamous “gun-running sting” that morphed into an organized attempt to slander America’s gun owners and gun dealers to undercut the Second Amendment movement – and tried to play the issue against the GOP.

They start out with the facts, more or less…:

The agency’s “Operation Fast and Furious” was supposed to monitor illegal gun sales from small-time gun buyers to large weapons traffickers, but after the sting operation failed an ATF analyst concluded that about 1,400 of the more than 2,000 weapons linked to the operation have not been recovered.

That’s one way of looking at it.

The other way – and the one that I’m pretty well convinced history will find accurate – was that the program was supposed to create a trail of guns from small American gun dealers to the narcotraficantes, that would allow the Administration to step in in 2012 and declare they were shocked, shocked to see a trail of firearms from Texas to the carterls.  This, of course, would allow them to frame the “bitter gun-clingers” of the Second Amendment movement, in classic Alinsky style, as aiders, abetters and profiteers from Mexico’s anarchy.

The Strib starts with some bipartisan gurglings…

It’s been reassuring to see dogged Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley take a lead role in the congressional investigation. While Jones, who will continue to serve as U.S. attorney in Minnesota, works to straighten out the agency’s internal operations, the American people deserve a thorough review of what went wrong in Operation Fast and Furious.

…which lead to the paper’s real goal; finding some way of tying this fiasco to the GOP and the Right (emphasis added):

[It’s] already clear that the ATF has suffered from being without a permanent director since 2006, when Congress began requiring Senate confirmation of the position.

President Obama nominated Andrew Traver, special agent in charge of ATF’s Chicago field division, in November 2010, but like other candidates he’s been opposed by the too-powerful gun lobby.

And there you have it.  For the “crime” of demanding better accountability in the leadership of the BATFE – a government agency with a decades-long history of colossal, epic, face-palming incompetence and politicization aimed at law-abiding gun owners – the Strib editorial board wants it to share in the responsibility for a bureaucratic cluster-hug designed entirely to slander that same movement.

The BATF doesn’t need Minnesota’s US Attorney to fix it. It needs to be shut down, its staff scattered to the four corners of the country, and have its offices demolished and the land beneath it salted.

The Strib editorial board has less interest in “fixing the BATF” than it has in cutting down Barack Obama’s opponents – or at least limiting damate to their President.

Operation Gun Runner (aka “Fast and Furious”) was not an operation done in good faith to “take down criminals” that “went wrong” that “left a mess at the ATF”, as you are all reporting today.

It was a politicized attempt to smear law-abiding gun dealers, law-abiding gun owners, and the Second Amendment movement, purely for the political benefit of the Obama Administration, and the Administration knew it.

Please

Melson is out.  Melson Mini-Melson is in.

After overseeing “Operation Gunrunner” – an operation fully intended to frame the law-abiding gun dealer and gun-owner for crime in Mexico by sending straw buyers in to gun stores in the Southwest, and allowing the guns to drop straight into the Mexican drug cartels’ hands, purely to give the President political leverage on the gun issue, which went terribly awry, contributing to the deaths of many Mexicans and some Americans – Melson was thrown under the bus yesterday, and replaced by B. Todd Jones (“Can I call you B?”), who is…

…well…

According to Senator Charles Grassley’s June 15, 2011 congressional testimony attachment 4, the chair of AGAC (Jones) was a member of the Southwest Border Strategy Group and attended at least one briefing on Fast and Furious in October 2009.

He appears to be complicit in the coverup, just like Melson.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

Look for a concerted media campaign to distance the Administration – which supported the scam, and was in on it, and had been setting the stage for using the fallout from the operation to benefit the Administration and attack the Second Amendment movement since the beginning – from the whooooole thing.

Under North Carolina law, all carry permits are null and void the moment a governor declares a state of emergency:

Thanks to a brain-dead state law foisted upon us by a Democratic state legislature (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7), every time the governor—in this instance, Democrat Beverly Perdue—declares a state of emergency, it is illegal from that moment onward to carry a concealed weapon until the state of emergency has been declared over.

Yep – tha’ts what the law itself says:

14-288.7. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

It’s a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

The state of emergency issued by the governor, Beverly Purdue, covers the part of the state east of I95:

Governor Purdue made this declaration while the state was at work, meaning everyone who has a carry permit and lives east of Interstate 95 who was away from home instantly became a criminal by proclamation.

And geography aside, remember – it’s a law that only attacks the law-abiding!  Criminals aren’t putting their guns away, declaration or no!

It’s the sort of deeply, intensively stupid law that is the DFL’s stock in trade that Tony Cornish’s “Stand Your Ground” bill was, at least in part, intended to prevent.

All you gun-clinging Jebus freaks out there – next session, we need to hold the Legislature’s feet in the fire for this one.

