Shot in the Dark

It’s Back

“Stand Your Ground” is back.

The bill – which would do nothing but remove the “duty to retreat” from self-defense on your property and in your car – was slandered as a “Shoot First” bill three years ago when it was passed by a bipartisan majority in both chambers (which, as an aside, is positive proof that the opposition was looking for the stupid vote; does anyone knows what happens to the person who shoots second?).  Governor Messinger Dayton issued a veto that was bought and paid for by big anti-gun interests; the metrocrats that controlled the Legislature at the time didn’t override him.

This year’s edition has a bipartisan slate of authors, a decisive majority of support in the House, and enough support in the Senate to make it interesting…

…and a governor – Tina Flint Smith – who will veto it forthwith (by pulling wires attached to Mark Dayton’s writing hand).

Of course, the point with this bill – and Senator Branden Petersen’s “Constitutional Carry” bill – is to do what the Second Amendment movement did over the previous two DFL-controlled sessions; rack up anti-gun votes by DFLers in greater Minnesota.  The DFL got trounced outstate in the 2014 elections in large part on the strength of gun votes; it can happen in the Senate in 2016.

Which is exactly how we got “Shall Issue” carry permits 12 years ago.

I worry at times that the lessons from the Carry Permit battle have been lost to a generation of pro-gun activists.  Shall Issue took from 1995 to 2003 (and again in 2005) to pass.  Eight years (with another year of maneuvering around a pet DFL judge).  It involved playing political chess, not checkers.

So suit up, people.  Winning your freedom isn’t for the faint of heart.

Posted

in

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “It’s Back”

  1. dmanfred Avatar
    dmanfred

    “Which is exactly how we got “Shall Issue” carry permits 12 years ago.”

    And a Republican House, Senate, and Governor. Who then punted on governing” [but that’s another story]

  2. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    And a Republican House, Senate, and Governor. Who then punted on governing” [but that’s another story]

    Sure. Also the moral of my story.

    The GOP has been very uneven on lots of conservative policy – but very good on Second Amendment policy over the past 15 years.

    The reason? The second-amendment constituency is incredibly well-organized, tenacious and powerful.

    If constituencies for sunday liquor, private stadiums and zero-based budgeting were as well-organized, this state could have policies like Montana in a couple of years.

  3. Adrian Avatar
    Adrian

    Wonder if it is possible Mumbles might happen to sign a bill into law that he “didn’t know” about…

  4. minnesaxon Avatar
    minnesaxon

    If the DFL can count on the bill being vetoed as you allege, why bother voting nay if their back is covered like 3 years ago? The only thing they would need to hope for is that no veto override vote takes place.

    What game are we playing again?

  5. Joe Avatar
    Joe

    I wonder if the recent seemingly positive firearms news isn’t part of a plan to acquiesce on a couple small issues so they can refute claims of anti-gun bigotry when the big stuff, like Stand Your Ground?

    “See, we gave you guys silencers. We’re just like you and WE believe in 2A. However, even though we’re pro-gun, we cannot allow _ _ _ _ _ _ TO PASS.”

    Such a plan would go a long way for an avowed anti-gunner like President Obama; “See, I reopened the amnesty period for all your Marbles’ Game Getters, military survival rifles and (a number of well-regulated and therefore banned inconsequential firearms) Now that we know I’m pro-2A, lets see those background checks.”

    I think such strategy would go a long way for them. Fortunately many, including The One, are too narcissistic and greedy to give an inch. Even though it could gain a mile.

    Mr. Berg, have you yet, or will you be soon covering anything about the St. Pat’s Day MPLS. “flash mob?” I’ve yet to see any substantial information on the event from the usual MSM sources.

  6. Mitch Berg Avatar
    Mitch Berg

    why bother voting nay if their back is covered like 3 years ago?

    Because that could be held against a Metrocrat in the city; with all the Bloomberg money floating around, it could finance a primary opponent.

  7. kel Avatar
    kel

    say wasn’t DG going to tell us why that “bill is crap!”

    did I miss her explanation?

  8. minnesaxon Avatar
    minnesaxon

    “Because that could be held against a Metrocrat in the city; with all the Bloomberg money floating around, it could finance a primary opponent.”

    But if they know (which I think they do) the game the Republicans are playing, they could just wait it out. While I can’t discount that the DFL would lose because of an aye vote, wouldn’t these like Bloomberg who know the game understand? Besides, if they voted aye, why would they or their supporters even talk about it at election time? Would the Republican campaign by saying “DFL SoAndSo voted to recognize your gun-rights that the Governor vetoed, so elect me because I’m a supporter of your rights!”

  9. Chess gotchas | Minnesaxon

    […] “gotcha” legislators, providing ammunition (hurhur) for upcoming elections as stated by Mr. Berg. He reminds us that we should remember that our current laws are the result of years of political […]

Leave a Reply

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