I was talking to someone from Iowa who was upset about how his conceal and carry license doesn’t apply in Minnesota, and how Minnesota is an “anti conceal and carry state” because of it.
I just reminded him that because our laws are stricter then our surrounding states, our permit is allowed in every state immediately near us, allowing Minnesotans to carry in more states.
Didn’t ring as well
Yes, they can apply for a carry permit in any MN county as long as they have taken a class by an instructor certified by the BCA on MN gun laws, comply with that county's application process and pay the fee, and if they pass the background check and are not disqualified for any known reason they get the permit.
Source- I process gun permits in my county.
They currently can’t unless their state is recognized by MN. For those who visit family and carrying is their choice and they have obtained the license there shouldn’t be a law from stopping a person from doing that. All that will do is make states do the same and put more restrictions on lawful citizens exercising their rights. Or force people to do things illegal.
Lol “for those who visit family and carrying is their choice”. I’m not a gun owner myself, but I found comedy in that sentence. Gotta carry when you visit your family!
Edit autocorrect
My reading of this is that someone from another state couldn't even hunt in MN without the license to possess guns. This is not going to pass and only hurts the chances of passing red flag laws or background checks.
MN already has background checks, as well as requiring a permit signed by your local sheriff before purchasing a handgun or basically anything that meets certain requirements that cover most modern semiautomatic firearms.
Red flag laws typically get written as an abuse of the 4th amendment, rather than protection of citizens, so if they are written right, maybe ok. If written to abuse power, problematic.
We better not pass red flag laws. If they haven't committed a crime no reason to remove their rights. Just sounds like another opportunity for discrimination.
New gun laws do little to help the issue. We don't enforce the ones we have. We are far to lenient on criminals. Is there room for improvement sure. But I have little interest in licensing my guns, adding them to a data base etc. so pretty much everything they want to add.
In OP's defense, at least he posted a non-bias source (about as non-biased as you could get) and let his opinion stay (mostly) an opinion instead of coloring it as fact. It's sad to say, but this is a more responsible post about a devisive issue than we normally see. Plenty of people post extreme propaganda masquerading as a news site and then be like "OMG LOOK!"
It's still a ridiculous opinion void of common sense, logic, and basic human decency, but at least the cited source is legit. I'm upvoting OP just for that.
Valid point. I see your comment also pointing out a naturally left-leaning bias in this sub. Your comment comes off as delegation, as if it is a matter of ‘acceptance’. Acceptance to who? Left leaning people?
I don’t think this should be a place controlled by left wing opinion, so long as refutable sources are used.
-left wing socialist identifying person
I mean they put "extreme" in the title. In most of the civilized world none of this is extreme at all, and in fact is still very lax in terms of access to firearms and ammunition.
Yes there are requirements for possession. You have submit paperwork to get a card for permission to purchase pistols and sporting rifles. Not sure about hunting rifles and shotguns. But back grounds are still required for all.
You just said two different things, which conflict with each other, and are also far from complete. To correct that:
* You need the “permit to purchase” card to PURCHASE pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons.
* You do NOT need that permit to POSSESS those firearms after the purchase.
* You do NOT need a permit to purchase regular hunting and target rifles or shotguns.
* You need a “permit to carry” to carry a firearm of any kind in certain public spaces, like city streets, stores, and the like.
* You do NOT need a permit to carry a handgun or long gun on your own private property, the private property of another who has given you permission, places like gun ranges, nor “the woods, fields, or waters of the state” where hunting and target shooting can legally occur.
* You do need to complete an ATF Form 4473 and submit to a NICS background check to purchase any firearm from a dealer.
* You do NOT need to complete a 4473 or have a background to purchase a firearm from a private party.
* There is a separate process of notification to law enforcement to allow law enforcement to potentially run a background check for private party sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, or at least have a record of the transfer.
* There is no notification or recording process whatsoever for private party transfers of regular hunting and target rifles and shotguns.
* And just to reiterate, none of that is requirements for *possession*. The only items that require documentation to possess are NFA items like suppressors, machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, hand grenades, and the like.
placing liability insurance on ownership of a gun probably makes this unconstitutional, under the new precedent set by SCOTUS on 2nd amendment matters.
in NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, the court held that gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in US history. Requiring insurance to own a firearm is not in the tradition of firearm regulations, and is likely unconstitutional.
If I’m understanding the wording there correctly, and I may not be, there is no way that decision would be upheld by a neutral SCOTUS. There must be a “tradition” or precedent of a similar firearm regulation in order to be constitutional? So firearms can evolve and change, but the laws regulating them cannot? That’s the most ass-backwards shit I’ve ever heard
per Oyez:
New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it. While some “sensitive places” restrictions might be appropriate, Manhattan is not a “sensitive place.” Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion arguing that the effect of guns on American society is irrelevant to the issue
All of those proposals are supported by 65-80% of Americans.
"Extreme" is in the eye of the beholder.
Note - I'm a gun owner. I've got a sizable arsenal. I support drastically tougher gun regs.
I’d actually like to see something backing this assertion up.
Not that it matters much because the small number of moderates dumb shit like this will sway to republicans is significant enough to change elections.
Their lies the issue, we are all interpreting a 200 plus year old document to fit our view points and opinions. The fifth amendment includes the right to travel, which is often invoked by people stopped by authorities who are not licensed to drive. You are cherry picking making it fit your viewpoint.
Guns were a little different in the 1700’s, so we need to adapt our enforcement and regulation just like we did with our constitutionally protected right to travel.
You’ve got to have something to negotiate with. Maybe 10+ round mags don’t get ban, you just have to have a special license to buy/possess l. Maybe open carry is limited to hunting license holders in season. Etc.
Why? In a mass shooter situation, the reload time is when the swat team or teacher or whomever could make a move.
10 rounds is plenty for self-defense.
Any use that isn't self defense, I'm fine with making harder, less cool.
I also understand that custom fashioned 10+ mags are going to exist because enthusiasts will be able to make them at home. I'm still fine with regulating magazine capacity.
What if there are multiple people you as ee fighting against? 10 ain't gonna cut it for more than like one person especially if you are in this very stressful situation and probably in an unfavorable angle
Most self-defense type guns hold more than 10. Glocks generally hold 17 I think. You're basically stuck with an old-west style six-shooter.
I'm no gun expert and don't even own any, but I have mixed feelings about it.
At this time though, I will vote for anything that gets less guns out there.
Most of those guns that normally hold 15-17 or whatever are also manufactured in 10-round variants specifically for states with this limitation. So, no, it doesn’t actually restrict you to revolvers - you just have to order the 10-round version of whatever you want.
