Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[Minnesota]]>

Key Democrats still on the fence about Minnesota gun control measures

by Leave a Comment

We’re a long way from the end of this year’s legislative session in Minnesota and its far too early to celebrate yet, but there are some hopeful signs for Second Amendment advocates in the state who are working to defeat several onerous bills. As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports, while the DFL-controlled House has already approved multiple anti-gun pieces of legislation the prospects for the measures are still murky in the state Senate, where the DFL has just a one-vote majority. In order for any gun bills to get to Gov. Tim Walz’s desk the caucus can’t afford to lose any of its members, but at the moment there are three DFL senators who are on the fence or have expressed concerns about the bills.

Three freshman DFL senators — Robert Kupec of Moorhead, Grant Hauschild of Hermantown and Judy Seeberger of Afton — all said they have concerns with certain gun control bills.

The three main gun bills being considered would expand criminal background checks to cover most private firearm transfers, create a “red-flag law” allowing authorities to temporarily take guns away from people deemed dangerous and require gun owners to store their firearms unloaded and separately from their ammunition.

Kupec said he has issues with all the gun bills but declined to discuss his specific positions, citing ongoing negotiations. He said he can envision himself voting for new restrictions with the right bill, but added: “I don’t know if we’re going to get there or not.”

Hauschild and Seeberger both expressed concern about the firearm storage bill, saying they oppose requiring gun owners to store their guns and ammunition separately.

Seeberger said Democrats need to strike the right balance between addressing gun violence and respecting Second Amendment rights.

Gun-rights advocates have already singled out Hauschild with radio and digital advertisements in his district, telling constituents to call him because he could potentially be the decisive vote on gun bills. “We are one vote away from extreme gun control in Minnesota,” one ad said.

The first-term senator hasn’t yet taken a public position on the background-check and red-flag bills, saying he’s still discussing them with “constituents and sheriffs and police.”

With “ongoing negotiations” anything can happen, so gun owners are not out of the woods yet. But the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus is cautiously optimistic, even as it encourages gun owners to keep up their pressure on lawmakers.

As we’ve seen in other blue states like Oregon and Illinois, county sheriffs are also speaking out in opposition to the gun control proposals in the Minnesota legislature. So far more than 60 sheriffs have voiced their objections to one or more of the anti-gun bills, and the list continues to grow longer.

There’s going to be enormous pressure on these freshman DFL senators to stick with the caucus and deliver a win for gun control activists, and none of them have closed the door to supporting the bills when they get to the Senate floor for a final vote. Like I said, it’s too early to celebrate, but there are plenty of reasons for Second Amendment activists to keep up their contacts and urge these senators to actually go after violent criminals instead of criminalizing responsible gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms.

Study shows MN permit holders not responsible for gun crime

by Leave a Comment

For gun control advocates, there is a strong tendency to try and link lawful gun ownership with violent crime, particularly so-called gun crime.

We, on the other hand, have long maintained that any such link is tenuous at best.

In Minnesota, which isn’t exactly a pro-gun state, a study recently provided us with a bit of data along those lines.

From The Reload:

Just .03 percent of concealed carry permittees in Minnesota committed a gun crime last year.

That’s according to last week’s release from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The agency reports about 1,260 permit holders committed a gun crime out of the nearly 400,000 living in the state. The numbers show Minnesota concealed carriers commit gun crimes at a much lower rate than the national average.

The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System found there were 246,893 gun crimes in 2021. That same year, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 332,031,554 Americans. That means the average American was more than twice as likely to commit a gun crime than somebody licensed to carry a gun in Minnesota. The same trend holds within Minnesota itself, according to the same data.

Additionally, the fact that the FBI only details the use of guns in violent crimes while Minnesota’s report counts any crime where a gun is involved combined with poor compliance with the NIBRS’s voluntary data collection system (the agency notes on its website that only 66 percent of the population is covered by its data) suggests the gap between the average American and licensed gun carriers may be significantly wider.

The numbers suggest that those who obtain a concealed carry license, which requires a background check and firearms training in Minnesota, tend to be more law-abiding than the general public. The data from Minnesota and other states may curtail ongoing efforts in states like California and New York to restrict the issuance of concealed carry licenses.

The BCA report found people with permits committed 4,199 crimes overall. The agency said that was the highest number of crimes it has recorded among permit holders in a given year. However, it said that represented about one percent of all permit holders, which is in line with reporting from previous years.

