(MN) Yea, though I walk ... I shall not fear; I pack heat

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota)

May 1, 2003 Thursday

SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 1B

LENGTH: 646 words

HEADLINE: LAURA BILLINGS: Yea, though I walk ... I shall not fear; I pack heat

BYLINE: LAURA BILLINGS; Pioneer Press Columnist

BODY:
It seems fitting that today's National Day of Prayer comes just as Minnesotans must cope with the newly passed concealed carry handgun law.

Lord, protect us from half-cocked legislation like this.

If you've been following the discussion, then you have no doubt heard that the only people who could possibly object to it are soft-headed Million Mom marchers, hand-wringing urbanites who couldn't tell a Colt from a Glock if their lives depended on it, and well-intentioned clergy members who should really just stay out of this kind of thing.

After all, say supporters, this law is not about putting an estimated 70,000 more handguns on the streets of Minnesota, and shoring up a declining market for handguns. It's not about repaying the National Rifle Association, which has been awfully generous to so many of our elected officials. It's not even about pandering to those Second Amendment ideologues who think the Constitution guarantees them the right to pack heat at Gopher games and city council meetings.

No, no, our new concealed carry law is all about being "consistent" with the way gun permits are issued in Minnesota. It's about creating a "uniform policy," in the words of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who complained on his radio show recently that the old law was "highly subjective,'' forcing many decent citizens to leave their sheriff's office with an empty holster.

This, despite the fact that a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension survey found that 93 percent of permit applicants got one in 2002.

Given our leaders' new obsession with uniformity and consistency, one can't help wondering why they're not equally interested in making sure that Minnesotans also pay a uniform and consistent percentage of their income in state and local taxes.

But what is it they say about consistency? It's the hobgoblin of small-caliber minds?

Well, now that we've joined the 34 other states that have had this sort of legislation ramrodded through their legislatures by NRA lobbyists, the organizations and officials forced to deal with the law's implications can't help noticing it has some rather unnerving holes in it.

For instance, the law has no requirement for state residency, meaning we are now poised to become the drive-through gun retailer to the upper Midwest, since neighboring states Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa have much more sensible laws. Is this really the way we want to shore up our economy?

Mental health "issues" could disqualify an applicant from receiving a concealed carry permit, but after the implementation of much stricter medical privacy rules last month, will sheriffs really have all the information they need to assess which applicants can be a risk to themselves or others?

Guns won't be allowed at the state Capitol, thus providing some protection to the legislators who passed the law. But guns can't be barred from city halls, the State Fairgrounds, or convention centers.

And thanks to the new law, the University of Minnesota Gophers sports teams could be under fire in whole new ways. Unlike private pro teams that can bar gun holders at the door, or high schools that can ban guns from prep sports events, it seems the university can only prohibit students and staff from carrying guns on its property. It would have no authority over spectators, or even fans from rival schools. Imagine how much fun next year's Frozen Four riot could be.

It seems odd that legislators so concerned with "uniform policy" didn't offer the Senate the chance to amend some of these inconsistencies. Unfortunately, this sort of ideologically driven legislation is entirely consistent with the new sheriffs at the Capitol, who are determined to shoot holes through the sensible policies that once made our little home on the prairie an oasis of safety and sanity.

Lord, have mercy.

Laura Billings can be reached at [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm guessing she didn't care much for the legislation......
 
This, despite the fact that a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension survey found that 93 percent of permit applicants got one in 2002.

When the general policy of the two most populated counties in the state say that you cannot get a permit unless you are under direct threat or have an employment need, would you even bother to apply?

No.
 
My email to her

Ms. Billings,

It's likely right now you are getting a lot of email on the issue of the op/ed piece you wrote on the recent concealed carry legislation. I'm sure a lot of them are not too flattering, but I hope you and I can have some dialogue on this issue in a calm and professional manner.

I feel that I have to clear up some issues of matters of law and policy that you brought up, specifically this:

"For instance, the law has no requirement for state residency, meaning we are now poised to become the drive-through gun retailer to the upper Midwest, since neighboring states Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa have much more sensible laws. Is this really the way we want to shore up our economy?"

Ms. Billings, it seems like that the implication here is that since MN has a "shall-issue" concealed weapons statute, that residents of other states will come and buy their handguns in the state of Minnesota, and be able to walk out with them and carry in Minnesota.

