This has been a fairly quiet session as re gun control bills far. With the passage of the committee deadline, no new bills can be brought to the floor -and no gun grabber bills survived committee. As expected.
But that’s going to change next week.
While the committee deadline has passed, there is no deadline for amendments. And Senator Latz is going to bring his Universal Registration amendment to the floor in coming weeks.
And to go along with that, he and the Bloomberg Travelling Circus are going to be having a pep rally (at taxpayer expense) next Tuesday; the technical term is “hearing”, but let’s cut the crap, it’s a pep rally. They are going to try to do two things; whip up enthusiasm for Democrat candidates, and lay the groundwork for a bigger, more-coordinated gun-grab push next session.
So the Good Guys need you, the Real Americans, to turn out.
Details:
Tuesday, April 26
8:30AM
Senate Office Building, Room
95 University Avenue W. (Corner of Rice and University)
St. Paul, MN 55155
Yep. 8:30AM on a workday. Latz and the Bloomberg know as well as you do that gun-controllers don’t have jobs; they are mostly layabout trust-fund wives from Kenwood and Crocus Hill, hipster “writers” from lower Northeast, and community organizers who get paid to be there. They know that you – the Second-Amendment supporting Real Americans – spend your mornings getting your kids to school; by 8:30, you’ve been at work for a while already.
They’re counting on it.
Tickets are first-come, first-serve basis, before 8:30 AM. Some groups of Real Americans will be lining up at 7AM, when the building opens to the public.
I’m going to try to be there. I hope you can too.
I’ve received a couple of emails about this from Chris Dorr over the past couple of weeks, so I’ve been trying to keep my schedule clear to attend.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals releases opinions in criminal cases weekly. Nearly every batch of opinions contains an appeal by an ineligible person caught in possession of a firearm, sometimes several cases. I’ve been reading those cases for the past year. I’ve never seen a single one in which the gun was acquired from a dealer, a gun show, or an honest citizen who would have done a background check if it was required by law; as best I cant tell, the firearms are stolen or are acquired from a fellow criminal. I cannot recall a single case of a dealer, gun show seller or citizen prosecuted for selling a gun to an ineligible person, which already is a crime under existing law. I submit the historical record from actual court cases provides compelling evidence that the universal background check law would do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms but it definitely would impose a cost on lawful buyers. Imposing that cost for no crime-reduction benefit is an offense against a fundamental Constitutional right.
The counter-argument, Joe Doakes, is that virtually every gun used to commit a crime was sold to someone legally by a licensed retailer, at some point.
Bento, that’s not so much a counter-argument, as an abandonment of historical American legal principle.
A sells a legal product to B, who is legally entitled to buy it (alcohol, fertilizer, Sudafed, firearm). B uses it for crime. A is not and should not be responsible; B’s intervening act severs the connection between A and the crime.
A sells to B, who is robbed by C, who uses the product in a crime. Not only is A insulated from the crime, so is B.
A sells to B, who is robbed by C, who trades it to D in exchange for something illegal (drugs, prostitutes, firecrackers), who commits the crime. Why are we still talking about the A-B transaction? Isn’t it obvious there’s no connection between the legal activity and the eventual criminal activity?
Sure, we can say “the B-C robbery should have involved a background check” but that’s nonsense on its face since the transaction was a robbery. And swapping a stolen weapon for prostitutes is a crime both ways – to think either criminal is going to conduct a background check on the other is fantasy.