It’s a good thing Chicago persecutes the law-abiding gun owner, even in the wake of Heller and McDonald, so conscientiously.

Otherwise, who knows how bad this episode might have gotten:

Moments before she was slain last week on Chicago’s Southwest Side, 17-year-old Charinez Jefferson begged the gunman not to shoot because she was pregnant, prosecutors said today.

Despite her plea, Timothy Jones, 18, opened fire on Jefferson anyway, yelling an expletive at her as he shot her in the head, prosecutors said. He then stood over her as she lay on the ground and fired several more times, striking her in the chest and back…

…

Jones had seen Jefferson walking with a rival gang member in the 3000 block of West 64th Street and approached them in a car, Dillon said. He got out of the vehicle and fired at least one shot at the rival, who ran off, leaving Jefferson to fend for herself. After begging Jones for mercy, Jefferson was shot at “point-blank range,” Dillon said.

While I opposed the death penalty, I can’t imagine the world being a whole lot worse if the alleged shooter, if found guilty, somehow ends up very very dead.

Joe Doakes from Como Park writes:

The BBC asks: Are brooms the sign of resistance to looters?

No, that’s a sign of capitulation to looters. That’s resignation that looting is inevitable and unstoppable so all we can do is clean up afterwards.

I’ll allow a few points for the British tradition of taciturnity and stoicism that got them through The Blitz – while averring that a foreign (would-be) invader is beyond the citizen’s control; civic violence is something that springs from one’s neighbors.

Doakes:

The sign of resistance to looters is this:

Korean shopkeepers, during the 1992 LA riots. From the blog "Ask A Korean"

The picture above is hotlinked from (and links to) “Ask A Korean” – a Korean immigrant who, to be fair, is pro-gun-control, and finds the image “dispiriting”.

I strongly disagree, of course. The picture – Americans (of whatever ancestry) pushing back mob rule and anarchy using their God-given right to keep and bear arms is inspiring – indeed, a thing of profound, if pointed and loaded (as it were), beauty.

Rahm Emanuel’s police chief Gary McCarthy says gun freedom – observing the Second Amendment – is “racist”:

“So here’s what I want to tell you. See, let’s see if we can make a connection here. Slavery. Segregation. Black codes. Jim Crow. What, what did they all have in common? Anybody getting’ scared? Government sponsored racism.”

McCarthy knows the facts – that fighting racist gun controls was actually a foundation of the 14th Amendment.

But telling “progressive” audiences the truth is not what “progressivism” is about.

“Now I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of the African American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy. Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms, into our urban centers across this country, that are killing our black and brown children,” he said.

Nice to know they still hire scumbags as police chiefs.

“The NRA does not like me, and I’m okay with that. We’ve got to get the gun debate back to center, and it’s got to come with the recognition of who’s paying the price for the gun manufacturers being rich and living in gated communities,” McCarthy said.

Who was it who brought the McDonald suit to the Supreme Court, “Chief” McCarthy?

A poor black Chicago man.

McCarthy illustrated his point by recalling a crime scene investigation while he was a police official in Newark, New Jersey where five children were shot, two of whom were killed. McCarthy said when he got home, he turned on his television to unwind and found an episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” showing.

The mind just reels.

Wisconsin throws off the shackles of unreasoning paternalistic oppression and becomes the latest “Shall Issue” state:

The GOP-controlled Assembly approved the bill on a bipartisan vote of 68-27.

The Senate backed the bill last week on a 25-8 vote, and the measure now goes to Walker, who supports it, for his signature.

Wisconsin would become the 49th state to legalize the carrying of concealed guns.

The legislation would require those who want to carry concealed firearms to obtain permits. It would allow people to carry concealed weapons in the state Capitol and other public buildings but not places like police stations and courthouses. Weapons also would be prohibited in buildings where posted notices bar them, and in places like Summerfest music festival at Milwaukee’s lakefront.

The closest thing to a downside, according to my fellow Green Room blogger “MadisonConservative”?  Wisconsin conservatives had been hoping for “Constitutional Carry”, as in Alaska, Arizona and Vermont (and, starting July 1, Wyoming), which require no permit at all for the law-abiding citizen to carry, concealed or openly.

I’m OK with incrementalism – remember, Wisconsin has leapt from being one of two no issue states, straight over “discretionary issue” (which Minnesota was from 1974-2003, and again for a year or so in 2004-05) to the ranks of shall-issue states.  Those states now number 39, leaving only nine states with “may-issue” laws, and only one, Illinois, which denies the human right of self-defense to its citizens (along with Hawaii and New Jersey, which have “may-issue” laws but rarely issue permits).  Anything worth doing is worth taking the time to do right – and as more and more people see that the law-abiding gun owner is the least of this nation’s problems, I can see more states adopting unrestricted carry.

