You Know How You Can Tell There’s A Second-Amendment Bill In The Hopper (Part I)?

Because “progressives” are telling fairy tales about guns again.

Back in 1987, when Florida became the first major state to pass a “shall-issue” law, Senator Ron Silver set a standard for rhetoric (“It’ll be like Dodge City”, “there’ll be blood running in the streets”) that he, at least, had the decency to admit was overblown ten years after the fact, when it turned out that not only had nothing he or the bill’s other detractors predicted came true, but that law-abiding citizens with carry permits were about 1/100 as likely to commit any crime at all as the general public.

The standard was “topped”, of course, here in Minnesota during the final debate on the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.  During the final debate on the floor vote in 2003, the Senate DFL caucus came out to the floor wearing flak jackets.  Wes “Lying Sack of Garbage” Skoglund continued his years-long trail of just-plain delusional fantasy, claiming that “gang-bangers will be able to get permits” and “I’m worried carry permit holders will be stalking me”.

Of course, every single casualty of post-MPPA carry permits to date – I can think of one, actually – was ruled justifiable.  The Hiawatha Light Rail line kills more people in a typical year, none of them justified.

Still, you can’t blame “progressives” for resorting to fantasy and delusion when attacking pro-Second Amendment legislation; since the facts are against them and the law (from the SCOTUS on down) is against them, it’s really all they have.

And “Spotty” from Cucking Stool is reliably cliché-driven on the subject (yep, he’s even done the “gunnies are teh compensating” narrative, a few years back).  So he’s not exactly breaking new ground with this post on the Cornish “Stand Your Ground” bill (which I wrote about last week).  Although it’s an interesting little view into a “progressive’s” fantasy life:

But officer, I felt so threatened

Sir, I see you standing over the dead body of that man, and you’re holding a gun. Care to explain yourself?

Well, officer, I shot him.

I figured that. But can you tell me why?

He threatened me.

What did he say?

Well he didn’t say anything, actually.

Did he pull a gun or a knife, or take a swing at your?

No, not really.

What do you mean, “not really?” What did he do that you felt justified in killing him?

He gave me the stink eye and well, he kind of sucked his teeth. It really scared me.

Okay then. Sorry to bother you. Say, can you move aside so we can get at this guy? We have to take him to the morgue and call his family and stuff; I need to pull his wallet.

Sure; no prob.

Scary!

This may be a scenario coming to a corner near you.

But only if the cop and the county attorney don’t bother figuring out if the shooter had a legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm (“stink-eye” doesn’t cut it, even in the most conservative counties in Minnesota), or if lethal force was appropriate  under the circumstances (ibid), or if the shooter was a willing participant in the squabble.

Which are, I’m sure, annoying technicalities to “Spot”, but pretty much life-and-death to anyone who needs to defend his/herself.

Also, the law.

I’m just picking on Cornish because’s he the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee in the House — of the chief authors of HF 1467, a bill that, inter alia, removes the obligation of a person to retreat from a threatening situation, if possible, before opening fire. Under the bill, if an individual “reasonably” (ah, the devil is in the details, isn’t it?) believes there is a threat to him or her or a third person, they’ll be justified in using deadly force to meet the threat. It’s a little more complicated than that, but you can read the whole bill at the link. And here are some of the key sections of the bill. It’s in pdf format,

[Well, not just PDF .  See 609.065, Subd. 2 in the linked bill Ed.]

Here are the circumstances when deadly force is authorized. The first subsection is already permitted under Minnesota law, the second probably is, too, save for the issue of a safe retreat. The third subsection is quite vague, and it is a complete departure from current Minnesota law. A “forcible felony” might include something like breaking and entering (burglary) on property that is not occupied, and which is not even yours. This is the true vigilante section of the bill.

I’m getting tired of typing “this is just patent rubbish”.  I need a hot key of some kind.  But you get the idea.

There is nothing “vigilante” about it.  One of the biggest ambiguities of Minnesota’s self-defense law is that while current law – dating back to well before the Minnesota Personal Protection Act – allows citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves “or others” from death or great bodily harm (henceforth “GBH”), it gives prosecutors immense, and arbitrary, power over how they treat self-defense shooters – and force self-defense shooters to go down a very hazardous legal path to justify their actions.

The next subdivision of the proposed statute is the part that eliminates the duty to retreat if you can. The law has always permitted you to defend yourself, with deadly force if necessary, if you can’t retreat. But you do have a duty to avoid violence if you can.

“If you can”.

“Spotty” writes it with the blasé tone of someone for whom the concept is utterly academic.

If you’re ever in a life or death situation, it’s not.

Let’s delve into reality over the noon hour today.

QUESTION:  Which will come first:  “Spotty” writing “Berg is ze compenzating”, or “Phoenix Woman”  with “Berg is having teh melt down?”  It’s getting harder and harder to tell the difference..

16 thoughts on “You Know How You Can Tell There’s A Second-Amendment Bill In The Hopper (Part I)?

  1. Apparently, the idiot Mr. Skoglund, or for that matter any of the gun control pea brains, have never served on a Grand Jury before. If he/they had, he/they would know that 99% of gun related crimes are committed with an illegally obtained gun.

    While serving on the HCGJ a few years ago, I made it a point to ask every police officer that testified, where the perp/suspect got the gun. Out of 10 related cases, none of the guns involved were obtained legally, so in my case, 100%!

  2. The really funny thing is, “Spotty” is an attorney. People actually pay him to practice law. Good luck with that, folks.

  3. Kerm,

    To be fair, I don’t believe “Spot” or MNob are criminal defense attorneys.

  4. I’ve seen his resume. No, he’s not a defense attorney. That’s the last I’ll say about the subject.

  5. I can bet most of the libturds #1 – ever fired a gun, and #2 – can even imagine what it would take to aim a loaded gun at a live person, never mind pull a trigger. They make it sound so easy. Well, actually, never mind the imagine part.

  6. Stevie “Spot” Timmer is actually afraid of the following dialogue taking place:

    “Honey, that creepy old man is in front of the house video taping again”

    “Get my shotgun”

  7. jpa;

    I agree with your first point. That is why I can not get my arms around the fact that so many union members that hunt and fish, do not seem to get that supporting libturds is counterproductive.

  8. Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » You Know How You Can Tell There’s A Second-Amendment Bill In The Hopper (Part II)?

  9. Spotty and his ilk have been “compensating” for years, assuming that packing trite talking points and dismissive hyperbole could pass for wit and insight.

  10. the fact that so many union members that hunt and fish, do not seem to get that supporting libturds is counterproductive.

    There’s the good news. Back in 1998, 2000 and 2002, the electoral casualty rate among outstate DFLers that opposed Concealed Carry was so high that the surviving outstate DFLers became big supporters of the MPPA.

  11. Well, then; it seems that I have a new talking point when I’m arguing with my unionized brother’s friends!

  12. Good post, Mitch. And the bill would be — and someday, may be — good policy, for reasons you outline.

    That said, this year, it’s just legislative theater. More on that anon, or perhaps in an anon and a half.

  13. Pingback: » Legislative Theater: Come See the Show? Free Joel Rosenberg

  14. Pingback: Chanting Points Memo: The Law And The Leftyblog Fantasy World | Shot in the Dark

  15. Pingback: It’s The 2013 Shootie Awards! | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.