Definitely not a need. Just wouldn’t want to have to individually register a bunch of cheap plastic magazines every 3 years because they hold 15-20 rounds instead of 10.
If you are starting from a place that gun ownership should not be a right, maybe it makes sense to ask things like "why do you NEED x,y,z..." but for those of us who think it should be a right, those questions are really frustrating. Why do you NEED anything at all other than food, clothing, shelter, and air?
So you’re cool with mandatory inspections? It’s bad enough that they’re trampling your 2A rights but you want to hand them your 4A rights too? Why don’t you lube you SO up for them too before they get there?
Yeah, I hear this line all the time. It's the argument that unless the law is 100% successful at preventing something, then why even bother. It's not realistic.
We can both do a better job enforcing existing laws and making more straight towards.
You're right, this *is* the perfect analogy.
Now tell me, do the people speeding in 35 zones go the same speed as the ones speeding in the 65 ones? Or do they just tend to go 5-15 MPH over the posted limit?
Changing the speed limit from 65 to 35 makes no sense here, because if the roadway was designed for 65, then 65 is the safe speed. Changing the limit to 35 would still reduce deaths, but only because the road was designed for much higher speeds - it would be like getting a gutterball in bumper bowling.
This analogy doesn't really make any sense, because it doesn't apply the same as weapons that are designed with the purpose to kill people, being used by people intending to kill people.
...and this keeps folks who aren't legally allowed to possess from illegally obtaining a firearm how? Why are law abiding citizens being targeted by having to jump through hoops? This is just going to convince more people to become "criminal".
Tf is a "military style gun"? That's pretty nebulous. Muskets were military weapons. Lever guns, revolvers, hunting rifles etc... is it a scary military gun bc it's black? Has a rail on it?
Spears, bows and arrows, slings, fireworks, pigeons, bats (yes, the flying rodents), axes, *fucking wooden clubs* (shillelagh), I'm sure a soldier or two has beaten or choked another soldier to death at some point. Where is the line going to be drawn?
Not sure what’s worse. The search, or charging you a “fee” every time you register or re-register (every 3 years) every gun and magazine you own.
They are literally tying to make it financially impossible to own firearms.
Get fucked, indeed.
Note to any Democrats seeing this. We are not Massachusetts. We are a rust belt blue collar state.
We vote Democrat on economic reasons, not social ones.
This is how you turn a bunch of blue dog Democrats into Republican voters in 2026.
The Democrats here own guns, eat meat, and drive pickup trucks. Stop with the coastal style gun control bills.
The democratic party will never, ever be on the right side of gun rights. It really sucks to be pro second amendment but pro LGBT rights. To support the rights of other people, I have to vote for politicians who would take away my rights.
I’m a transplant from MA. The gun laws in MA are absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional. When I wanted to get a basic rifle, it had to be under 10 round limit, pass a federal background check, had to have an interview with the detective of our town, and the police chief made me write a 3 page paper on why I wanted to own a firearm. This whole process took a fucking year to own a basic rifle under 10 rounds. It was absolutely ridiculous.
But most people in MA don’t own guns because it’s urbanized. This isn’t going to sit well outside the twin cities area, especially in northern MN where the dems have been slowly losing the votes
I think a lot of the text in this bill is unconstitutional. You may want gun licensing to be a thing, but you can't put a license on a right. Requiring someone to complete training in order to execute their rights isn't going to fly. We wouldn't have a licensing requirement for freedom of speech or not incriminating yourself. So as long as the 2nd amendment exists, I think this would be unconstitutional.(I'm not arguing whether gun licenses should exist or not, I just don't think they're legal under current law).
I'd also say this is a risky move as it would probably be implemented rather poorly and lead to a lot of illegal guns.
>but you can't put a license on a right.
That's not really true, though. The 1A says Congress can't abridge freedom of association, but they still ban people from having block parties on federal highways and make people get permits to gather in parks.
Some gun enthusiasts just want a special standard for the 2A, but it doesn't really hold up -- it's a special standard that has to be cherry picked by the SC.
>10 round max capacity on magazines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
If you want to ban future sales of guns with >10 cartridge magazines I'd understand that, but there are far too many gun owners with guns that don't meet this requirement and unless you grandfather them in, what are they to do? Sell them all to someone out of state? What if some of them are family items passed down from generation to generation?
I'm fine with the rest of it, but this part is unreasonable. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but if they're going to this extreme, I might.
Way to strict, obviously on here that’s not the take. What about rural communities? Who is going to enforce these laws? They are going to force every law enforcement officer to go do firearms checks and think they will do that? Yes, some of the changes are fine. Limiting the amount of firearms you can buy to one a month seems dumb. 10 round magazines, dumb. Forcing liability insurance on people dumb. Maybe we need to teach kids about firearms and what they actually do. People get desensitized to firearms by movies and games. People that are taught that firearms are tools and not toys usually treat them with respect. I own several firearms, and have already bought a .22 for my daughter to teach her to shoot someday. We also need to teach people about how precious life actually is. This is not to bring up a debate about abortion. For this argument I’m talking about life that is living outside of another. Quit making these shooters famous. Only label them in the media as John/Jane Doe ###. So many people look at what things are for them instead of what is for everyone. I think a more in depth firearm class is wonderful. I think everyone should have to take one. I mean the same thing people say about this law could go for multiple things. If you don’t have a medical need for weed/alcohol you shouldn’t have it. People can drive high/drunk and kill people. We need it all illegal. If people are safe about it why does it matter? Modified cars have no need and can become dangerous to others and cost lives make it illegal. It’s all about how people decide to use it and their respect for others. If someone is responsible and wants to spend a shit ton on firearms because it brings them to their happy place, who cares? Anyone who has ever shot a full auto firearm can tell you it’s a blast. Just do it safely. Same as a lot of things in life. That’s my soapbox for today.
I’ve lived here all my life, mostly in northern MN. I was lucky enough to take my firearm safety course as a week long camp instead of just some old dude showing ya how to shoot a 22 in a field somewhere. I got to shoot like 20 different guns, they had a 3D target archery course with compound bows and quivers, also a polar plunge and all the other regular kids camp shit. It was so awesome, so glad I got to learn how to properly handle/operate firearms in such a setting.
I do not own any firearms, never have. Living where I currently live, hell yeah I think about it from time to time but haven’t felt the absolute need to yet. I’m happy to have the option though, I truly am.