Which is not to say that there aren’t people who still just don’t get it:

But Matt Havighurst of Madison said he doesn’t like the bill “at all.”

Havighurst, 41, who was playing with his 3-year-old son, Noah, at the lakeshore at James Madison Park said if the measure passes the government should send out free signs saying “no guns allowed” to anyone who doesn’t want them on their premises.

“What are you going to do at a park?” he said of such signs. “Put them all over at every entrance?”

Perhaps Mr. Havinghurst should take his son to a park in Chicago – no carry permits and, for that matter, no legal civilian gun ownership – and test his theory.

But not with the kid.  Too dangerous.

As we’ve been showing this past week on this blog, Governor Dayton has been using poor Minnesotans as an anvil on which to try to hammer the GOP, intentionally ratcheting up the pain to them of a possible government shutdown.

It’s part of a great liberal liberal tradition; individuals can, and if need be must, be sacrified to “the greater good” (which, to modern progressives, means “liberals retaining power”).

Perhaps you’ve heard – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been busted running a “sting” that only stung Americans.

Operation Gunwalker – aka “Fast and Furious” –  has unravelled, with allegations that at very best, it was an incompetently-run operation which allowed thousands of guns to go, untraceably but with tacit, undercover government blessing, to Mexico.  Guns involved in Gunwalker are alleged to have been involved in the death of at least one Border Patrol agent.

And that’s the best that can be said about it.  Because…

The most damning revelations coming out of the hearings on Operation Fast and Furious held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform are the unmistakable indications that the program was never designed to succeed as a law enforcement operation at all.

The fact that failed as law-enforcement is bad enough.  It gets worse:

A quartet of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) agents and supervisors turned into whistleblowers to bring the operation down, but only after U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down in the Arizona desert. Two of the weapons recovered at the scene of Terry’s murder were traced to the operation.

Bear in mind that every single weapon was bought by a known “straw buyer” under surveillance from the ATF; every single weapon was brought to, and across the border, where it vanished from ATF surveillance.

No, really:

ATF agents testifying in front of the House Oversight Committee could not explain how the operation was supposed to succeed when their surveillance efforts stopped at the border and interdiction was never an option.

ATF Agent John Dodson, testifying in front of the committee, said that in his entire law enforcement career, he had “never been involved in or even heard of an operation in which law enforcement officers let guns walk.” He continued: “I cannot begin to think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hands of known criminals could possibly advance any legitimate law enforcement interest.”

Note that the entire gun rights movement – the NRA, the GOA, GOCRA, every single one of us – favors keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

But why would the government do this?  Emphasis added:

The obvious answer is that Gunwalker’s objective was never intended to be a “legitimate law enforcement interest.” Instead, it appears that ATF Acting Director Ken Melson and Department of Justice senior executives specifically created an operation that was designed from the outset to arm Mexican narco-terrorists and increase violence substantially along both sides of the Southwest border.

Success was measured not by the number of criminals being incarcerated, but by the number of weapons transiting the border and the violence those weapons caused…At the same time in 2009 that federal law enforcement agencies (the ATF, the DOJ, and presumably Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security) were creating the operation that led to the executive branch being the largest gun smuggler in the Southwest, the president’s team was crafting the rhetoric to sell the crisis they were creating.

On television, in various news outlets, and even in a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama pushed the 90 percent lie, implying that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexican cartel violence came from U.S. gun shops.

Like Dayton here in Minnesota, Obama and his administration cynically created a crisis to advance their “progressive” political goals.

It’s the stuff of conspiracy theories – except the evidence is right there, in the words from the ATF whistle blowers.

Unlike Dayton (so far), Obama’s perfidy has claimed the life of a US public servant.

This is worse than Iran-Contra, which never killed any Americans.   Indeed, if the allegations are true, it may be the worst abuse of government power I can remember – because with its complete lack of law-enforcement value, it is intended solely to infringe on the human rights of millions of law-abiding Americans, by way of killing hundreds of Mexicans and one unwitting US cop.

If it were a Republican plan, it would be front-page news.

Progressivism will kill you – literally – if it needs to to meet its goals.

Yesterday, the Senate Leadership decided not to send SF1357 – the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill – to the Governor.

The GOP leadership in the State Senate, as of today, decided not to have a floor vote on Senate File 1357, the “Stand Your Ground” bill.

Here’s my letter:

sen.amy.koch@senate.mn; sen.geoff.michel@senate.mn; sen.doug.magnus@senate.mn; sen.david.senjem@senate.mn; sen.dave.thompson@senate.mn; sen.chris.gerlach@senate.mn; sen.michelle.fischbach@senate.mn; sen.gen.olson@senate.mn

Subject: Please Vote On SF1357

Senators,

I’m Mitch Berg. I know, and have interviewed, not a few of you. I’m a constituent of Mary Jo McGuire, so I don’t expect a lot of sanity from my own “representation”.