I'd like to point out that this hasn't been the case in 35 years. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-351) specifically forbids a person from buying a handgun, whether from a gun dealer or a private seller, if the two parties are residents of different states. The only exception to this is if a resident of another state where to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer in Minnesota, and that firearm MUST under all circumstances be shipped to a licensed dealer in the state of residence of the purchaser. This applies equally to licensed and unlicensed firearms sellers, in that the non-resident purchaser cannot under any circumstance be in possession of said firearm, or both parties could spend years in a federal penitentiary.

No concealed carry statute of a state can override federal law. This is a concealed carry statute, not a firearms purchasing statute. One has nothing to do with the other.

Another point is what you brought up on the approval rate:

"This, despite the fact that a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension survey found that 93 percent of permit applicants got one in 2002."

This is because the residents of the twin cities area know that they will not be approved for personal protection, therefor, they do not apply because it is a waste of their time. Also, reports have been that several police departments actually refuse to give out applications in the Twin Cities area. What good is a high approval rating if you cannot even apply? Or you know you will be denied in the places with the highest population?

In any case, I hope we can have a good minded discussion on the matter.

With Regards,

Lonnie Wilson
Pink Pistols Member
 
Hmmm... We have a "reporter" who didn't bother to investigate enough to discover the basic information that Lonnie sent to her, or she deliberately ignored inconvenient facts that didn't support her pre-existing conclusion.

Maybe I need another layer in my tinfoil hat, but lately does it seem like there are more and more anti-RKBA articles like this one? They tend to be opinion pieces disguised as objective reporting, written in an emotionally inflammatory style with key facts omitted. Where are the journalists who will put their duty to Truth ahead of their pwecious feewings?
 
Yup Elmer, you got it. No longer do we see the Walter Cronkite type of reporter who just REPORTED THE NEWS and then shut up. Now, we have to hear the emotion of the reporter and actually watch the newspeople be part of the story!
The sheeple are conditioned for this.
 
Well, now that we've joined the 34 other states that have had this sort of legislation ramrodded through their legislatures by NRA lobbyists,

Replace "34 other states" with "America", legislatures with "Congress", and "NRA" with "HCI" and you have the AWB in a nutshell...
 
I sent this. I have no idea whether it will make any difference.

Mrs. Billings:

Normally, I would consider Minnesota's internal business to be outside my area of notice, but your mention of Illinois in a recent column bemoaning Minnesota's new CCW law caught my eye. I felt compelled to correct what appear to be some large gaps in your understanding of the situation.

__________________________________________________________________________

"For instance, the law has no requirement for state residency, meaning we are now poised to become the drive-through gun retailer to the upper Midwest, since neighboring states Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa have much more sensible laws. Is this really the way we want to shore up our economy?"


Gun retailer? Are you under the impression that shall-issue CCW somehow changes the procedures for purchasing a handgun? It doesn't. The only possible difference would be if your state waives the Brady Bill background check for CCW holders (which would make a lot of sense, considering the fact that CCW holders will already have gone through extensive background checks.) Even then, it wouldn't make much sense for an Illinois resident to drive to Minnesota and back (about a two-day trip for most people) simply to avoid a three-day wait in Illinois. And for people in your state, a CCW would only make it a bit quicker, but no easier, to purchase a gun--and that only for Certified Good Guys (tm) who have passed the checks.

Even if it did make sense, it would be illegal by Federal law for an Illinois resident to purchase a handgun in Minnesota. Federal law does not allow handgun purchases out of state unless the gun is shipped to an FFL within the state of residence and then transferred from the FFL to the purchaser in the standard manner. For an Illinois resident, this would mean a three-day waiting period, an instant background check, and requirement to show a valid FOID card. The FOID is Illinois' "Firearm Owner IDentification." It takes a photo and a background check to get one--which takes about three weeks if hunting season is not near.

The same Federal law does allow the purchase of long guns out of state, but only in neighboring states (not "neighboring" the way you used it, by proximity, but states which actually share borders with one's home state.) Thus an Illinois citizen could buy a long gun in Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, or Iowa the same way he could purchase one at home, but again, not in Minnesota.

If you would care to reply, I would enjoy the opportunity to discuss the merits of your new law with you. Although you are entitled to your opinion, you should understand that there are an awful lot of people in Minnesota who disagree with you and are very happy that your permit system has been reformed. There are also an awful lot of people in Illinois, Missouri and Iowa who look at Minnesota with envy--people like me. You might be interested to know that the majorities in two of those states are not as "sensible" as you appear to think ("sensible" being defined as "in agreement with Mrs. Billings.") Missouri put CCW to statewide referendum three years ago, and it was defeated only by the narrowest of margins, and almost certainly with the aid of computer fraud in St. Louis County. Missouri's late Governor Carnahan refused to attempt to certify the results for that very reason--to certify the results would have authorized an investigation into the alleged fraud, and he'd already gotten the result he wanted. As for Illinois, I think we both know that if Chicago fell into Lake Michigan tonight then Illinois would have CCW by next week.