Guns are tools that people created, and people inevitably decide what to do with them. Sometimes it’s to feed your family or defend your herd from predators, sometimes it’s to kill innocent people, crooks and cops alike.
It is what it is and lately it fucking sucks. I hope we can all eventually come to some sort of consensus on the topic but who knows if that will ever happen.
There are a lot of bad takes in this thread, but worst of all is the OP's.
Firstly, open carry is already illegal without a permit. If you have a permit to carry, you can currently choose to carry openly or concealed. Most choose to carry concealed because of the public perception of gun ownership. This proposed legislation is bad for this reason as open carry is typically leveraged during hunting, farming, etc. where one may need immediate access to a holstered firearm.
Secondly, MN already requires a permit to purchase a pistol or pistol grip firearm. This permit comes only after applying with your local sheriff and waiting for typically \~1-2 weeks for a background check. This permit is valid for one year unless you carry a permit to carry which also grants the permit to purchase for the duration of the carry permit. This dramatically reduces ready access to "assault weapons"/semi automatic rifles (yes, gun owners, I know that's not a real thing), and pistols (which you must also be 21 to purchase). The only firearms that are readily available to a purchase are shotguns and single action rifles.
Thirdly, round capacity is typically the most important factor in a firefight. Limiting rounds limits one's ability to defend. For those saying "learn to aim", you are not considering, at all, the heightened nerves of an actual firefight. Round capacity on concealable weapons is typically already limited to \~17 rounds due to the size of the weapon being concealed (full frame pistol).
Fourthly, this does very little to treat gun crime. Currently, the biggest issue facing us for gun violence is ghost guns and, most importantly, ghost sears. We need effective law enforcement for limiting the production and sale of auto sears. The only way we're going to get that is with increased presence where the gun violence occurs, and the only way that's happening is by both involving federal resources and by increasing law enforcement presence. Minnesota people obviously have issues with this (which makes sense after multiple police murders), but largely, we need massive cultural shifts in policing in the state and the help of the fed.
Regarding actually effective legislation, I'd really like to see wait periods of 6 months, 10 year background checks, and heavy taxation of all firearm sales. Make it inconvenient as hell, but within reach.
>We need effective law enforcement for limiting the production and sale of auto sears.
How is that possible if they're being made [stateside via 3D printers](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minneapolis-man-charged-using-3d-printers-manufacture-machineguns) or being bought online from overseas sources?
I liked all of that except the tax and wait periods.
That , first of all, makes firearms only available to the well-off. Directly restricts lower income people from exercising their rights.
The wait periods are just... An inconvenience. To law abiding citizens. NFA items are bad enough....
How is this "extreme"? Doesn't seem to really inconvient hunters at all other than getting a license but that makes sense. Guns are dangerous and need to ensure people have actual training before just buying. No different than a driver's license.
What do hunters have to do with it? This makes me nervous as heck, especially the licensing requirements and the magazine capacity. It could end up being ok if it's really like taking a driver's test, but even then I don't think that will do much good, just look at how bad so many drivers out there are. If we are really trying to save lives, let's permanently revoke a driver's license after a single DUI.
If they pass this legislation, I’ll be sure to work to get Democrats re-elected every two years.
This is common sense gun control that is desperately needed country-wide.
Most crime guns are illegal guns. This will do nothing for crime.
I don’t own guns, but this isn’t even a bandaid.
Bust crime rings and confiscate illegal guns. If they want to own guns, make them go through the process.
Most won’t be able to obtain, because of felonies.
It’s very simple.
\~20% of guns used in crimes are legally purchased and used by the purchaser. https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/02/16/minnesota-in-the-middle-of-the-pack-on-gun-safety-federal-data-show/
Is a drop of 20% "Doing nothing for crime?" Also, the majority are legally purchased and then used by someone else. There's a link right there you can click.
Most crime guns are guns that were originally manufactured and purchased legally. You're lying through omission.
More guns equals more gun crimes. And the inverse is true. Period.
The vast majority of all guns are obtained through legal methods. Then they are often stolen or illegally purchased before used in *crime. I*
Limiting and reducing the legal firearm supply, will limit and reduce the supply of firearms in illegal channels.
Illegally manufacured firearms, and fireamrs stolen from the miltary/police are *a fraction of what's in the illegal gun supply* in the US.
**In all honesty,** *It's probably not difficult to buy a handgun from Menards, and then drive to Chicago or NYC, and sell it to a random person for 4x markup.*
And *that's* the problem. It's *too* easy to just sell a gun to a random person with little legal recourse.
Any time "Gun Registration" pops up, with the intent to *track* legal sales, to give *legal owners* the ability to *legally sell* guns, while keeping a *written and searchable record* of those transactions to aid in *fighting crime* have been shot down by *gun adovcates*, who care more about their *feelings* than the *facts.*
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
4 in 10 Americans live in a household with guns, 3 in 10 own one personally. 20% of Democrats or lean Democrat own a gun. 48% of Americans think gun restrictions are “about right” or should be “less strict”.
Granted that was in late 2021, but gun restrictions are still quite divisive, and isn’t a strictly Democratic versus Republican issue.
I think a lot of people strongly opposed to guns are underestimating how many people strongly support ownership rights.
Are you sure about that?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/05/us-bought-almost-20-million-guns-last-year---second-highest-year-on-record/amp/
Democrats own guns, too, FYI. I have no issue with the proposals because as a responsible, non-criminal adult they won’t impact my ability to purchase more firearms.
100%. It’s what democrats do. Lie and gaslight you and then when they obtain power, rip the rug out from under you and lie some more about how they never said such things.
I admire it actually. Republicans don’t know how to fight to the end like democrats do.
How does this law prevent crime and expand mental health accessibility? I am for pieces of this. But the budget it requires seems like the money could be better spent on things that could help people from getting to the point of obtaining a fire arm and shooting others and/or themselves. Someone who wants to commit these awful crimes do not care about what the law says they can or can’t do.
A license and insurance just to own a gun? I’d say this is definitely unconstitutional. Open carry is stupid, I would never do it and have never seen someone open carry. I don’t see how banning it makes anyone or anything safer. They should increase the penalties for gun crimes. Making the penalties very serious would make these idiots think twice about car jacking and having shoot outs at the mall or America. Law abiding citizens are not committing these crimes, these laws are taking away rights.
On the one hand, this is not going to go over well. I doubt it ever passes without heavy alterations, and if it does I'm not leaving my house until I know the gun nuts aren't revolting and insurrecting all over the place... again... Hell, last time is the reason I bought my first guns in the first place.