But having heard that the Senate has refused to vote on SF1357, I have to say I expected better from a GOP-led Senate.

I ask you to please reconsider this, and bring the bill to the floor and send it to the Governor. As he ran as a “Second-Amendment-Friendly” gubernatorial candidate.

Sincerely,

Mitch Berg

Saint Paul

If you’re a Second Amendment supporter, it’s go-time – again.   Call your Senator.  Email the whole list above.  Be polite, but let them know – we gun owners have long memories, and when it comes to having our votes taken for granted, we did our time back in the nineties.

No more.

UPDATE: Rob Doar is equally unamused.

When Tony Cornish – an actual cop – introduced HF1467, the update of Minnesota’s self-defense laws, the DFL predictably trotted out one of its oldie but goodie memes; “Police Chiefs Oppose It!”

Of course, the only “police chiefs” that they ever mention are the ones from the Metro – cops who are largely political bureaucrats who serve at the pleasure of the DFL.

But when you start talking with other cops?

Indeed, as usual, the DFL’s only response to Cornish’s bill (and its Senate companion) is…:

• Froth like Heather Martens’ risible op-ed
• lies about the cops
• Insulting Cornish himself

Further proof:  If the DFL says it, distrust but verify.  Then distrust some more.

Here is the list of Minnesota House members who voted for HF1467 – which expands the human right of self-defense, and creates a legal possibility that demonstrably-legitimate self-defense shootings don’t have to plead “guilty with an explanation” for exercising the human right to defend their lives and their families from lethal threats.

If you see your representative on this list, please send them a nice “thank you”.

