So…what are you doing Thursday?
The DFL is back at it again. Two gun control bills have been introduced so far this session – and they’re both bad ones.
As bad as last years’ avalanche of stupid? Perhaps not. But noxious in their own way. And both of them are the camel’s nose under the tent.
The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance sends:
Civil rights opponent Ron Latz, chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced SF2639, a bill that would create de facto confiscation of firearms from persons accused of domestic violence. THE BILL WILL BE HEARD THURSDAY EVENING, March 20, at 6 p.m. in Room 15 of the Capitol.
While GOCRA has no love for wife-beaters, this bill goes far beyond protecting victims, and would impose a back-door theft of personal property through exorbitant fees.
The DFL is going to spin opposition to this bill as “supporting wife-beaters”, of course; the orcs are fluent liars. It’s the one form of language they’re good at.
And someone who’s legitimately convicted of domestic violence should give up their guns. But this is on accusation – and as many has half of all accusations of domestic violence, at least during divorces, are false.
Capitol Carry Traps
Based on the flawed recommendations of lame duck Lieutenant Governor Prettner Solon’s capitol safety advisory committee, and steamrolled by lame duck Representative Michael Paymar, SF2690 would impose additional red tape hoops to jump through, and “gotcha” felonies for permit holders visiting the State Capitol Complex. THE BILL WILL BE HEARD THURSDAY, March 20, at noon in Room 15 of the Capitol.
Bad information leads to bad policy, and the information presented by the Department of Public Safety at those committee meetings this summer was terrible: the DPS spokesman had no idea that the DPS managed the permit holder database!
This bill would create a trap for harmless permit holders whose meaningless, duplicative, unused notifications “expired.” A visit to any capitol-area building — even the Minnesota History Center — after this false “expiration” would turn a permit holder into a felon.
This is one of the approaches gun-grabbers just love; make laws that create confusing restrictions that are bound, indeed designed, to entrap people. Then, complain to the media about all the “gun felonies at the Capitol!”, and demand more gun control!
Anyway – GOCRA would love to see people at the Capitol this Thursday, as noted in bold above. Needless to say, calling your representatives about these bills is going to be important.
Last year, the avalanche of real citizens showing up at the capitol shut the lavishly-funded gun-grab effort down. Shot it down in flames. Humiliated it.
It’s a new year, and a new session. Time to beat the orcs back again.
Another gun owner stops a robbery. Prairie-du-Sac Wisconsin. Guy drives up to the drive through, implies he has a gun, demands money and drugs. Employee (or owner) says he’ll be right back. Comes back with a handgun and points it as the robber, who then goes away (and was arrested shortly after).
I have a couple of questions about Bill #1.
Does “accused” mean criminally charged, or being the respondent (the person alleged to be the aggressor) of an Order for Protection (OFP)? If not, from who must the accusation originate and what is needed to verify it? Soon-to-be ex-spouses have been known to obtain OFPs against their significant others on very shaky grounds; some divorce attorneys even recommend it.
The respondent to an OFP has for years been barred from the possession of firearms and ammo at least for the duration of the OFP if charges are not sought. Some judges even order the same (no guns or ammo) in release conditions for those who seek release from incarceration prior to their first hearing. This has been law for years.
Several years ago, Minnesota state statute even included a provision that law enforcement agencies must take temporary custody of firearms belonging to respondent or charged with a crime of domestic violence if court ordered, for the duration of the order, the unsuccessful charging, or until the convicted can find a way to lawfully dispose of them. This especially caused a lot of inconvenience right before or during hunting season. Some of those who sought the order seemed to know that already. The law even mandates that the agency exercise reasonable care of the firearms while they hold them.
I wonder if this new law is a modification to what already exists? The law as-is seems to adequately address the “problem” of “abusers” having access to firearms (even when the gun played no role in the situation).
Consequently, I also wonder if these folks are more interested in mobilizing pro-gun groups for nothing other than their inconvenience?
We got gun bills in the legislature here too….opening up bars that serve food as personal protection zones. One that was entitled “Constitutional carry” would have made it legal to carry a firearm if it was legal for you to own one, no paperwork necessary. It got shot down, but will probably pass next year.