This data isn’t new, but what we can see as a result of it isn’t.

For years, we’ve known that permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens you’re likely to find. That’s hardly surprising. Anyone who will jump through all the hoops required to lawfully carry a firearm is unlikely to do all of that, only to then go on some kind of crime spree.

Those inclined to break the law are more likely to start by ignoring carry regulations.

Further, when we look at the gun crimes committed by those who have permits, I’m curious as to just how many of those are the result of a willful desire to break the law versus errors in judgment.

What I mean is that there’s a huge difference between someone who pulls his gun to intimidate someone who made him mad and the guy who thinks the threat he’s facing justifies drawing his weapon, only to find out it’s not when police are putting the cuffs on him.

From a legal standpoint, I’m not sure that matters, but for the purposes of discussion, it does. Especially since Minnesota has a training requirement.

Yet it’s also unlikely that such data exists.

Regardless, this is an important point that cannot be as easily dismissed as many would like to claim. Those who try to carry in a lawful manner will continue to try and act in a lawful manner. This isn’t rocket science by any stretch of the imagination, but as anti-gunners continue to try and make claims, it’s important nonetheless.

MN Dems try to ice out Second Amendment rights

by Leave a Comment

For the first time in a decade, Democrats (okay, technically the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party) have complete control of state government in Minnesota, and they’ve unleashed an avalanche of anti-gun bills at the state capitol, including one measure that the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus says would essentially repeal the Second Amendment by enacting an array of new restrictions on gun owners in the state, including the potential for mandatory mental and physical health screenings before they’re permitted to purchase a firearm and new prohibitions on where those who possess a concealed carry license can lawfully bear arms in self-defense.

I wanted to get a first-hand report on what’s going on in the state, and I’m thrilled that Rob Doar, senior vice president of government affairs for the MN Gun Owners Caucus, was able to join me on Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co from the state capitol building today to detail the biggest threats to the Second Amendment this session.

Doar says the group is paying close attention to multiple bills, including “red flag” legislation, “universal” background checks, and storage mandates in addition to the omnibus gun control bill I mentioned above. But while the DFL may have a grip on both legislative chambers, Doar says enactment of these anti-gun measures is far from a certainty.

“We’ve got a very Metro-centric majority; basically the big cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, and Rochester kind of running the show,” Doar explained, but added that there are still two DFL senators representing rural areas who’ve been quiet about where they stand on many of the anti-gun bills that have been introduced. The Second Amendment advocate says he’s actually a little concerned that the omnibus bill and all of its flagrantly unconstitutional provisions are being used as a smokescreen of sorts; crafted not necessarily with an eye towards passage, but to make other gun control bills appear more “moderate” in comparison and give those rural senators the opportunity to say they rejected the most extreme language while still voting for other egregious infringements to the right to keep and bear arms.

“It’s very possible that the bill [SB 1723] was introduced just to get us focused on that one and screeching about that one so that we maybe aren’t playing as close attention to the ones that are more likely to advance,” notes Doar.

If that is the strategy, I don’t think it’s going to work to the Dems’ favor, at least not in the long term. Back in 2019, Democrats took control of Virginia state government for the first time in 30 years, and immediately set to work on more than a dozen anti-gun measures including a ban on the sale and possession of “assault weapons.” That bill died thanks to the votes of a couple of rural Democratic senators, though about a half-dozen other restrictions were signed into law, but gun owners enacted their revenge in the 2021 elections; helping to install a new GOP majority in the House of Delegates and electing Republicans to every statewide office on the ballot, including governor, lt. governor, and attorney general.

We’ll have to wait until next year to see if history will repeat itself in Minnesota, but now’s the time for gun owners to make their voices heard on the multiple infringements to a fundamental right up for debate in the statehouse. Doar says the MN Gun Owners Caucus has been running ads targeting those rural DFL senators and encouraging them to stand firm in their support for the Second Amendment, and we’ll soon see if those elected officials are going to listen to their constituents or the party leaders demanding they fall in line behind their anti-gun agenda.

I’d encourage you to check out the entire conversation with Rob Doar in the video window below, which also touches on Minnesota’s growing violent crime problem as well as the cognitive dissonance of the DFLers who complain about overpolicing and mass incarceration while working to create a whole lot of new, non-violent possessory gun offenses carved out of a constitutionally-protected right.

