Up until 1974, Minnesotans didn’t need a permit, or a sheriff’s permission, or a card costing $100, to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm. Minnesotans could carry anything they wanted, subject to their criminal record; they could do it anywhere they wanted to subject to their senses of etiquette.
From 1974 to 2005, Minnesotans had to beg, convince, or suck up to their local police chief to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And since 2004, Minnesotans have had to pay for the privilege of having Minnesota law-enforcement try to prove they weren’t legally entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
So over the context of the past 40 years, things are moving generally in the right direction.
But there is a proposal of footage, floating around somewhere in the legislature, to adopt “Constitutional Carry” – as several other states around the union have. Constitutional Carry means that any law-abiding citizen can carry a firearm, openly or concealed, as long as they don’t have a criminal record that would deny that ride.
Not only is that exactly the way Minnesota law stood before 1974 – it is, in effect, exactly the way it is today; The law abiding jump through hoops to exercise their right to carry, and criminals carry anyway. Just as they did before 1974.
The actual record is clear and unequivocal; law-abiding citizens in Minnesota are phenomenally unlikely, statistically, to commit any kind of crime of all:
I think the proposal is a good one; Gov. Dayton will veto it, of course, but before that we will get some votes on the table before 2016.
But after 40 years of having to pay, and submit to scrutiny, to exercise our God given constitutional rights, I think we need to have a proposal with more teeth to it.
I think we need a Mandatory Carry law.
Under my law, all law-abiding citizens over the age of 21 will be required to have a firearm on their person.
Now, anyone who doesn’t want to have a firearm will be able to exercise that right – by getting a “Permit to Not Carry”. This permit can be gotten one of two ways:
- Pay $100 to your local county sheriff to obtain a Permit Not to Carry,
- Applying to your county sheriff, with proof you have reason not to carry a firearm.
I think that would be perfectly fair. Or, at least, bring a form of Justice after this past 40 years.
Fee required to cover the cost to society of your not being able to protect yourself.
In a somewhat related article, the Strib and local police departments were hand wringing over the idea that a police department sold a gun that eventually ended up in a bad guys hands. Because you know those guns just cause bad things!
I think we need a Mandatory Carry law.
No.
Why?
Three words: Dog Gone armed.
Someone with that little self control should not have a firearm within 100 yards.
And we can subsidize the cost, but do it via a state run web site that doesn’t work on most people’s computers.
Robert Heinlein would go you one better: unarmed citizens should be forced to wear an armband, or brassard, indicating that they are unarmed, and though they might shoot off their mouth they can’t be challenged to a duel.
nerdbert
over at the droolpot she calls her blog DG has this to say:
“No. Wrong. BAD.
Time to make gun ownership more restricted, more difficult, and to require liability insurance so as to put some checks and balances on these gun lunatics.”
which is progressive DG-speak for: “only rich white people with Ivy league pedigrees (and select, carefully vetted non-whites) should have the civil right of self defense – everyone else will have to depend on the Robo-Cops to protect them”