• Abeler, Jim (R-48B) rep.jim.abeler@house.mn
• Anderson, Bruce (R-19A) rep.bruce.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Paul (R-13A) rep.paul.anderson@house.mn
• Anderson, Sarah (R-43A) rep.sarah.anderson@house.mn
• Anzelc, Tom (DFL-03A) rep.tom.anzelc@house.mn
• Banaian, King (R-15B) rep.king.banaian@house.mn
• Barrett, Bob (R-17B) rep.bob.barrett@house.mn
• Beard, Michael (R-35A) rep.mike.beard@house.mn
• Benson, Mike (R-30B) rep.mike.benson@house.mn
• Bills, Kurt (R-37B) rep.kurt.bills@house.mn
• Buesgens, Mark (R-35B) rep.mark.buesgens@house.mn
• Cornish, Tony (R-24B) rep.tony.cornish@house.mn
• Crawford, Roger (R-08B) rep.roger.crawford@house.mn
• Daudt, Kurt (R-17A) rep.kurt.daudt@house.mn
• Davids, Greg (R-31B) rep.greg.davids@house.mn
• Dean, Matt (R-52B) rep.matt.dean@house.mn
• Dettmer, Bob (R-52A) rep.bob.dettmer@house.mn
• Dill, David (DFL-06A) rep.david.dill@house.mn
• Downey, Keith (R-41A) rep.keith.downey@house.mn
• Drazkowski, Steve (R-28B) rep.steve.drazkowski@house.mn
• Eken, Kent (DFL-02A) rep.kent.eken@house.mn
• Erickson, Sondra (R-16A) rep.sondra.erickson@house.mn
• Fabian, Dan (R-01A) rep.dan.fabian@house.mn
• Franson, Mary (R-11B) rep.mary.franson@house.mn
• Garofalo, Pat (R-36B) rep.pat.garofalo@house.mn
• Gottwalt, Steve (R-15A) rep.steve.gottwalt@house.mn
• Gruenhagen, Glenn (R-25A) rep.glenn.gruenhagen@house.mn
• Gunther, Bob (R-24A) rep.bob.gunther@house.mn
• Hackbarth, Tom (R-48A) rep.tom.hackbarth@house.mn
• Hamilton, Rod (R-22B) rep.rod.hamilton@house.mn
• Hancock, David (R-02B) rep.david.hancock@house.mn
• Holberg, Mary Liz (R-36A) rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn
• Hoppe, Joe (R-34B) rep.joe.hoppe@house.mn
• Hosch, Larry (DFL-14B) rep.larry.hosch@house.mn
• Howes, Larry (R-04B) rep.larry.howes@house.mn
• Kath, Kory (DFL-26A) rep.kory.kath@house.mn
• Kelly, Tim (R-28A) rep.tim.kelly@house.mn
• Kieffer, Andrea (R-56B) rep.andrea.kieffer@house.mn
• Kiel, Debra (R-01B) rep.deb.kiel@house.mn
• Kiffmeyer, Mary (R-16B) rep.mary.kiffmeyer@house.mn
• Koenen, Lyle (DFL-20B) rep.lyle.koenen@house.mn
• Kriesel, John (R-57A) rep.john.kriesel@house.mn
• Lanning, Morrie (R-09A) rep.morrie.lanning@house.mn
• Leidiger, Ernie (R-34A) rep.ernie.leidiger@house.mn
• LeMieur, Mike (R-12B) rep.mike.lemieur@house.mn
• Lohmer, Kathy (R-56A) rep.kathy.lohmer@house.mn
• Loon, Jenifer (R-42B) rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn
• Mack, Tara (R-37A) rep.tara.mack@house.mn
• Marquart, Paul (DFL-09B) rep.paul.marquart@house.mn
• Mazorol, Pat (R-41B) rep.pat.mazorol@house.mn
• McDonald, Joe (R-19B) rep.joe.mcdonald@house.mn
• McNamara, Denny (R-57B) rep.denny.mcnamara@house.mn
• Melin, Carly (DFL-05B) rep.carly.melin@house.mn
• Murdock, Mark (R-10B) rep.mark.murdock@house.mn
• Murray, Rich (R-27A) rep.rich.murray@house.mn
• Myhra, Pam (R-40A) rep.pam.myhra@house.mn
• Nornes, Bud (R-10A) rep.bud.nornes@house.mn
• O’Driscoll, Tim (R-14A) rep.tim.odriscoll@house.mn
• Peppin, Joyce (R-32A) rep.joyce.peppin@house.mn
• Persell, John (DFL-04A) rep.john.persell@house.mn
• Petersen, Branden (R-49B) rep.branden.petersen@house.mn
• Poppe, Jeanne (DFL-27B) rep.jeanne.poppe@house.mn
• Quam, Duane (R-29A) rep.duane.quam@house.mn
• Runbeck, Linda (R-53A) rep.linda.runbeck@house.mn
• Sanders, Tim (R-51A) rep.tim.sanders@house.mn
• Schomacker, Joe (R-22A) rep.joe.schomacker@house.mn
• Scott, Peggy (R-49A) rep.peggy.scott@house.mn
• Shimanski, Ron (R-18A) rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn
• Smith, Steve (R-33A) rep.steve.smith@house.mn
• Stensrud, Kirk (R-42A) rep.kirk.stensrud@house.mn
• Swedzinski, Chris (R-21A) rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn
• Torkelson, Paul (R-21B) rep.paul.torkelson@house.mn
• Urdahl, Dean (R-18B) rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn
• Vogel, Bruce (R-13B) rep.bruce.vogel@house.mn
• Ward, John (DFL-12A) rep.john.ward@house.mn
• Wardlow, Doug (R-38B) rep.doug.wardlow@house.mn
• Westrom, Torrey (R-11A) rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn
• Woodard, Kelby (R-25B) rep.kelby.woodard@house.mn
• Zellers, Kurt (R-32B) rep.kurt.zellers@house.mn

I bolded the names of the DFLers who bucked their party’s elitist, anti-civil-liberty stance (knowing that their outstate districts would not be amused); if you are represented by any them, send them an especially nice note.  Gun rights in Minnesota depends, at the moment, on DFLers with principle standing up to the vile, statist rot that is the Metrocrat wing of the party.

The bad news?  Here are the ones that walked in the footsteps of Stalin and Pot and Mao, and voted against the bill:

