Minnesota's Proposed "Assault Weapon" Bans (2024)

[ismith]

They are dismantling mental health care in this state. You know who "they" are.

Isn’t that antisemitism?

 

[BrentD]

Isn’t that antisemitism?

Are you saying the Governor is Jewish?

 

[ismith]

Are you saying the Governor is Jewish?

 

[Bonasababy]

Wow it seems like many are jumping to conclusions and vastly overreaching here. I see it all around.

Here's all that happened in MN gun legislation this year.

1) tighter regulations that make it harder to buy a gun in your name and give it to someone that is prohibited by law from owning guns.

2) Binary triggers---which essentially turn into semi-auto guns into near fully automatic --were banned.

Despite a whole boatload of saber rattling and cloud screaming, that's it. That's all that passed. There was a provision that would IMO have had broader impact that required gun locks and ammo separation that did not pass, which I was happy for. That didn't pass as some legislators from the group many think want to take their guns voted against it!

In both provisions that passed--we have seen good cops and first responders killed dead due to these in the last year and others wounded.

In Fargo a guy with a car full of guns and bombs--who was said to be headed to a large public gathering--pulled over near a minor car accident and when cops arrived starting shooting, overpowering three cops, shooting and wounding two and killing one, wounding a woman who was involved in the minor accident as well.

In the Twin Cities a guy prevented from owning guns with a history of abuse and legal issues shot and killed two Burnsville cops who arrived on a domestic assault call and also killed a first responder who bravely rushed in to help the injured cops. His girlfriend bought 5 guns for him at his direction--and knew that was illegal, as she had written a letter to a judge earlier trying to get his felony conviction gun rights restored.

I struggle when so many who at least say they support cops claim regs like this are taking their guns away.

I live and hunt nowhere near a major city but these things help me too and am glad they passed. Gang members travel to my area to buy guns through straw purchases--I'd rather see that limited and not have them around at all.

And the last few years--while hunting public land--I have wondered if I should hide behind a tree when someone let off what sounded for all the world like fully automatic fire of dozens of rounds. NO reason for them to be on public hunting lands IMO.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wow it seems like many are jumping to conclusions and vastly overreaching here. I see it all around.

Here's all that happened in MN gun legislation this year.

1) tighter regulations that make it harder to buy a gun in your name and give it to someone that is prohibited by law from owning guns.

2) Binary triggers---which essentially turn into semi-auto guns into near fully automatic --were banned.

Despite a whole boatload of saber rattling and cloud screaming, that's it. That's all that passed. There was a provision that would IMO have had broader impact that required gun locks and ammo separation that did not pass, which I was happy for. That didn't pass as some legislators from the group many think want to take their guns voted against it!

In both provisions that passed--we have seen good cops and first responders killed dead due to these in the last year and others wounded.

In Fargo a guy with a car full of guns and bombs--who was said to be headed to a large public gathering--pulled over near a minor car accident and when cops arrived starting shooting, overpowering three cops, shooting and wounding two and killing one, wounding a woman who was involved in the minor accident as well.

In the Twin Cities a guy prevented from owning guns with a history of abuse and legal issues shot and killed two Burnsville cops who arrived on a domestic assault call and also killed a first responder who bravely rushed in to help the injured cops. His girlfriend bought 5 guns for him at his direction--and knew that was illegal, as she had written a letter to a judge earlier trying to get his felony conviction gun rights restored.

I struggle when so many who at least say they support cops claim regs like this are taking their guns away.

I live and hunt nowhere near a major city but these things help me too and am glad they passed. Gang members travel to my area to buy guns through straw purchases--I'd rather see that limited and not have them around at all.

And the last few years--while hunting public land--I have wondered if I should hide behind a tree when someone let off what sounded for all the world like fully automatic fire of dozens of rounds. NO reason for them to be on public hunting lands IMO.

To be clear, the ridiculously stupid “separate lock ammo and firearm storage” bill was only short a single vote. And that guy is being “primaried” by the more liberal side of his own party. If the GOP in MN keeps losing suburban votes we are only one or two cycles from Massachusetts style gun regulation. Not hyperbole, not fear mongering, just simple assessment by a guy who counts legislative votes as part of his job.

 

[Addicting]

In Fargo a guy with a car full of guns and bombs--who was said to be headed to a large public gathering--pulled over near a minor car accident and when cops arrived starting shooting, overpowering three cops, shooting and wounding two and killing one, wounding a woman who was involved in the minor accident as well.

