Posts Tagged ‘MN’
I was just mentioning this sort of thing yesterday, and now Say Uncle points out this in Minnesota:
On a vote of 5-2 on Monday, Moorhead City Council members gave initial approval to a revised city ordinance that prohibits people from carrying facsimile weapons in public places.
The revision needs one more reading to become effective, and officials said that could happen Jan. 10.
Here is the wording of the ordinance:
No person shall carry on their person in a public place as defined in Minnesota statute … a facsimile firearm within the city.
Facsimile firearm means any object not actually a firearm which is a replica of an actual firearm, which substantially duplicates an actual firearm, or which could reasonably be perceived to be an actual firearm.
This ordinance shall not restrict the use of a facsimile firearm for self defense of a person’s residence or place of business.
Now, as crazy as a ban on non-guns seems, here is the really crazy part:
Moorhead Police Chief David Ebinger wants to see the proposed ban include private residences.
Yes, you read that right. The city’s chief of police is wants non-guns banned in private homes. He says such a ban could “help us avert a tragedy.” Two council members, Dan Hunt and Diane Wray Williams, also support banning non-guns in citizens’ homes.
If I made that up and put it in a book, people would claim I’m creating straw men.
What’s next? Bans on toy rubber knives?
I decided to try to buy a gun. To hear the Citizens for a Safer Minnesota tell it, this would be an easy task. I didn’t have a permit, but surely these gun merchants would insist I purchase their wares, federal red tape be damned.
As anyone who’s spent much time at gun shows knows, you can’t just buy guns without ID or background checks from dealers.
Critics of the story cry about the fact that the writer only tried to buy from dealers and not from individuals. But, whether he meant to or not, he made the point that it’s not a “gun show loophole” at all. If the antis want to ban individual person to person sales, let them try while calling it a “ban on individual person to person sales.”
Minneapolis police officer Timothy Edward Carson was late to work on Wednesday because he was robbing a bank. Sources say he could be connected with “at least a dozen” bank robberies in the past couple of weeks.
“The bottom line with police work is ethics and trust and respect. He blew every one of them,” said Lt. John Delmonico, president of the Minneapolis Police Federation, of which Carson is a member. “Good luck to him in jail.”
Carson was stopped for a license plate violation, let go because he was an LEO, and robbed a bank. The officer who had pulled him over earlier and let him go was responding to the bank call when he spotted Caron’s vehicle headed away from the bank.
A Prior Lake couple allegedly thought it would be “a good educational tool” for their son and his friends to learn how to make homemade explosives from PVC pipe and gunpowder.
They had no idea, they reportedly said, that the teens would go on a destructive spree, using pipe bombs to explode mailboxes in Burnsville, Lakeville and rural Scott County.
I must admit that I’m not quite sure what to think about this. My guess is that the typical knee-jerk reaction to this is quite negative. Blowing up mail boxes? Obviously wrong. But I’m not so sure about teaching kids to build pipe bombs.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with pipe bombs. It’s what you do with the pipe bombs that matters.
If someone taught their kids to hand-load rifle ammunition, and the kids then used that ammo to shoot out windows in local buildings, we wouldn’t claim teaching kids to hand-load was wrong, would we? We wouldn’t claim that hand-loaded ammo was bad.
Obviously, parents need to be responsible and use their best judgment with their kids. And it apparently failed in this case.
For the record, I would have no concern about my son learning to build pipe bombs. I haven’t taught him that yet, but if/when I do I’m quite confident that he won’t do anything wrong with that knowledge.
What do readers think?
Two people are assaulted in their home, and the intruder suffers a gunshot wound.
The Martin County Sheriff’s Office says it happened last night just before midnight.
They say an intruder apparently entered the home of Elmer and Marcella Sauck at 2488 200th Street in rural Martin County.
Mrs. Sauck was physically assaulted, was able to escape and go to the nearby home of her son, Mark. Mark then went to his parents’ house and found his father being assaulted by the intruder. Authorities say Mark then ordered the intruder to stop several times as he approached him, but he didn’t.
The intruder suffered a gunshot wound to the leg and was airlifted to St. Mary’s Hospital.
Fair Warning: If Murdoc catches you assaulting members of my family, you won’t be getting airlifted anywhere. I won’t be shooting you in the leg, and there will be no rush to get you where you need to go.
University of North Dakota and University of Minnesota-Crookston:
“People with concealed carry permits feel that police aren’t able to defend every single person,” [UMC junior Jared] Hendricks said. “Concealed weapons allow the tables to be a little more even, so we don’t have armed criminals and disarmed citizens everywhere.” Though campus shootings have made big news in the past year, they’re relatively rare, Hendricks acknowledged. But he said it’s still important for students to have the option to carry a weapon.
Winona State University, Minnesota:
Disagreement arose among students when a group at Winona State University posted flyers promoting concealed carry on campus.