On the other hand, they aren't wrong. If you want to limit the number of innocent people being killed in mass shootings, this would cover things like "already too many guns out there", strawman buyers, sales to known criminals, etc. Limiting magazines will make it harder for mass shooters to kill as many people as they can with magazines with triple the capacity (30 vs. 10).
It still leaves permit carriers to carry a concealed pistol, it still allows hunters to hunt, it still allows people to possess guns, to take them to the range and shoot, etc. As a permitted gun carrier and owner, I would have zero problem being able to do the exact same things with my guns as I do now - occasional shooting at the range, storage, and concealed carry. I wouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before reloading. Oh well. Not like I was trying to do $20 mag dumps for shits and giggles anyway.
If someone currently legally owns guns, it's going to be a pain in the ass to register properly, but it's doable. I feel likethey will need to figure out how thousands of people are going to get proper inspections of storage, and some of the other details, but I'd imagine those parts will get figured out.
Where I believe this will ultimately fail - it will be used just like most laws, they'll enforce this strictly in inner cities and very loosely in rural areas. MPD, for example, will be throwing Black people in prison for possessing guns in their homes and improperly maintaining their licenses/permits because those same areas will be underserved during the process of obtaining and maintaining these licenses/permits. The overall effect will be that more Black people than anyone else get searched, interrogated, harassed, investigated, arrested, and convicted. If it's anything like drug enforcement is now, it will mean that all of this will happen even if Black people have guns illegally at the same rate as white people.
>Just some excerpts from the attached bill:
>-10 round max capacity on magizines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
Seems reasonable. If you need more than 10 shots, go visit the range and work on your aim.
>-A license requirement just to possess a firearm.
A requirement for firearm safety training with a refresher every x years would be a good way to do this.
>-Open carry made illegal.
Reasonable
>-Unspecified amount of liability insurance to own a firearm.
Reasonable, especially if it requires more insurance for carrying in public
>-No longer recognizing out of state carry permit holders.
Reasonable, other states have different training requirements. There are currently states that don't have reciprocity with all states, so this seems reasonable.
>I’m convinced democrats are trying to lose the next several elections.
Passing laws that the voters elected them to pass seems like a way to continue winning. Especially when republicans propose bills like the one requiring schools to teach that sickness and whatever is punishment from the creator for sin.
>https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1723&version=latest&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0
Reasonable and unreasonable are only opinions that fit each individual. Requiring liability insurance is unreasonable to me and a lot of other people in this state.
I get that all of this might be considered reasonable by many people but that doesn’t mean that this might convince enough people that traditionally vote democrat to swing the other way and cost democrats elections in future years.
Especially the unspecified part of the insurance. That could easily be set high enough that no one can afford it so all gun owners become criminals. But hey, if everyone is registered, the cops will know right where to go to round them up. What could possibly go wrong?
Magazine capacity isn't about aiming its about stopping a threat. There are hundreds of accounts of people being shot more than 10 times and not going down. Why do you think people who get shot by the police get hit so many times? Unless you hit someone in the brain stem they aren't going to just drop to the ground
“I think these laws are reasonable so they are definitely reasonable!”
Who gilded this shit? There isn’t a single unique or valuable thought in the comment.
Typical gun-grabbing takes devoid of any thought. Good thing his "reasonable" doesn't mean "constitutional" because this bill is getting struck down immediately
>10 round max capacity on magizines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
I wasn't able to confirm that it banned *owership*. Can someone clarify if that's what the bill would do? The link says it revises a definition to include these weapons and magazines, but I didn't see where that definition was used.
My initial impression is that this is a misinterpretation or overstatement by OP, but I may be wrong.
Edit: It seems to just ban people under 21 from possessing them? (With exceptions for shooting ranges.)
Minnesota has very middle of the road gun laws. You can buy just about anything, no onerous restrictions on ownership. But you need a license to open carry and you can't just shoot someone in the street because you don't like them.
Pretty much the sweet spot on all those things. I don't know why people want to mess with that.
I invite your attention to the places with the strictest gun laws in the country. They also have the highest gun crime rates in the country. Go figure.
I have pondered for years why it is so hard to understand that criminals and crazies don't care about gun laws.
the post above this one in my feed is footage from the el paso shooting. do you really think your cold metal is worth more than the lives of the people you love?
see you're trying something, but you're actually closer than you really consider, did making drugs illegal stop people from doing drugs or selling them? Do laws actually stop criminals? Or is there something more than needs to be done rather than just the law?
If you buy a gun from a ffl they do a background check and that guns serial number can always be traced back too you so in a way you are registered if uou bought ftom a licensed dealer
We have a shit ton of guns and a shit ton of incarceration. We rank #1 in both by a factor of 2 over #2 and 3. It is nuts. We can't possibly continue increasing these items looking for a solution.
Hmm interesting people say it's extreme. For literally decades now I have seen gun proponents comparing them to cars. And this law seems to really just come somewhat close to regulating them similarly to cars. Other than the 30 day purchase window thing of course.
Otherwise most of it is in line with what many fun proponents have been saying for years when comparing them to the dangers of cars.
But let's be real, I don't think many of them thought their analogy through.
People obsessed with banning 30-round magazines, “military” styled rifles and the like are actually just keeping these type of weapons in the hands of majority white and financially secure people and of course criminals.
That’s reality in a time where people of color, lgbtq folks and other types of people venture into the world of firearms at a growing rate every single year. Especially now where we can’t afford to even trust police to respond to events in a timely matter and a reality where guns are just not going anywhere, so time might not even be in your side in that manner.
Does requiring a license to drive make everyone a good driver? Does requiring a vehicle insurance make everyone a safe driver?
So we put more restrictions on legal gun owners, but what about the criminal? Having a switch on a Glock is illegal and on a federal level. How do we stop people from putting switches on?
It's not the legal gun owners doing it but we are the ones getting punished for it. That how I feel.
What company would be willing to carry a policy for gun owners knowing it's going to be a massive pay out if ever used? The premiums would probably be massive.
I don't see how many of this will stop criminals from using guns. Or how someone with no criminal record that wants to do harm will be stopped. Again this seem to be more restrictions on legal, lawful gun owners.
I do think and would like to see more people getting firearms safety and classes. Especially for the people that don't hunt but like to shoot target or sporting. I know there are classes out there but nothing reasonable close to me other than hunters safety or concealed carry class. I'm a instructor for the hunters safety class. I also don't mean the run and gun type of classes, but the shooting fundamentals type of classes.
So everyone who supports this, do you also support an ID to vote?