Minnesota 2A group warns new bill “essentially repeals the Second Amendment”

by Leave a Comment

Gun owners in Minnesota may soon have to submit to psychological and physical examinations before they’re able to lawfully purchase a firearm, at least if the sponsors of SF 1723 get their way. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus describes the new legislation as something that “essentially repeals” the right to keep and bear arms in the state by imposing new regulations and restrictions on almost every aspect of the right to keep and bear arms.

This bill contains several onerous gun control provisions, including:

  • Registration of all firearms
  • Registration of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds
  • Registration of all .50 caliber firearms
  • A ban on purchasing essentially any new semi-automatic rifles (an “assault weapons” ban)
  • Mandatory lost & stolen reporting
  • No more than one gun purchase every 30 days
  • Police Chiefs would now issue permits to carry
  • You would be required an obtain a permit to own any firearm
  • Permits would require physical and mental health testing
  • Permits and firearms ownership would require liability insurance
  • Firearms could not be carried on any government property or inside any government facility – even with a permit to carry
  • It would be a crime to carry past a sign prohibiting carry at a private establishment
  • and MANY other restrictions on your Second Amendment rights

It really is as bad as MN Gun Owners Caucus says. Under SF 1723, it would be a felony offense to carry a concealed firearm in all state and locally-owned public buildings, which flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects a general right to bear arms in self-defense in public, with only limited exceptions.

To be fair, I don’t think that SCOTUS or Bruen is much of a concern for the bill’s authors. Quite the opposite. The language of SF 1723 is a giant middle finger to the majority of the court, as well as all Minnesota gun owners. The Court said in Bruen that “may issue” licensing regimes are unconstitutional, and yet the Minnesota bill explicitly states that police chiefs and county sheriffs “may” issue a permit to possess a firearm and gives them broad latitude to define someone’s suitability.

Possession or ownership of an unregistered firearm or possession by an unpermitted individual would be a misdemeanor crime under SF 1723, and all current gun owners would be required to obtain a permit by January 1, 2025. In order to do so, however, gun owners old and new would have to undergo a firearm training course (length to be determined) and then pass a written test. Additionally, the bill allows for “other physical and mental testing as the commissioner of public safety finds necessary to determine the applicant’s fitness to use, possess, carry, and transport a firearm safely”; an open-ended invitation for the state to impose all kinds of new and subjective standards for those hoping to exercise a fundamental civil right.

It would also be a misdemeanor offense for anyone to purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period, even those who’ve obtained a government-issued permission slip to own a gun. If your gun is stolen and you need a replacement, you would have to “apply to the chief of police of an organized full-time police department of the municipality where the person resides or to the county sheriff if there is no local chief of police where the person resides for an exception”, though police can deny the request for no reason at all.

This really only scratches the surface of the problems with SF 1723, and if you have 30 minutes or so this weekend I’d encourage you to check out the video below, where Rob Doar of the MN Gun Owners Caucus gets into greater detail about the ramifications of SF 1723. If you’re a Minnesota gun owner, now’s also a great time to contact your state senator and tell them to oppose these unconstitutional edicts. The DFL (Minnesota’s version of the Democratic party) only has a one-seat majority in the Senate, and a couple of rural DFL lawmakers have been non-committal about signing off on any new anti-gun measures, so there is a very real chance to defeat this bill rather than challenge it in court after its enacted.

Frankly, even progressives in the state legislature should have major problems with this legislation, no matter their views on the right to keep and bear arms. The bill creates a panoply of new non-violent, possessory crimes; all of which must be enforced by police and prosecutors, and many of which will have a disparate impact on minorities, lower-income Minnesotans, and even those who might express political views that aren’t appreciated by the powers that be. It’s completely hypocritical to complain about “overpolicing” and decry the current state of the criminal justice system while at the same time creating new opportunities to imprison people and saddling them with criminal records, especially given the fact that actual are risingviolent crimes in the Twin Cities.

Citing sinking morale in the wake of the unrest after Floyd’s killing, leaders at the Minneapolis Police Department say the officer head count has shrunk from 900 in early 2020 to about 560 in August — a loss of more than a third of the force.