The flyers read, “Signs can’t stop acts of violence. Armed citizens can,” and “This is a gun free zone. If you were planning on shooting a bunch of innocent people and then yourself, we’re sorry, but that is not allowed here.”
The signs were put up in the Student Union by junior Alexi Paizis in promotion of a newly forming campus group, currently involving half a dozen students who call themselves “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.”
Paizis and his fellow members of SCCC noticed that their flyers were being torn down, often very shortly after they had been posted. They reposted them, but usually to no avail.
Joe Reed, the Student Union director, said that within two days of the flyers being posted, there were between 20 and 30 students coming into his office to complain that the flyers were offensive and inappropriate.
Reed said that the flyers should have been brought to his attention first before being posted. “With all the complaints, I had to do something,” Reed said.
Reed recommended the matter to the Student Senate.
In a Senate meeting last month, the group members were able to voice their concerns during the meeting’s open gallery.
Senate’s Student Activities chair AJ Schuler said that, although he understands what the group was trying to say, the message was untimely due to the Northern Illinois University shootings.
Reed added later that he wanted to find a “safer way” to communicate the SCCC group’s message.
So we’ve got some students claiming that signs claiming that “signs can’t stop acts of violence” and that shooting innocent people “is not allowed here” are “offensive,” and a student union director claiming that something “safer” than flyers are needed to communicate a message. Gotta say that I’m a bit confused by all that, to be honest.
The two flyers, one of which I’ve posted here, were not designed by the students in question but instead come from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus web site. They are the first two in the .pdf currently available here.
I emailed the writer of the article in the Winonan student newpaper, and she put me in touch with Paizis.
I asked how the director of the student union could claim that the posters should have been brought to his attention first before being posted when the student union gave the okay to post them, and here’s what he said:
I did receive permission from the student union desk, but Joe Reed, the Student Union Director, was not present at that time, so the people at the desk gave the posters approval because the flyers fit certain criteria; anything about alcohol, or anything advertising bars, will not be allowed, for instance. Since my posters passed the criteria, and because Joe Reed wasn’t available at that time, the posters were approved by the students at the desk.
As far as getting posters approved, all one has to do is run them by the Student Union Desk and hand them the posters for approval. If they give the go-ahead, they will sign the posters with something to the affect of “Posting Approved”.
He noted that he wishes he had asked for the names of students complaining and that their specific complaints had been recorded so that the issues could be addressed directly.
I knew that people would not like the posters; I knew that there would only be a handful of supporters among thousands. So, when I checked back at the Student Union Desk to confirm the approved status of my posters and instead found they were being disallowed, and after I made inquiries into it, I had to assume, based on the anonymous nature of both the students and their complaints, that the posters were being torn down simply because they disagreed philosophically/politically. I personally know of several students who vehemently oppose our goals, and although I’m not sure they were the students who brought complaints, some students definitely will tear the posters down simply for being contrary to their own views. But, my hunches are just that: assumptions I’ve made without any evidence with which to prove my ideas.
In fact, one of the other SCCC members, Samuel Keane-Rudolph, wrote an op-ed in the Winonan about this particular concern, Free speech should override anonymous complaints, which includes
I would like to point out that both posters are factually correct. Shooting innocent people on campus is not allowed here. Signs do not stop violence, and it’s a documented record that armed citizens have.
So when I went into the meeting with the Student Senate subcommittee, I was expecting to hear a plan for protecting our signs from petty vandalism. Instead, I heard how we needed to adjust our signs so that they were ‘less offensive.’ Last I checked, vandalism was a crime and being ‘offensive’ was not.
Nor am I sure how our posters are offensive. We weren’t told at the Student Senate meeting how many people had found our posters offensive, or why. We were only told that “all we needed to know” was that “they were offensive.”
There’s adult reasoning for you. My guess is that tearing down some flyers about some sorts of student groups and complaining that they were “offensive” might not be handled quite the same way. Just a hunch on my part.
The student senators told me that they were representing the best interests of Winona students. Curious, because our accusers never made an appearance at the meeting, so for all I know, they don’t exist.
Oh, the exist, all right. But they’re smart enough to know that what they do is tough to defend. And they’re probably a bit cowardly so we’ll have to forgive them if they’d just rather pull down things they don’t like and complain instead of making their case.
Three “Castle Doctrine” self-defense bills under consideration:
Maryland: Senate Bill 449
Introduced by State Senators E. J. Pipkin (R-36) and David Brinkley (R-4).
West Virginia: Senate Bill No. 145
Unanimously passed by the WV Senate Judiciary Committee this week.
Minnesota: House File 498
Would increase the allowances for the use of deadly force in defense of home and self.
A Minneapolis police SWAT team kicked in the wrong door yesterday during an early morning raid, prompting the man of the house to grab his gun and open fire on the officers who entered the house.