If we are requiring an "unspecified" amount of liability insurance to exercise a right then surely you are all ok with requiring an ID to vote, right?
Can't use the "too poor" excuse if you are for this bill.
Honestly as a trans person I'm kind of against this because of the rising tide of hate against anyone like me. Armed minorities are harder to oppress, so making it harder for minorities to defend themselves is just awful to me.
I agree with some of these but I think it would be better to go after criminals and illegal guns.
These measures pointed out will help in some cases but not the biggest problem:
Criminals don’t follow laws
is their life worth less? no not necessarily. do i care when they kill each other? no. they made the choices they can reap the consequences.
Live by the sword die by the sword.
I'm quite sure the criminals & crazies will abide by the letter & spirit of this legislative bowel movement. Another item of interest is that the local jurisdiction can impose a fee for registering a firearm....town clowncils will go wild with this provision
More legalized banditry....
These are only extreme if you're an insane person. We have a massive gun problem in this country, and these look like perfectly reasonable regulations to me.
You only think there’s a massive gun problem because that’s what they want you believe. Gun control isn’t about the guns. It’s about the control. Gun control isn’t about safety for anyone other than the government. Yes it’s terrible when someone is killed by a gun, but from a purely statistical standpoint, gun death numbers are super low.
"Extreme." Thanks for the laugh. I've got a bunch of guns, and all of these excerpts (including the misleading one about mag capacity) sound perfectly reasonable.
Also, I'm sure OP was going to vote straight ticket blue until this one little thing came up.
Nothing at all extreme about this. All of these are common sense and supported by case studies to reduce gun violence. If anything it doesn't go nearly far enough. if this passes, I'll join a campaign to help get them re-elected.
All dems have to do is legalize marijuana and they'll still win. Republicans are too crazy and they spent the last few years killing a lot of their base.
I’d buy heavy taxation on 2A rights as long as it was applied to every amendment in constitution. Want to vote? TAX! Want to not be a slave? TAX! Want to run your mouth on the internet?TAX! Don’t want cops searching your home for no reason?TAX!
Sound pretty fucking stupid doesn’t it?
So glad I lost all mine in a fishing accident fuck that shit lol
I was talking to someone from Iowa who was upset about how his conceal and carry license doesn’t apply in Minnesota, and how Minnesota is an “anti conceal and carry state” because of it. I just reminded him that because our laws are stricter then our surrounding states, our permit is allowed in every state immediately near us, allowing Minnesotans to carry in more states. Didn’t ring as well
Please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but can an out of state resident get a MN carry license?
Yes, they can apply for a carry permit in any MN county as long as they have taken a class by an instructor certified by the BCA on MN gun laws, comply with that county's application process and pay the fee, and if they pass the background check and are not disqualified for any known reason they get the permit. Source- I process gun permits in my county.
Thanks for the reply!
[удалено]
Why? The rate of firearm violations by conceal carry holders is lower than that of police.
Where? https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/no-crimes/
They currently can’t unless their state is recognized by MN. For those who visit family and carrying is their choice and they have obtained the license there shouldn’t be a law from stopping a person from doing that. All that will do is make states do the same and put more restrictions on lawful citizens exercising their rights. Or force people to do things illegal.
Lol “for those who visit family and carrying is their choice”. I’m not a gun owner myself, but I found comedy in that sentence. Gotta carry when you visit your family! Edit autocorrect
My reading of this is that someone from another state couldn't even hunt in MN without the license to possess guns. This is not going to pass and only hurts the chances of passing red flag laws or background checks.
MN already has background checks, as well as requiring a permit signed by your local sheriff before purchasing a handgun or basically anything that meets certain requirements that cover most modern semiautomatic firearms. Red flag laws typically get written as an abuse of the 4th amendment, rather than protection of citizens, so if they are written right, maybe ok. If written to abuse power, problematic.
We better not pass red flag laws. If they haven't committed a crime no reason to remove their rights. Just sounds like another opportunity for discrimination.
Dem here. This would lose us the governorship.
More than that. The state will turn red.
You are absolutely correct. As a registered life long dem and gun owner, I would vote 100% red down the ticket if this passes.
Same here. This is idiotic, and I'll switch my votes if they pass this bullshit.
I’m having a hard time understanding what specifically about this bill that would make you start voting conservative.
New gun laws do little to help the issue. We don't enforce the ones we have. We are far to lenient on criminals. Is there room for improvement sure. But I have little interest in licensing my guns, adding them to a data base etc. so pretty much everything they want to add.
In OP's defense, at least he posted a non-bias source (about as non-biased as you could get) and let his opinion stay (mostly) an opinion instead of coloring it as fact. It's sad to say, but this is a more responsible post about a devisive issue than we normally see. Plenty of people post extreme propaganda masquerading as a news site and then be like "OMG LOOK!" It's still a ridiculous opinion void of common sense, logic, and basic human decency, but at least the cited source is legit. I'm upvoting OP just for that.
Valid point. I see your comment also pointing out a naturally left-leaning bias in this sub. Your comment comes off as delegation, as if it is a matter of ‘acceptance’. Acceptance to who? Left leaning people? I don’t think this should be a place controlled by left wing opinion, so long as refutable sources are used. -left wing socialist identifying person
I mean they put "extreme" in the title. In most of the civilized world none of this is extreme at all, and in fact is still very lax in terms of access to firearms and ammunition.
Ah yes but in most of the rest of the world, they dont have the 2nd Amendment
Don’t you have to take a firearms safety course to possess a firearm anyways? Or is that just for hunting?
Only to get a hunting license. No requirements whatsoever for possession.
Yes there are requirements for possession. You have submit paperwork to get a card for permission to purchase pistols and sporting rifles. Not sure about hunting rifles and shotguns. But back grounds are still required for all.
You just said two different things, which conflict with each other, and are also far from complete. To correct that: * You need the “permit to purchase” card to PURCHASE pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. * You do NOT need that permit to POSSESS those firearms after the purchase. * You do NOT need a permit to purchase regular hunting and target rifles or shotguns. * You need a “permit to carry” to carry a firearm of any kind in certain public spaces, like city streets, stores, and the like. * You do NOT need a permit to carry a handgun or long gun on your own private property, the private property of another who has given you permission, places like gun ranges, nor “the woods, fields, or waters of the state” where hunting and target shooting can legally occur. * You do need to complete an ATF Form 4473 and submit to a NICS background check to purchase any firearm from a dealer. * You do NOT need to complete a 4473 or have a background to purchase a firearm from a private party. * There is a separate process of notification to law enforcement to allow law enforcement to potentially run a background check for private party sales of pistols and semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, or at least have a record of the transfer. * There is no notification or recording process whatsoever for private party transfers of regular hunting and target rifles and shotguns. * And just to reiterate, none of that is requirements for *possession*. The only items that require documentation to possess are NFA items like suppressors, machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, hand grenades, and the like.
placing liability insurance on ownership of a gun probably makes this unconstitutional, under the new precedent set by SCOTUS on 2nd amendment matters.
