It’s been a busy couple of years for Real Minnesotans (and Real Americans) [1].
We’ve had an anti-gun president for six years, and we spent two years with a completely DFL government – and the DFL platform calls for restricting guns in the hands of the law-abiding (“Reasonable gun control that promotes public safety and crime prevention”). They were energized by the Sandy Hook massacre and, moreso, hundreds of thousands of dollars of Michael Bloomberg’s money.
And it all came to nought, due to the efforts of Minnesota’s pro-Second-Amendment grass roots, especially the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance and the Minnesota Gun Owners PAC.
Now, we have a GOP majority in the State House – including several members elected with direct support of Real Minnesota – and a Senate DFL majority that has many significant pro-gun members.
It’s time to go on the offensive.
And that’s precisely the agenda that GOCRA announced on Monday. Here are the highlights:
- Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution – I wasn’t aware that the human right of self-defense wasn’t in the Minnesota Constitution. Notwithstanding the fact that McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the Second Amendment onto the states, it’s high time our constitution said so too.
- Ban “Emergency” Orders for Gun Confiscation – Minnesotans are expected to trust to the integrity of the cops. But New Orleans residents found that that trust was misplaced in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as cops went door to door confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens. This needs to be explicitly banned under Minnesota law.
- Legalize Firearm Suppressors – Forget what you see in the movies; they don’t “silence” firearms, and they’re not a tool of assassins. They’re like a muffler for your firearm, just like the one you’re legally required to put on your car, preventing harmful levels of noise from damaging peoples’ hearing.
- Constitutional Carry – The law-abiding citizen doesn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise their right to speak, worship, publish or assemble or, theoretically, be secure in their homes and possessions (we’ll need to work on that, too). Why should guns logically be different?
- Stop Police Departments from Delaying Purchase Permits – Some police departments exercise passive-aggressive liberties in issuing “permits to purchase” firearms. This needs to be addressed.
- Remove Redundant Capitol Complex Carry Notification – Back in the 1990s, when the state didnt’ have computers for most of its record-keeping, and carry permits were typed out on Selectrics at your local police station, the current law – you must notify the head of Capitol Security to carry in the Capitol complex, including the History Center – made sense, sort of. Today, when Capitol Security has access to permit information in real time, it does not – except as a felony trap. Time to fix it.
- Self Defense Law Reform – Minnesota self-defense law is fairly simple in statute – but quite complex in its case law. There are a lot of hidden “gotchas” in self-defense, that can put a law-abiding citizen in jail even though they behaved objectively correctly. Law with “gotchas” is bad law. It’s time to fix it. This is actually the most important one, in my book.
[1] Minnesotans/Americans who believe all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are rights of the people.
“Constitutional Carry – The law-abiding citizen doesn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise their right to speak, worship, publish or assemble or, theoretically, be secure in their homes and possessions (we’ll need to work on that, too). Why should guns logically be different?”
I have stumped a few gun-grabbers by saying I think we need permits to own a printing press. When they tell me I’m crazy I just ask why do you need a permit to exercise any of your constitutional rights? (Lips moving but no words!)
“Reasonable gun control that promotes public safety and crime prevention”
I thought that we didn’t allow people to vote on civil rights?
Liberals know enough to focus-group catch phrases which is why they’re now demanding “gun safety” instead of “gun ban” even though we all know that’s what they mean. Pick the right word and the conversation is over before it begins. Conservatives never seem to learn that lesson.
I like “muffler” because it’s intuitive. Or “calmer” in the sense that ‘traffic calming’ means quieter streets, gun calming means quieter guns.
Video of attractive young woman holding shotgun: “I shoot clay pidgeons but I’m respectful of the neighbors – I use a calmer on my shotgun to keep the noise down.” Video of her shooting with suppressor making pop, pop noise.
There’s a huge difference between blocking bad legislation and passing good legislation. I do not believe that a single one of those proposals has a chance in hell of being signed into state law as long as Ms’s Messinger and Flint-Smith are the governor. We simply will not have a veto override level of majority in this state, I believe, for generations.
The liberal miasma is too thick in the 4 largest cities.
Joe Doakes is on to something.
The term “silencer” isn’t used by anyone who knows what they’re talking about. With anything other than sub sonic .22 they merely suppress the bark.
Here in God’s Country, real Americans may purchase sonic calmers, and many do. One often sees them being used with large caliber rifles on ranges. You can still hear the report 1/8 mile away, but the sharp report of a .338 Lapua Mag (for instance) is noticeably reduced, which persons of refinement standing nearby appreciate.
Sonic calmers are nothing more than a courtesy from real Americans to others.
As a further help, I offer the “SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY ACT OF 2013” as a model you may care to use.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/115.htm
Sonic calmer is good with me, Swiftee, but I’m not the ‘target audience.”
We must avoid words that scare innocents, such as Blast Buster, Muzzle Muzzler, Sniper Suppressor, Assassin Silencer . . . we need to find a phrase that sounds like it’s a Child Safety feature, then they’ll demand it.
Sonic Dampener? Noise Nixer? Sound Saver? Exhaust Gas Reliever (maybe not, that sounds like Beano). Anyway, you get the idea.
Gun Muffler
Noise Pollution Attenuator
You gotta go big! handgun=”anti-racist child protector”, rifle=”environmental quality assurance device”.
QBW Device = Quiet as a Baby’s Whisper Device. Doesn’ that conjure up visions of fuzzy kittens?
The Pistol Whisperer.
I didn’t realize there were hidden “gotchas” in our self-defense laws. Does any one know of some examples?
Well, for example, see Mitch’s post “Tickets to the Theater” from January 8.
You have no right to plead self-defense; you ask the judge for permission to plead self-defense. If denied, you’re in a pickle: you already admitted to the cops that yes, you shot him, but now you can’t explain to the jury WHY you shot him.
Gotcha.
StCloudite,
Beyond what Joe said – there are lots of people (on both sides of the issue) who think that the Minnesota state statute explains it all. And the statute seems sorta clear on its surface; check it out for yourself.
But because of the case law that bears on the statute, a defendant will need to:
How’s that sound, so far?
Mitch and Joe convinced me! The self-defense statute definitely needs fixing. Thanks for the examples, guys.
Pingback: Carry On, My Straight-Laced Son | Shot in the Dark