With the state budget still in limbo, state unemployment still above the norm, and reasonable healthcare solutions still in question, the Minnesota GOP feels the time is ripe to focus on those pesky gun laws.
A bill designed to dramatically alter state gun laws is set to go in front of Minnesota House on Thursday, April 28. The bill will change five major elements of Minnesota gun law enforcement.
Before going into the bill, it must be state that Minnesota is a ‘conceal and carry’, meaning it is lawful in Minnesota to carry a concealed firearm—with a permit of course.
Part of the ‘conceal and carry’ laws is a provision that a person must reasonably attempt to extract themselves from a situation that may end in the use of a concealed weapon. In other words, if someone is threatening you from across the street, turn and walk (or run) away. This is known as the ‘rule of retreat’—if it’s possible, do it. In cases where a person is shot, the courts will decide if the shooter exercised this ‘rule’ based on existing evidence.
If this bill passes, this won’t happen—the new bill removes the ‘rule of retreat’ and replaces it with a ‘shoot first’ clause. This clause states if the shooter felt threatened and shot a person, they can merely claim self-defense and law-enforcement is prohibited from arresting the shooter.
See any issues here? While I tend to try to believe people are generally reasonable and law-abiding, provisions such as this open the door for legally sanctioned, and possibly unintentional, homicide veiled in self defense. Scary stuff.
From the NRA’s website:
HF 1467 would remove a person’s “duty to retreat” from an attacker, allowing law-abiding citizens to stand their ground and protect themselves or their family anywhere they are lawfully present. It would create a presumption that an individual who forcefully or stealthily enters or attempts to enter your home or vehicle is there to cause substantial or great bodily injury or death, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that individual. It would also expressly allow an individual to use force, including deadly force, to prevent a forcible felony, and it provides protections against criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits when justifiable force is used.
While the NRA sees it as a positive change to Minnesota gun laws, I am guessing the family in this case study would disagree.
The second provision in the new legislation would allow out-of-state permitted gun carriers to carry in Minnesota without any form of over site. So what, you might ask—consider that Minnesota requires back-ground checks and gun safety courses to even get a permit to carry—a number of states do not. I am also wondering what implications this would concern inter-state crime, if it is lawful across state lines. Maybe someone can comment on whether this would muddy the prosecutorial situation—state level or federal level?
The third proposed change pertains to government emergency powers. As the NRA puts it:
The proposed language would prohibit any government agency from confiscating or regulating the lawful possession, carrying, transfer, transportation and defensive use of firearms or ammunition during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana.
However, one must simply remember back to the LA riots, to the aftermath of Katrina, to question when reasonable seizure of firearms is best policy. Particularly when considering ‘mob-rule’ type situations. However, I am all for the lawful return of the firearms when situations return to normal. In desperate time, people will do desperate things. Additionally, there are other ways to defend one self.
The final proposed change centers on the length of time a person’s gun permit would be valid. Currently permits are renewed on an annual basis; the new law would extend that period to five years. Effectively, this change increases the chances of criminals getting access to guns, by reducing the frequency of background checks. It also makes the appeals process easy and more favorable if a person is denied a permit.
Luckily, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D) will likely veto such drastic changes to the states gun laws and anti-gun groups across the state are already gearing up and challenging the proposed legislation.
Most concerning is the first provision, the ‘Shoot First’ provision and its implications—I don’t want to get shot some night walking my dog because I startled someone who was carrying a gun and not be able to prosecute or extract any sort of reparations. This does not make Minnesota safer, by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not anti-gun advocate. I am a hunter and I believe in people’s rights to shoot for sport. However, I am an advocate for strict gun control and don’t believe gun trade shows and the sale of firearms between private citizens without strict forms of over site.