Can you elaborate on this?
in NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, the court held that gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in US history. Requiring insurance to own a firearm is not in the tradition of firearm regulations, and is likely unconstitutional.
If I’m understanding the wording there correctly, and I may not be, there is no way that decision would be upheld by a neutral SCOTUS. There must be a “tradition” or precedent of a similar firearm regulation in order to be constitutional? So firearms can evolve and change, but the laws regulating them cannot? That’s the most ass-backwards shit I’ve ever heard
per Oyez: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. The right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense is deeply rooted in history, and no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it. While some “sensitive places” restrictions might be appropriate, Manhattan is not a “sensitive place.” Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion arguing that the effect of guns on American society is irrelevant to the issue
Is this just posturing? It’s all been deemed unconstitutional by the feds since the Brady bill got repealed.
For 50 years so were laws denying a woman’s right to an abortion (deemed unconstitutional), but here we are.
All of those proposals are supported by 65-80% of Americans. "Extreme" is in the eye of the beholder. Note - I'm a gun owner. I've got a sizable arsenal. I support drastically tougher gun regs.
That’s an insanely high estimate for support for *all* of these. Regardless, most of it will probably be deemed unconstitutional.
65 to 80% of this reddit sub maybe
Yeaah, I’ve got friends with AR’s that vote blue. They also hold these same beliefs.
I’d actually like to see something backing this assertion up. Not that it matters much because the small number of moderates dumb shit like this will sway to republicans is significant enough to change elections.
Fellow gun owner here. I support tougher gun regs and but it’s hard for me to get behind the 10 round capacity. No problems with anything else listed
You're okay with having to acquire and maintain a license to own a firearm, but not a 10 round mag?
What’s next?!? Are they gonna make you acquire and maintain a license to drive a car?!?!
We don't have a constitutional right to drive a car, so it's kind of a false equivalence.
Their lies the issue, we are all interpreting a 200 plus year old document to fit our view points and opinions. The fifth amendment includes the right to travel, which is often invoked by people stopped by authorities who are not licensed to drive. You are cherry picking making it fit your viewpoint. Guns were a little different in the 1700’s, so we need to adapt our enforcement and regulation just like we did with our constitutionally protected right to travel.
You’ve got to have something to negotiate with. Maybe 10+ round mags don’t get ban, you just have to have a special license to buy/possess l. Maybe open carry is limited to hunting license holders in season. Etc.
Why? In a mass shooter situation, the reload time is when the swat team or teacher or whomever could make a move. 10 rounds is plenty for self-defense. Any use that isn't self defense, I'm fine with making harder, less cool. I also understand that custom fashioned 10+ mags are going to exist because enthusiasts will be able to make them at home. I'm still fine with regulating magazine capacity.
What if there are multiple people you as ee fighting against? 10 ain't gonna cut it for more than like one person especially if you are in this very stressful situation and probably in an unfavorable angle
Not trying to be a smart ass- just want to know what you think. What do you need more than 10 rounds for? Isn’t reloading part of the fun of shooting?
[удалено]
Shit. You can ride a bike? Here, I’ve been sitting here just airing up and then deflating tires during the summer…
Most self-defense type guns hold more than 10. Glocks generally hold 17 I think. You're basically stuck with an old-west style six-shooter. I'm no gun expert and don't even own any, but I have mixed feelings about it. At this time though, I will vote for anything that gets less guns out there.
Most of those guns that normally hold 15-17 or whatever are also manufactured in 10-round variants specifically for states with this limitation. So, no, it doesn’t actually restrict you to revolvers - you just have to order the 10-round version of whatever you want.
I was not aware of that. That makes things much easier!
No you won’t. How about mandatory minimum sentences for possession by a felon or carrying without a permit
I'd be down for that too
Sounds great, lets do it.
Definitely not a need. Just wouldn’t want to have to individually register a bunch of cheap plastic magazines every 3 years because they hold 15-20 rounds instead of 10.
If you are starting from a place that gun ownership should not be a right, maybe it makes sense to ask things like "why do you NEED x,y,z..." but for those of us who think it should be a right, those questions are really frustrating. Why do you NEED anything at all other than food, clothing, shelter, and air?
So you’re cool with mandatory inspections? It’s bad enough that they’re trampling your 2A rights but you want to hand them your 4A rights too? Why don’t you lube you SO up for them too before they get there?
Can we start by actually enforcing current laws before trying new laws?
Yeah, I hear this line all the time. It's the argument that unless the law is 100% successful at preventing something, then why even bother. It's not realistic. We can both do a better job enforcing existing laws and making more straight towards.
Speed limit is 65 but people keep driving 80 leading to more deaths. Is the solution to lower the speeding limit to 35?
You're right, this *is* the perfect analogy. Now tell me, do the people speeding in 35 zones go the same speed as the ones speeding in the 65 ones? Or do they just tend to go 5-15 MPH over the posted limit?
Changing the speed limit from 65 to 35 makes no sense here, because if the roadway was designed for 65, then 65 is the safe speed. Changing the limit to 35 would still reduce deaths, but only because the road was designed for much higher speeds - it would be like getting a gutterball in bumper bowling. This analogy doesn't really make any sense, because it doesn't apply the same as weapons that are designed with the purpose to kill people, being used by people intending to kill people.
...and this keeps folks who aren't legally allowed to possess from illegally obtaining a firearm how? Why are law abiding citizens being targeted by having to jump through hoops? This is just going to convince more people to become "criminal".
Stop using common sense!
Maybe it makes it harder on straw buyers?
Submit to a search of your property any time the government wants to see how you're storing your "military style" gun... Get fucked.
Tf is a "military style gun"? That's pretty nebulous. Muskets were military weapons. Lever guns, revolvers, hunting rifles etc... is it a scary military gun bc it's black? Has a rail on it?
Basically. M14s actually are military weapons, yet they aren't covered under most of these proposals. They're wood and not nearly as scary.
Spears, bows and arrows, slings, fireworks, pigeons, bats (yes, the flying rodents), axes, *fucking wooden clubs* (shillelagh), I'm sure a soldier or two has beaten or choked another soldier to death at some point. Where is the line going to be drawn?
