Dodge City or Murderapolis
Oh my friend Amendment X is going to LOVE this one.....
"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.
Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."
What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:
"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."
You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!
Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".
"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."
You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".
One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.
Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.
"A couple of weeks ago, I checked into a hotel in Bloomington, a Minneapolis suburb framed by the airport and the Mall of America. On the hotel door was a sign: “Firearms Banned on These Premises.” The next day I drove to St. Joseph, an hour west of the Twin Cities, where I saw the same sign. Slowly the logical conclusion sank in. If firearms are banned on these premises, then they must not be banned in other places.
Sure enough, a year ago the State Legislature passed a “concealed carry” law, which means that it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a permit. So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state. If you apply for a concealed-weapon permit, the local authorities must grant it to you."
What I found to be highly amusing (and so totally expected....this is the Grey Lady after all) was this:
"I asked one of the state coalitions opposed to these laws whether it would attack them in the Legislature this year. The answer was no. It is too busy trying to defeat a “shoot first” bill, which would give gun owners the right to fire away instead of trying to avoid a confrontation. The way I see it, Minnesota is only one step away from requiring every citizen to carry a gun and use it when provoked."
You hear that, dear readers???? The streets of Minneapolis are one step away from being Dodge City again....OH WAIT...they already ARE!
Those who have followed the goings on in Amy Klobuchar's Minneapolis (like Rambix and the KvM guys) know that the streets are already awash with guns and gangbangers and gangster wanna bes. Any one of them are looking for the chance to prove themselves to their "peeps".
"This is what I’d expect of Florida, which recently passed a “shoot first” — also called a “shoot the Avon lady” — bill. I’d expect it of Texas too. But Minnesota? I grew up thinking of Minnesota as a socially progressive state. After all, it was home of the D.F.L. — the Democratic Farmer Labor Party — and a place where local control and common sense had strong roots. Like my family in Iowa, Minnesotans were gun owners because they hunted pheasants and rabbits and deer. But then I’m thinking of a time when the leadership of the National Rifle Association resembled a band of merry sportsmen and not the paranoid cabal it is today. Whether this was also a time when a legislator could vote his conscience, and not his gun lobbyist’s orders, I was too young to know."
You want to know what's changed? Here's a hint. In Minneapolis in 2006, the animals are roaming the streets of the city and not foraging in the forests "up north".
One thing that the folks like this author fail to recoginze is what happened AFTER the Florida conceal carry law was passed. Contrary to the nay-sayers prediction of "blood in the streets" crime actually DROPPED in Florida.
Then again, facts are something that the writes for the old grey ghost seem to disregard if they don't fit the the preconceived conclusions.
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:41 PM
6 Comments:
The “shoot first” bill is insane and unnecessary. Sometimes I think the Minnesota political consultants amuse each other by switching interns on the other side with their own people and seeing how much havoc they can wreak or how closely they can bring the talking points to resemble Playskool without the other side noticing. We've already seen similar bad advise when the DFL (possibly Hatch) people floated the idea of politicizing the Sjodin murder by saying budget cuts caused it. In the end people need to know when to stop building on an idea
By
Jamie, at 8:58 PM
Have you actually read the Cornish bill, or are you relying on the mischaracterizations ("shoot first," say) in the press?
I wouldn't support the bill described in the press, either, but having actually read -- and, in fact, studied -- the bill, I'm strongly in favor of it, although I'll listen to arguments to the contrary . . .
. . . from people who are actually familiar with its contents. There's quite a lot in there (and not just about presumptions in a self-defense claim), and it's all very well thought-out, IMHO.
But then, what would I know? I'm just a guy who's written a book on the subject of carrying a handgun in Minnesota, and taught a Lorman CLE seminar on gun law.
By
Joel, at 8:35 AM
Joel,
Do you know more than law enforcement?
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1041
Current law allows people to use deadly force if someone is breaking into their home.
Cornish, R-Vernon Center, would expand that to include their car or bicycle.
The bill also calls for allowing those threatened to be able to use whatever force necessary
to defend themselves and won’t have to worry about prosecution. If someone pulls a knife,
they can pull a gun.
The bill also expands the circumstance in which one can use deadly force. Current law
provides that people can use deadly force if they are threatened with permanent bodily harm or injury. Cornish would loosen that requirement to “temporary” bodily harm.
Huettl calls the legislation “crazy,” and Cornish conceded law enforcement will fight it.
Unfortunately, police officers will pay once again for the decisions of politicians to
create laws that really don’t make average people more safe, but create more stressful and
unsafe situations for police officers.
I will concede I had not read it. I did 1 search after your response and brought up the page above.
I also retract comparing this legislation to any Democrat hijinx. I believe it is sincere and as a republican I support it. but how hard is it get police onboard and why wouldn't you try?
Regards
By
Jamie, at 10:13 AM
Since Joel won't blow his own horn, the best fisking of the article in question I believe has been done by him. You can find it here:
http://joelrosenberg.livejournal...577.html#cutid1
By
Aquaholic, at 10:14 AM
Know more than law enforcement? About this?
Well, of course I do. Most law enforcement folks know little or nothing about armed (or other) civilian self-defense; they almost never encounter it. Next time you talk to a cop, ask him how many cases of successful armed civilian self-defense he's been around, or how much training he's gotten in the law and practive of civilian self-defense, as opposed to use of force by LEOs.
Me, I teach armed self-defense, both the law and the practice.
I'm a civilian trainer, and a trainer of civilians, by and large, although I occasionally have trained LEO types, and will be doing that again.
As to the cops, well, look at the history: police organizations always oppose giving or enhancing civilians' rights to protect themselves.
When we passed a modern, mainstream, commonsense "shall issue" carry permit law here in Minnesota, all of the police organizations were opposed to it; three years later, one (the MSA) now supports it and the others have admitted that it hasn't been a problem.
As, to be blunt, I predicted would happen.
So, yes, I knew more about it then than they did.
I knew that in Minnesota, as in almost three dozen other states, this sort of reform had gone through, and that after they'd actually lived with carry reform, the law enforcement folks had come down off their high horses and admitted that it worked.
That said, getting your opinions about self-defense or handgun law from "the gun guys" is kind of like getting your view of the US from the Tehran Times. "The Gun Guys" are an operation of Mark Karlin Associates -- it's a PR firm, hired by the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
The best way to know what's in the bill is to read -- and then, preferably, study -- the bill. You'll be able to find my summary of it up on http://joel-rosenberg.com later this fall, and it will include the entire bill.
By
Joel, at 2:18 PM
Joel - thank you so much for adding to the discussion insight that I just don't have. I am not a gun owner - I even admit that I have an un-natural fear of handguns, but I fully support the rights of law abiding citizens to carry weapons for defense.
The left's fear of an armed citizenry says much about how they feel about their own politics.
By
The Lady Logician, at 1:45 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home