In the Twin Cities a guy prevented from owning guns with a history of abuse and legal issues shot and killed two Burnsville cops who arrived on a domestic assault call and also killed a first responder who bravely rushed in to help the injured cops. His girlfriend bought 5 guns for him at his direction--and knew that was illegal, as she had written a letter to a judge earlier trying to get his felony conviction gun rights restored.

Even with these new laws this would still of happened and will continue to happen.

Congrats on telling criminal that what they did was criminal.

 

[bucdoego]

I love when folks on the internet can’t even bother to know what they are posting about. I was probably voting GOP when your bike had training wheels.

No conviction... yet. An appeal following any conviction (or acquittal) is to be assumed, IMHO. If the Jury 'hangs'... who knows. Legal scholars are unimpressed with the whole thing. Makes NYC's legal system appear even more political. We live in interesting times...

 

[David58]

It was mini 14s and highpoint carbines not all that long ago

Choose a Mini14 to defend yourself today over an AR. Jury will see the pretty wood on that old Mini14 and not be terrified since it isn't black and evil.

 

[Bonasababy]

Even with these new laws this would still of happened and will continue to happen.

Congrats on telling criminal that what they did was criminal.

Not sure I agree. On the straw purchase change, it takes something that was already a legal issue and makes it a felony. Isn't that what folks who want us to enforce existing laws want? Making it even worse on criminals and those who help them?

Same with binary triggers. Anyone could order the parts to make that conversion. What possible legitimate purpose is there for those things? Do we really want every police department to need armored cars and full SWAT gear?

How can we say we support law enforcement and not at least tolerate those changes? In both incidents I mentioned they were just doing their jobs and found themselves overwhelmed by the firepower of one guy. I guess I don't get it.

 

[Addicting]

Not sure I agree. On the straw purchase change, it takes something that was already a legal issue and makes it a felony. Isn't that what folks who want us to enforce existing laws want? Making it even worse on criminals and those who help them?

Same with binary triggers. Anyone could order the parts to make that conversion. What possible legitimate purpose is there for those things? Do we really want every police department to need armored cars and full SWAT gear?

How can we say we support law enforcement and not at least tolerate those changes? In both incidents I mentioned they were just doing their jobs and found themselves overwhelmed by the firepower of one guy. I guess I don't get it.

Your choice to believe whatever you want. The two crimes you posted will continue to happen and neither of those two laws will change the fact that evil people will continue to be evil and commit crime.

 

[SAJ-99]

Your choice to believe whatever you want. The two crimes you posted will continue to happen and neither of those two laws will change the fact that evil people will continue to be evil and commit crime.

People do illegal drugs and no laws will stop them…so make them legal? Laws are what define things as being illegal (and hence criminal).

 

[Addicting]

People do illegal drugs and no laws will stop them…so make them legal? Laws are what define things as being illegal (and hence criminal).

Both those crimes listed were already illegal. Yet they still managed to commit them. How will these two specific laws change that?

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws, I’m say those individual don’t care and this changes nothing for them.

 

[SAJ-99]

Both those crimes listed were already illegal. Yet they still managed to commit them. How will these two specific laws change that?

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws, I’m say those individual don’t care and these change nothing for them.

Agree. I don’t have enough info to claim the new laws made things illegal that were already illegal, but that seems odd.

 

[longbow51]

We need to pick our battles more wisely. Not everything is a slippery slope; bump stocks, for example. Friend of mine who is kind of a nut with tinkering with everything bought one; horribly inaccurate, just a waste of ammo. Same with straw purchases and binary triggers.

Fight the battles that matter. I strongly want us to keep ARs as I feel they are absolutely the best form of self defense against home intruders for women and older folks; low recoil (unlike shotguns), high capacity magazines, red dot which stays on forever, easy to charge. My wife and many of her friends can't rack the slide on a semi-auto (want her to try the Walther PDP-F, but haven't seen one yet). And unless you compete, no one is as accurate with a pistol as with a rifle.

And yes, I'm sorry mentally ill folks use them in shootings, but why should the rest of us deprive our families of our best defense because of that? I'm also sorry that scads of inner city kids die every weekend from handguns, about which apparently zero people are concerned. Not black celebrities or activists, nor lib politicians. Why? Doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[BAKPAKR]

Keeping firearms that make you a "dead man waking" felon waiting to happen is not a viable approach to gun ownership. Most would just give them up - which is exactly what they are hoping for.