1. Benson, John (DFL-43B) rep.john.benson@house.mn
2. Brynaert, Kathy (DFL-23B) rep.kathy.brynaert@house.mn
3. Carlson Sr., Lyndon (DFL-45B) rep.lyndon.carlson@house.mn
4. Champion, Bobby Joe (DFL-58B) rep.bobby.champion@house.mn
5. Clark, Karen (DFL-61A) rep.karen.clark@house.mn
6. Davnie, Jim (DFL-62A) rep.jim.davnie@house.mn
7. Dittrich, Denise (DFL-47A) rep.denise.dittrich@house.mn
8. Doepke, Connie (R-33B) rep.connie.doepke@house.mn
9. Falk, Andrew (DFL-20A) rep.andrew.falk@house.mn
10. Fritz, Patti (DFL-26B) rep.patti.fritz@house.mn
11. Gauthier, Kerry (DFL-07B) rep.kerry.gauthier@house.mn
12. Greene, Marion (DFL-60A) rep.marion.greene@house.mn
13. Greiling, Mindy (DFL-54A) rep.mindy.greiling@house.mn
14. Hansen, Rick (DFL-39A) rep.rick.hansen@house.mn
15. Hausman, Alice (DFL-66B) rep.alice.hausman@house.mn
16. Hayden, Jeff (DFL-61B) rep.jeff.hayden@house.mn
17. Hilstrom, Debra (DFL-46B) rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn
18. Hilty, Bill (DFL-08A) rep.bill.hilty@house.mn
19. Hornstein, Frank (DFL-60B) rep.frank.hornstein@house.mn
20. Hortman, Melissa (DFL-47B) rep.melissa.hortman@house.mn
21. Huntley, Thomas (DFL-07A) rep.thomas.huntley@house.mn
22. Johnson, Sheldon (DFL-67B) rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn
23. Kahn, Phyllis (DFL-59B) rep.phyllis.kahn@house.mn
24. Knuth, Kate (DFL-50B) rep.kate.knuth@house.mn
25. Laine, Carolyn (DFL-50A) rep.carolyn.laine@house.mn
26. Lenczewski, Ann (DFL-40B) rep.ann.lenczewski@house.mn
27. Lesch, John (DFL-66A) rep.john.lesch@house.mn
28. Lillie, Leon (DFL-55A) rep.leon.lillie@house.mn
29. Loeffler, Diane (DFL-59A) rep.diane.loeffler@house.mn
30. Mahoney, Tim (DFL-67A) rep.tim.mahoney@house.mn
31. Mariani, Carlos (DFL-65B) rep.carlos.mariani@house.mn
32. McFarlane, Carol (R-53B) rep.carol.mcfarlane@house.mn
33. Moran, Rena (DFL-65A) rep.rena.moran@house.mn
34. Morrow, Terry (DFL-23A) rep.terry.morrow@house.mn
35. Mullery, Joe (DFL-58A) rep.joe.mullery@house.mn
36. Murphy, Erin (DFL-64A) rep.erin.murphy@house.mn
37. Murphy, Mary (DFL-06B) rep.mary.murphy@house.mn
38. Nelson, Michael V. (DFL-46A) rep.michael.nelson@house.mn
39. Norton, Kim (DFL-29B) rep.kim.norton@house.mn
40. Paymar, Michael (DFL-64B) rep.michael.paymar@house.mn
41. Pelowski Jr., Gene (DFL-31A) rep.gene.pelowski@house.mn
42. Peterson, Sandra (DFL-45A) rep.sandra.peterson@house.mn
43. Scalze, Bev (DFL-54B) rep.bev.scalze@house.mn
44. Simon, Steve (DFL-44A) rep.steve.simon@house.mn
45. Slawik, Nora (DFL-55B) rep.nora.slawik@house.mn
46. Slocum, Linda (DFL-63B) rep.linda.slocum@house.mn
47. Thissen, Paul (DFL-63A) rep.paul.thissen@house.mn
48. Tillberry, Tom (DFL-51B) rep.tom.tillberry@house.mn
49. Wagenius, Jean (DFL-62B) rep.jean.wagenius@house.mn
50. Winkler, Ryan (DFL-44B) rep.ryan.winkler@house.mn

I bolded the two Republicans who should have known better.  If you are represented by either of them – or have an interest – please send them a polite note asking for their reasons.  Feel free to forward them to me, if you get a moment.

As to the other 48?  Most of them are metrocrats.  Most of them would get turned over their chairman’s knee and spanked if they broke with the DFL’s racist, paternalistic party line on this issue.  None of them is authorized to actually consider the facts, and none of them will.

(Lists courtesy of GOCRA)

Speaking of forgetting history – while the  legislative website page for the vote on HF1467 is down as this is written, I’m told that GOP representatives McFarlane and Doepke voted against the bill.

(And, since the final vote was 79-50, by my math as many as nine DFLers voted for the bill, along with some no-shows).

It’d be good to politely let Representatives Doepke and McFarlane know that their vote for against human rights is not appreciated.  It’s good for all legislators – especially the GOP – to know that we Human Rights activists have long memories and sharp electoral teeth.

The House passed the “Stand Your Ground” bill in a solid vote Saturday night.  The margin was 79-50:

The bill sponsored by Rep. Tony Cornish, a Good Thunder Republican and a small-town chief of police, would give a person in a home, car, tent or other dwelling the legal right to decide how much force should be required to defend oneself.

(Although – and the media never notes this – the consequences for choosing wrong have not changed.  The DFL narrative on this has been pretty universally, cynically misleading).

The bill has drawn the ire of gun-control advocates and is opposed by a number of chiefs of police and prosecutors around the state.

But let’s be clear – every single one of these “chiefs of police” and prosecutors are politicians  – elected or appointed- who serve at the pleasure of a DFL city or county administration.

Just like every time a proposal to broaden our Second Amendment human rights.

Just like they did when the Minnesota Personal Protection was being debated.

They were wrong then, too.

