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.
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,
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..