I think you hit the nail on the head and that is what really p!sses me off. These regulations are not going to dissuade 99% or so of the people who plan on acquiring firearms for criminal activities. I am pretty sure that the people who are really behind legislation like this are not worried about criminals but with people like you and me…

 

[Bonasababy]

We need to pick our battles more wisely. Not everything is a slippery slope; bump stocks, for example. Friend of mine who is kind of a nut with tinkering with everything bought one; horribly inaccurate, just a waste of ammo. Same with straw purchases and binary triggers.

Fight the battles that matter. I strongly want us to keep ARs as I feel they are absolutely the best form of self defense against home intruders for women and older folks; low recoil (unlike shotguns), high capacity magazines, red dot which stays on forever, easy to charge. My wife and many of her friends can't rack the slide on a semi-auto (want her to try the Walther PDP-F, but haven't seen one yet). And unless you compete, no one is as accurate with a pistol as with a rifle.

And yes, I'm sorry mentally ill folks use them in shootings, but why should the rest of us deprive our families of our best defense because of that? I'm also sorry that scads of inner city kids die every weekend from handguns, about which apparently zero people are concerned. Not black celebrities or activists, nor lib politicians. Why? Doesn't fit the narrative.

I thought Zumbo was right on the mark all those years ago, but am not interested in banning AR's and not sure how you could write a law that targets just them--or even define what they are. Don't see the need for high capacity mags though where you defined that line isn't easy either. And as mentioned huge capacity arms are filtering into the public fields and woods where they really do NOT belong.

Just seems like the days of teaching make one shot count have gone the way of getting as big a clip or magazine as you can, emptying your gun of dozens of rounds, and wanting to look like a soldier while doing it.

 

[Lota lota]

Not sure I agree. On the straw purchase change, it takes something that was already a legal issue and makes it a felony. Isn't that what folks who want us to enforce existing laws want? Making it even worse on criminals and those who help them?

Same with binary triggers. Anyone could order the parts to make that conversion. What possible legitimate purpose is there for those things? Do we really want every police department to need armored cars and full SWAT gear?

How can we say we support law enforcement and not at least tolerate those changes? In both incidents I mentioned they were just doing their jobs and found themselves overwhelmed by the firepower of one guy. I guess I don't get it.

None of these laws are going to reduce crime. It's a pipe dream to envision a world where criminals couldn't get their hands on firearms. People will commit crimes with guns, knives, bombs, cars you name it. If they want to break the law, they're going to find a way.

As far as these new proposed laws are concerned, I'm adamantly against them. They infringe on every legal gun owner's 2A right as a citizen of the U.S. The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. These legislators are creating law for the minority of the population while it's going to really only effect the majority of the population that have firearms. Legislators have no place to tell someone what they need/how much they need to protect their property and lives.

I was a law enforcement officer for 5 years, and approached everyone as if they were armed. I wish everyone was, there would be a lot less crime in my opinion. These unfortunate incidents with law enforcement are not preventable, whether the guy had a 10 round mag or 20 round mag...his mind was made up. There's a reason the founders of the constitution didn't specify "arms" as muskets or blunderbusses. They saw this shit coming a mile away.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Both those crimes listed were already illegal. Yet they still managed to commit them. How will these two specific laws change that?

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be laws, I’m say those individual don’t care and this changes nothing for them.

I think it had two purposes:

(1) virtue signaling by DFL as they knew they weren’t going to get much gun banning done this cycle.
(2) felonies get more prosecution resources and also felony charges also are used to drive plea bargains (see, over charging) - both should lead to more prosecutions

In the end, (2) is rational (but likely to little effect); but (1) was probably the driver.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There's a reason the founders of the constitution didn't specify "arms" as muskets or blunderbusses. They saw this shit coming a mile away.

You need to read more history, the founders were neither that aligned or claravoient.

I am a 2A supporter, but if the founders actually had their sh*t together on this topic they would have written a proper coherent sentence to cover it. Also, unlikely most had any interest in it covering state laws, as many of their own states had their own firearm rules.

 

[Lota lota]

You need to read more history, the founders were neither that aligned or claravoient.

I am a 2A supporter, but if the founders actually had their sh*t together on this topic they would have written a proper coherent sentence to cover it. Also, unlikely most had any interest in it covering state laws, as many of their own states had their own firearm rules.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It's pretty cut and dry to me.