A spokesman for Gov. Mark Dayton says the governor is likely to take that opposition into account.

He should “take into account” the fact that during the campaign, he neutralized the Second Amendment vote by claiming to be friendly to self-defense shooters – to have “a pair of 357 Magnums” in a lock box at home.

Think he might have lost 8,000 votes if he’s come out hostile to the Second Amendment?

Think whatever support he has outstate might have gotten gut-shot?

If he doesn’t remember 2000, and 2002, that’s just fine by me.

First, the good news:  the call to civil rights activists earlier in the week was answered, big-time.  The Senate was overwhelmed with calls from human rights activists asking for a hearing on Senate File 1357, the companion to HF1467, the “Stand Your Ground” bill.   And the hearing will happen today.

And that’s the…well, not “bad” news.  Just another job that needs to get done.

The Senate is holding hearings today:

The Defense of Dwelling and Person Act of 2011 (SF1357) will be heard in the Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee tomorrow (Friday, May 6) at 5:00 p.m.

There’s a catch:

Seating is extremely limited: you will need to arrive at 3:30 p.m. to line up for tickets, which will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at 4:00 in Room 15 of the Capitol.

This is our first and best chance to really show the Senate that Minnesotans back this common-sense civil rights bill.

Minnesota civil rights activists have always shocked the legislature with the depth and power of their support.

Now’s no time to stop.

I’m going to try to make it.

Remember – the way to tell when “progressives” are lying about gun laws is “check to see if their lips are moving”.

Since we have hearings this afternoon, and there wil likely be a floor vote soon, it”ll be good to get clear on a couple of the “points” in the left’s “argument” against the Stand  Your Ground bill:

The Bill Does: Adds “Stand Your Ground” to Minnesota’s self-defense law. It removes  the requirement that an intended victim of violent crime must retreat from a place where he has a right to be before using deadly force in self defense.

The Bill Does Not: Allow people to shoot people who wander onto their property.  While the unclear and capricious “duty to retreat” is eliminated, the requirement that lethal force be reasonable, and the fear of death or great bodily harm be legitimate, do not change.  This is a point that Twin Cities’ “progressives” have been playing fast and loose.  Read: Lying.

The Bill Does: Enhance the “Castle Doctrine”. The proposal clarifies when and under what circumstances individuals can legally use deadly force to protect themselves in their homes and vehicles. It also creates a presumption that, when faced with an apparent home invasion, carjacking or kidnapping attempt, a person may use deadly force in self defense.

The Bill Does Not: Allow people to shoot people for trivial reasons.  “Progressives” want you to believe that the bill will allow you to shoot people who “give you the stink eye”.  They say this because lies are all they have.

The Bill Does: Prevent Gun Seizures During States of Emergency. It bans government agencies from seizing guns or ammo, revoking permits to purchase or carry, closing gun shops, or otherwise suspending our constitutional rights during civil emergencies. It also prohibits law enforcement officers from seizing a person’s gun (unless the person is arrested, and the gun is evidence of a crime).

The Bill Does Not: Give people a “get out of jail free card” for killing people when self-defense is not justified.

The Bill Does: Improve State Background Checks.  It requires the Minnesota Department of Human Services and state courts to make their background check records available electronically to authorized agencies, including the National Instant Background Check system (NICS), the “instant background check” database that controls handgun sales nationwide.  This process was supposed to have been in place 16 years ago – that’s your bureaucracy at work!  It should reduce purchasing delays and ensure that state and federal checks produce the same results.

The Bill Does Not: Make it easier to kill people in domestic arguments.  Just the opposite.

What The Bill Does: Create a more robust appeal process for denied purchase permits, and requiring that police chiefs and sheriffs whose purchase permit denials are overturned must pay the applicants’ legal costs.  Y’know – requires them to follow the law, rather than their bureaucratic whim.

The Bill Does Not: Give gun owners the right to kill deputies and cops that irritate them.  No “progressive” has suggested it would – yet – but you know those wacky “progressives”; it won’t take ’em long.

The Bill Does: Adds Universal Carry Permit Acceptance.  It updates Minnesota’s carry permit reciprocity standards, allowing people holding carry permits from any other state to carry in Minnesota (subject to Minnesota’s laws). This should result in a large increase in the number of states where Minnesota permit holders can carry, since many states allow other states’ permit holders to carry on a reciprocal basis.

The Bill Does Not: Let anyone kill anyone for trivial reasons.  Period.  End of sentence.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

The Bill Does: Give self-defense shooters the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.  Currently, self-defense shooters must, in effect, say “yes, I’m guilty, but here’s my excuse” – a profound legal risk that not even serial killers face.

That’s really all that matters.