…

Residents of the north side describe a landscape that can feel lawless. Indeed, about 60% of police calls for shots fired this year have come from the area, even though it makes up just 15% of the population, according to city data.

Paul Johnson, 56, said young men openly sell drugs during the day in public places, such as a gas station on Broadway Avenue that has been dubbed the “murder station” due to all of the fatal shootings there. (It is near the one where Blair was killed.)

“You pull up to get gas – they try to sell you drugs,” he said. “And not just three or four, but it’s a bulk of people.”

The perception among many residents is that the police ignore the area.

“They just let it go on,” said Johnson’s friend, Brian Bogan, 42, who said he moved from north Minneapolis to relatively safer St. Paul due to his kids growing up in an area where they don’t know if “it’s fireworks or gunshots.”

Juliee Oden, 56, can’t even count the times she has called 911 to report gunfire outside her north-side home. One night last summer, a volley of shots jolted her out of bed while she was watching TV — it was coming from her front lawn.

“I hit the floor,” she said. “My phone went flying. I had to crawl on my stomach to get to the phone” to dial 911.

It got to the point where it was hard to sleep at night and Oden, who works at a construction company, had colleagues install a bulletproof panel behind the headboard of her bed.

“Now I go in my room with complete confidence,” she said. “If somebody is to shoot directly at my house, I know: As long as I’m behind my headboard, I’m 100% safe.”

Are the criminals banging away outside Oden’s home going to be dissuaded from their activity by any of the restrictions imposed by SF 1723? Not bloody likely. But someone like Oden might find it difficult, if not impossible, to navigate the maze of red tape created by anti-gun lawmakers before she could lawfully purchase or possess a firearm. Far from increasing public safety, SF 1723 would make Minnesota a more dangerous place, at least for law-abiding citizens.

Minnesota sheriffs displeased with gun control proposals

by Leave a Comment

For the most part, I don’t think of Minnesota as “urban.” Sure, they’ve got the Twin Cities, but they also have a lot of people who just want to hunt and fish their life away while others farm for the umpteenth generation.

Yet the state is pretty far to the left in a lot of ways, which means those urban centers are overriding the more rural parts of the state.

That means new gun control is just on the horizon.

However, a number of Minnesota sheriffs aren’t exactly thrilled with what they’re seeing.

There are four gun control bills on the docket this session, including HF 396, a safe storage mandate. The bill would require gun owners to store their firearms unloaded, with a locking device, and apart from ammunition whenever they are not being carried.

…

Clearwater County Sheriff Darin Halverson and Itasca County Sheriff Joe Dasovich spoke out against the bill last week.

They are now joined by Crow Wing County Sheriff Eric Klang, Cass County Sheriff Bryan Welk, St. Louis County Sheriff Gordon Ramsay, Becker County Sheriff Todd Glander, and Clay County Sheriff Mark Empting.

“This bill inhibits the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families when a threat of great bodily harm or death is imposed. If we cannot have a loaded firearm easily accessible to protect ourselves, especially in our own home, are we expected to have the criminal wait until we locate our ammunition and load our weapons?” Glander wrote in a letter to legislators.

Glander’s question isn’t sarcasm, either. At least, I don’t take it as such. It’s a perfectly valid question because that’s at the heart of these proposals that require weapons and ammunition to be stored in separate locked containers.

Further, these measures make it significantly harder for poor folks in Minnesota to be able to comply with it. Locked containers don’t exactly grow in the garden, now do they?

No, they cost money. That’s money that many people simply don’t have, especially with prices having been as stupid as we’ve seen over the last couple of years.

The truth of the matter is that this likely isn’t even constitutional in the first place.

The Heller decision hinged on a similar DC measure, after all, which rendered guns practically useless for self-defense. The exception of a quick-access safe isn’t, in my opinion, a viable workaround, either.

Again, this also makes it so those of better financial means can have the means to defend themselves in Minnesota, whereas the less well-off won’t.

They typically can’t afford a quick-access gun safe on top of the cost of a gun and ammunition. Those are a couple of hundred dollars, after all, which means that in order to comply with the law, they’d have to drop about as much for a special safe as they would for an inexpensive handgun.

And forget doing that with a shotgun, a popular home defense option. Even if a good shotgun costs less, the safe for it is going to make that option prohibitive.

For Minnesota, this is a terrible idea. I’m glad to see some sheriffs speak out. I just wish it wasn’t necessary.