Respectfully yours,

Don Gwinn
 
Last edited:
This, despite the fact that a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension survey found that 93 percent of permit applicants got one in 2002.

This above statement is B.S.

How many of you, as stated earlier by Lonnie, didn't even bother applying? In our county, the Sheriff wouldn't even accept your application unless it was accompanied by a letter from your employer showing need. Was this included in the 7% that was denied, I think not.
 
"It seems odd that legislators so concerned with "uniform policy" didn't offer the Senate the chance to amend some of these inconsistencies. "

Um, maybe that was because the democratic committee chairman wouldn't let the bill out of the Senate committee so that it could be debated by the entire Senate in the first place???
 
From A Human Right dot com:

A friend, who preferred to remain anonymous, has suggested describing her situation, which is quite typical. It vividly illustrates the problem with the current law.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Stalker, please write me a letter,

Remember when you started calling me two years ago? You told me how much you knew about me, my name, where I lived, that I did not drive and so had to walk to get anywhere. You kept calling me, sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, always from blocked numbers.

I called the cops about you. Because they do not view stalking as "an immediate threat", I had to leave a message. they responded two days later and told me to write down the times when you called me. I learned how to trace phone calls from the phone company. If the phone company traces three calls to the same number, they would write a letter to my stalker. If my stalker called from different or untraceable numbers, they cannot even do that much.

Now, my dearest stalker, I have a dilemma. You know, and you enjoy knowing, that you have intimidated me. I cannot safely go out at night to watch a movie or to buy a carton of milk. I dare not go anywhere alone. You can well imagine that this limits my life considerably, especially here, where nights are long much of the year and I do not get off work until after dark.
The police are of no help. They cannot station a cop by my door nor have one escort me everywhere. Since I am not a politician, the State does not provide me with a bodyguard and I cannot afford to hire one full-time. I hope you don't mind that I have solved part of the problem. I can now feel secure in my home, because I have means of defending myself here.

The other problem, how to survive outside of my home, remains. In our state, getting a permit to carry requires "showing a compelling need." That means that being a public figure or carrying large sums of money would qualify me for a permit. Being merely a law-abiding woman pursued by a stalker would not be a good enough reason from me to get a permit.

If I had physical evidence, perhaps a bullet hole or two in my windows, they would consider giving me the permit. So, my dear stalker, please write to me. A letter stating clearly who you are and when you plan to attack me would go a long way toward convincing my local Chief of Police that I deserve a means of self-protection.

A woman in Minneapolis
 
Search TFL archives for other tripe by Laura Billings. Arguing with her is a waste of time -- she's somewhere between evil and stupid, possibly both.
 
Okay - it's maybe the low road, but hey, every so often I've gotta call people names, or my brains 'splode.

You know, it _really_ hacks feelgood liberals to be accused of supporting gay bashing or klucking...

===
Discretionary CCW = Racist

You have to remember that when a governing body is allowed to use personal discretion (i.e., does this person look okay, do I think this person might commit crimes, did this person contribute to my campaign...), all sorts of nasty things happen. Minorities are not issued permits that nonminorities qualify for, gays & lesbians, some of the folks who NEED personal protection (see www.pinkpistols.org) are left to call an uncaring 911 after they're assaulted, and you perpetuate the Jim Crow system that spawned the first laws in this country that limited personal protection.

Of course, maybe folks up in your neck of the woods are just generally stupid or unreliable, and should have someone watching over them to make sure that the kind of "bloodbaths" that haven't happened in states like Florida, Kentucky or Texas don't occur there... Sounds kind of odd for a whole state to be that way tho... Looks like those Floridians, Kentuckians and Texans must be somehow morally superior to Minnesotans, huh?

In fact, about the only folks who oppose the "shall issue" CCW permits are either folks who think that a dead rape victim is somehow more noble than a live unraped person, or racist klucker wannabes...
 
Laura would never let facts get in the way of an opinion. I am not one to say that speaking your mind is ever a waste of time, but I personally choose to refrain from expending any effort on people who, over time, have refrained from taking a logic class in college. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top