Mark Dayton, 2010, goes all tactical on an outstate audience while pimping for that outstate vote:

“I have two loaded .357 Magnum pistols in my home right now in a lock box,” DFL candidate Mark Dayton told a crowd gathered Saturday at Game Fair, a hunting and fishing expo in Anoka. “I have a 9mm pistol at home. I have a twelve-gauge shotgun at home.”

Mark Dayton in 2011, acting like a Democrat with a lifetime “D” rating from the NRA:

Earlier in the day, by a voice vote, members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill, the first showdown of the legislative session over gun rights. Having now passed two committees, the bill is on its way to the full House.

The committee hearing was a low-key rerun of a separate one held last week that was jammed with supporters of the bill, who call it the “Stand Your Ground” measure, and opponents, who call it the “Shoot First” bill.

(I hope at least one supporter asked at least one of the antis “what do you think happens when you “Shoot Second” in a life-or-death situation?”)

Gun control advocates and organizations representing the state’s police chiefs, sheriffs and officers reiterated their opposition to the bill, which, they say, could endanger their members. “To us, this is a huge officer safety issue,” said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association.

Dayton, himself a gun owner, said he will “listen carefully to the concerns of the law enforcement community.”

Dayton “listened to the concerns of law enforcement” in the same sense as he “listened to the concerns of grassroots liberals” at “Alliance for a Better Minnesota“.    The organizations “representing” the cops are, almost without exception, pro-DFL lobbying groups, run by cops that must, as a matter of survival, suck up to the Metro DFL mayors and city councils to push their agendas.

He added: “I understand and believe that somebody has a right, if somebody enters their home and is threatening their spouse or their children or themselves, to take preventive action, and I recognize the police are not going to always be able to be on the scene immediately. I’m sympathetic to those concerns, but this goes way beyond that.”

Um…how?

(Seriously.  Expect lots of DFLers to repeat the line “this goes way beyond that” – because that’s what DFLers do, repeat the lines their superiors tell them to use.  Ask them.  They never, ever have an answer).

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, the bill’s sponsor, repeated his contention that “we like to call it the self-defense bill — it attempts to give more latitude to the homeowner.”

Brushing aside opponents’ contention that the change in the law would lead to an increasing number of dead trespassers, Cornish said it “doesn’t allow you to shoot someone toilet-papering your tree.”

The bill would expand what is known as the Castle Doctrine and has long been close to the top of the wish list for gun rights supporters, who say they should have no obligation to flee an attacker…

…while on their own property.

Although DFL majorities have been able to block it in recent years, it’s expected to face few obstacles in this session’s Republican-dominated Legislature.

Other than from Republicans who think that “Stand Your Ground” is a negotiating chit.

I don’t think that’ll work.

Republicans (and outstate DFLers), remember; we gunnies know who the real enemy is.  But we have looooong memories. We remember, in particular, the 1980’s and 1990’s, when our endless support was answered with…not much in the way of legislative progress.

We did our waiting, long before most of you were in office.

Joe Doakes from Como Park writes (with occasional emphasis added):

Watch this video when you’re sitting down but not eating. At first, it looks like a typical chick-fight: slapping, hair pulling, minor kicking, nothing major. Certainly no reason to suspect the victim is in danger of Great Bodily Harm. Keep watching until you get to the 2:00 mark, then STOP it. Seriously, don’t watch the ending yet.

Here’s the video:

Remember – STOP THE VIDEO at the 2:00 mark.  Don’t peek.

If the victim in this video had been a pistol permit holder who resisted the assault by brandishing the pistol, would she have been justified?

Should she have run away, out the door into the parking lot where the attackers were waiting? Where else could she have retreated to, the bathroom where the attack started? The kitchen where the staff stood around watching but not helping? Was she legally obligated to flee McDonalds? How? Where?

What if the third time the attackers returned, the victim felt she was too weak and battered to safely flee so she drew her permitted pistol and opened fire? Would that use of force have been justified as self-defense?

In Minnesota?  Currently?  A county attorney, sitting in a warm office with a cup of Starbucks on her desk and a Sheriff’s deputy guarding the building will decide that according to whatever abstruse legal theory she thinks applies, and whatever political priorities her superiors have committed to.

Now, turn the video back on.

The problem with present self-defense law is that up until the minute of that video, any reasonable observer would have said no, deadly force is not justified, it’s just some chicks acting stupidly. There’s no danger of serious harm so no right of self-defense. But watch the ending again.

That’s the danger of allowing the prosecutor and jury, sitting two years after the fact, with six months to spend analyzing the evidence from every angle while experts debate the proper course of action. The last few seconds of that encounter changed lives forever. Should the victim have been legally obligated to endure it? Or should she have had the right to prevent it?

Should she have been able to Stand Her Ground, using deadly force if necessary?

Gotta smash some eggs for a better society, right?

Right?