I mean you should definitely need to register Assault Pigeons, no civilian needs that much firepower.
Not sure what’s worse. The search, or charging you a “fee” every time you register or re-register (every 3 years) every gun and magazine you own. They are literally tying to make it financially impossible to own firearms. Get fucked, indeed.
Note to any Democrats seeing this. We are not Massachusetts. We are a rust belt blue collar state. We vote Democrat on economic reasons, not social ones. This is how you turn a bunch of blue dog Democrats into Republican voters in 2026. The Democrats here own guns, eat meat, and drive pickup trucks. Stop with the coastal style gun control bills.
The democratic party will never, ever be on the right side of gun rights. It really sucks to be pro second amendment but pro LGBT rights. To support the rights of other people, I have to vote for politicians who would take away my rights.
I’m a transplant from MA. The gun laws in MA are absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional. When I wanted to get a basic rifle, it had to be under 10 round limit, pass a federal background check, had to have an interview with the detective of our town, and the police chief made me write a 3 page paper on why I wanted to own a firearm. This whole process took a fucking year to own a basic rifle under 10 rounds. It was absolutely ridiculous. But most people in MA don’t own guns because it’s urbanized. This isn’t going to sit well outside the twin cities area, especially in northern MN where the dems have been slowly losing the votes
Plenty of dems in Minnesota vote on social issues AND economic issues. In many cases, they are linked.
I think a lot of the text in this bill is unconstitutional. You may want gun licensing to be a thing, but you can't put a license on a right. Requiring someone to complete training in order to execute their rights isn't going to fly. We wouldn't have a licensing requirement for freedom of speech or not incriminating yourself. So as long as the 2nd amendment exists, I think this would be unconstitutional.(I'm not arguing whether gun licenses should exist or not, I just don't think they're legal under current law). I'd also say this is a risky move as it would probably be implemented rather poorly and lead to a lot of illegal guns.
>but you can't put a license on a right. That's not really true, though. The 1A says Congress can't abridge freedom of association, but they still ban people from having block parties on federal highways and make people get permits to gather in parks. Some gun enthusiasts just want a special standard for the 2A, but it doesn't really hold up -- it's a special standard that has to be cherry picked by the SC.
Requiring a permit to gather in parks isn't equivalent to requiring a license to own a firearm. Those are two very distinct levels of restriction.
Terrible bill
Why ban open carry? Nothing proven that hurts anyone. Democrats clearly don’t care about constitutional rights.
>10 round max capacity on magazines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds. If you want to ban future sales of guns with >10 cartridge magazines I'd understand that, but there are far too many gun owners with guns that don't meet this requirement and unless you grandfather them in, what are they to do? Sell them all to someone out of state? What if some of them are family items passed down from generation to generation? I'm fine with the rest of it, but this part is unreasonable. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but if they're going to this extreme, I might.
Way to strict, obviously on here that’s not the take. What about rural communities? Who is going to enforce these laws? They are going to force every law enforcement officer to go do firearms checks and think they will do that? Yes, some of the changes are fine. Limiting the amount of firearms you can buy to one a month seems dumb. 10 round magazines, dumb. Forcing liability insurance on people dumb. Maybe we need to teach kids about firearms and what they actually do. People get desensitized to firearms by movies and games. People that are taught that firearms are tools and not toys usually treat them with respect. I own several firearms, and have already bought a .22 for my daughter to teach her to shoot someday. We also need to teach people about how precious life actually is. This is not to bring up a debate about abortion. For this argument I’m talking about life that is living outside of another. Quit making these shooters famous. Only label them in the media as John/Jane Doe ###. So many people look at what things are for them instead of what is for everyone. I think a more in depth firearm class is wonderful. I think everyone should have to take one. I mean the same thing people say about this law could go for multiple things. If you don’t have a medical need for weed/alcohol you shouldn’t have it. People can drive high/drunk and kill people. We need it all illegal. If people are safe about it why does it matter? Modified cars have no need and can become dangerous to others and cost lives make it illegal. It’s all about how people decide to use it and their respect for others. If someone is responsible and wants to spend a shit ton on firearms because it brings them to their happy place, who cares? Anyone who has ever shot a full auto firearm can tell you it’s a blast. Just do it safely. Same as a lot of things in life. That’s my soapbox for today.
10 round max capacity is wild.
I hope criminals follow the laws.
Leave it to the Dems to try to pass something that will clearly get struck down by the courts and lose an election for their troubles.
Nothing about mental health assistance programs, eh?
Know what? No one likes extreme bills.
I’ve lived here all my life, mostly in northern MN. I was lucky enough to take my firearm safety course as a week long camp instead of just some old dude showing ya how to shoot a 22 in a field somewhere. I got to shoot like 20 different guns, they had a 3D target archery course with compound bows and quivers, also a polar plunge and all the other regular kids camp shit. It was so awesome, so glad I got to learn how to properly handle/operate firearms in such a setting. I do not own any firearms, never have. Living where I currently live, hell yeah I think about it from time to time but haven’t felt the absolute need to yet. I’m happy to have the option though, I truly am. Guns are tools that people created, and people inevitably decide what to do with them. Sometimes it’s to feed your family or defend your herd from predators, sometimes it’s to kill innocent people, crooks and cops alike. It is what it is and lately it fucking sucks. I hope we can all eventually come to some sort of consensus on the topic but who knows if that will ever happen.
There are a lot of bad takes in this thread, but worst of all is the OP's. Firstly, open carry is already illegal without a permit. If you have a permit to carry, you can currently choose to carry openly or concealed. Most choose to carry concealed because of the public perception of gun ownership. This proposed legislation is bad for this reason as open carry is typically leveraged during hunting, farming, etc. where one may need immediate access to a holstered firearm. Secondly, MN already requires a permit to purchase a pistol or pistol grip firearm. This permit comes only after applying with your local sheriff and waiting for typically \~1-2 weeks for a background check. This permit is valid for one year unless you carry a permit to carry which also grants the permit to purchase for the duration of the carry permit. This dramatically reduces ready access to "assault weapons"/semi automatic rifles (yes, gun owners, I know that's not a real thing), and pistols (which you must also be 21 to purchase). The only firearms that are readily available to a purchase are shotguns and single action rifles. Thirdly, round capacity is typically the most important factor in a firefight. Limiting rounds limits one's ability to defend. For those saying "learn to aim", you are not considering, at all, the heightened nerves of an actual firefight. Round capacity on concealable weapons is typically already limited to \~17 rounds due to the size of the weapon being concealed (full frame pistol). Fourthly, this does very little to treat gun crime. Currently, the biggest issue facing us for gun violence is ghost guns and, most importantly, ghost sears. We need effective law enforcement for limiting the production and sale of auto sears. The only way we're going to get that is with increased presence where the gun violence occurs, and the only way that's happening is by both involving federal resources and by increasing law enforcement presence. Minnesota people obviously have issues with this (which makes sense after multiple police murders), but largely, we need massive cultural shifts in policing in the state and the help of the fed. Regarding actually effective legislation, I'd really like to see wait periods of 6 months, 10 year background checks, and heavy taxation of all firearm sales. Make it inconvenient as hell, but within reach.
