Ammo For Sale

« « What media bias against guns? | Home | It’s time » »

More anti-gun silliness


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.

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 see it that way because you’re a fucking idiot. More:

Every concealed weapon, with very few exceptions, is a blow against the public safety. The new gun laws in Minnesota take away local discretion over concealed-weapon permits, and they cost the local authorities plenty too.

Then why has crime trended downward in each state that enacted concealed carry legislation? I realize it’s a far stretch to say that correlation concludes a thing but it definitely doesn’t show that concealed permit holders are a blow to public safety else crime would likely have trended upward.

Via Denise, who has more:

In other words concealed carry in Minnesota is a done deal and now anti-gunnies are fighting the Castle Doctrine. (Later he describes Florida’s Castle Doctrine as the “Shoot the Avon Lady” law.) There’s more than a little hysteria in his statement that such a law would allow gun owners to fire away. In his willful ignorance, he doesn’t state that you can’t shoot someone unless that person is a valid threat. It just means you don’t have to try to run.

She calls it willful ignorance. I call it fucking stupid. Tomato . . .

4 Responses to “More anti-gun silliness”

  1. Kristopher Says:

    I think that leftard has a fine idea there … mandatory carry.

    If he wants to be a self-defence C.O., he should have to get a permit to not open carry, and show it on demand to any citizen that notices that he is shirking his civic duty to bear arms.

  2. Lyle Says:

    I just want them to keep talking, writing, and producing idiotic ads. It gives us more insight as to the depths of their insanity. Note how they define upholding Liberty (the right to bear arms) as “taking away local discretion”. I love that one. Lets apply that position to some other hallmarks of a free society: Nation-wide Emancipation takes away local discression regarding the keeping of slaves. The First Amendment takes away local discression regarding the confiscation of computers and printing machines and it takes away local discression to ban Southern Baptists from holding public office. The Fourth Amendment takes away local discression regarding door-to-door searches and property confiscation.

    I guess we’re not “free” after all if we don’t have local discression to ban or confiscate anything we want, or enslave anyone we want.

    These people are dangerous if trusted to any political power whatsoever. They wouldn’t make decent local dog catchers.

  3. Sigivald Says:

    So that no one misses the point, the Legislature has also turned Minnesota into what is called a “shall require” state.

    I don’t, apart from any other evidence of stupidity, trust a reporter writing on this issue that can’t even get “shall issue” correct.

  4. htom Says:

    The sign he quotes doesn’t meet the legal standard for wordage here in Minnesota, btw, so it’s a “feel good” sign for those who want signs but who don’t want to actually ban concealed carry permit holders.

    If it said “[name of business] BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES.” then it would be a legal sign, but hotels are not among the businesses allowed to ban (at least for their guests), so it’s still not a ban.

    Joel Rosenberg delivers a better fisking here :