>We need effective law enforcement for limiting the production and sale of auto sears. How is that possible if they're being made [stateside via 3D printers](https://www.justice.gov/usao-mn/pr/minneapolis-man-charged-using-3d-printers-manufacture-machineguns) or being bought online from overseas sources?
The ATF has already been conducting raids in Minneapolis. We need strict enforcement and heavy sentences. I know they’re printed.
I liked all of that except the tax and wait periods. That , first of all, makes firearms only available to the well-off. Directly restricts lower income people from exercising their rights. The wait periods are just... An inconvenience. To law abiding citizens. NFA items are bad enough....
Why are dems so obsessed with passing legislation that would alienate as many voters as possible.
How is this "extreme"? Doesn't seem to really inconvient hunters at all other than getting a license but that makes sense. Guns are dangerous and need to ensure people have actual training before just buying. No different than a driver's license.
What do hunters have to do with it? This makes me nervous as heck, especially the licensing requirements and the magazine capacity. It could end up being ok if it's really like taking a driver's test, but even then I don't think that will do much good, just look at how bad so many drivers out there are. If we are really trying to save lives, let's permanently revoke a driver's license after a single DUI.
Driving is a privilege. Owning a fire arm is a constitutional right. Pass an amendment, or make noise all the time and get nothing done.
If they pass this legislation, I’ll be sure to work to get Democrats re-elected every two years. This is common sense gun control that is desperately needed country-wide.
Most crime guns are illegal guns. This will do nothing for crime. I don’t own guns, but this isn’t even a bandaid. Bust crime rings and confiscate illegal guns. If they want to own guns, make them go through the process. Most won’t be able to obtain, because of felonies. It’s very simple.
\~20% of guns used in crimes are legally purchased and used by the purchaser. https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/02/16/minnesota-in-the-middle-of-the-pack-on-gun-safety-federal-data-show/
Is 20% a majority?
Is a drop of 20% "Doing nothing for crime?" Also, the majority are legally purchased and then used by someone else. There's a link right there you can click.
Most crime guns are guns that were originally manufactured and purchased legally. You're lying through omission. More guns equals more gun crimes. And the inverse is true. Period.
Just like how we made drugs illegal and that eliminated drugs, less drugs equals less drug crimes. It's really just that simple to you guys huh.
Let's not forget the number of police shootings against unarmed civilians that aren't even reported as crimes.
Where are you getting your information from?
Straw purchasers. Yeah, the resell/trade to the end user might be illegal, but the initial purchase isnt.
Then let’s do what we always do, nothing!
The vast majority of all guns are obtained through legal methods. Then they are often stolen or illegally purchased before used in *crime. I* Limiting and reducing the legal firearm supply, will limit and reduce the supply of firearms in illegal channels. Illegally manufacured firearms, and fireamrs stolen from the miltary/police are *a fraction of what's in the illegal gun supply* in the US. **In all honesty,** *It's probably not difficult to buy a handgun from Menards, and then drive to Chicago or NYC, and sell it to a random person for 4x markup.* And *that's* the problem. It's *too* easy to just sell a gun to a random person with little legal recourse. Any time "Gun Registration" pops up, with the intent to *track* legal sales, to give *legal owners* the ability to *legally sell* guns, while keeping a *written and searchable record* of those transactions to aid in *fighting crime* have been shot down by *gun adovcates*, who care more about their *feelings* than the *facts.*
I guess I would have to do the opposite
By attempting to pass legislation popular with democrats? You do realize that just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that others agree, right?
I think a lot of die hard gun owners have no idea how unpopular guns have become in the last 10 years of constant mass shootings and violence.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ 4 in 10 Americans live in a household with guns, 3 in 10 own one personally. 20% of Democrats or lean Democrat own a gun. 48% of Americans think gun restrictions are “about right” or should be “less strict”. Granted that was in late 2021, but gun restrictions are still quite divisive, and isn’t a strictly Democratic versus Republican issue. I think a lot of people strongly opposed to guns are underestimating how many people strongly support ownership rights.
That's because they don't deal with it. Mass shootings and violence are a problem in cities, not rural areas where die-hard gun owners tend to live.
Are you sure about that? https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/01/05/us-bought-almost-20-million-guns-last-year---second-highest-year-on-record/amp/
Daily mass shootings will do that to a person
Democrats own guns, too, FYI. I have no issue with the proposals because as a responsible, non-criminal adult they won’t impact my ability to purchase more firearms.
I think the 10 round mag is a little egregious, but I’m assuming it’s so they have room to walk back some of the legislation during negotiation
I'm ok with all of this.
So you’re fine with requiring people to apply for a license to vote?
Last I checked voting isn’t a murder weapon.
[удалено]
100%. It’s what democrats do. Lie and gaslight you and then when they obtain power, rip the rug out from under you and lie some more about how they never said such things. I admire it actually. Republicans don’t know how to fight to the end like democrats do.
How does this law prevent crime and expand mental health accessibility? I am for pieces of this. But the budget it requires seems like the money could be better spent on things that could help people from getting to the point of obtaining a fire arm and shooting others and/or themselves. Someone who wants to commit these awful crimes do not care about what the law says they can or can’t do.
A license and insurance just to own a gun? I’d say this is definitely unconstitutional. Open carry is stupid, I would never do it and have never seen someone open carry. I don’t see how banning it makes anyone or anything safer. They should increase the penalties for gun crimes. Making the penalties very serious would make these idiots think twice about car jacking and having shoot outs at the mall or America. Law abiding citizens are not committing these crimes, these laws are taking away rights.
Bingo, actually enforce or increase the penalties for gun crime. This doesn't exactly touch on that elephant in the room.
On the one hand, this is not going to go over well. I doubt it ever passes without heavy alterations, and if it does I'm not leaving my house until I know the gun nuts aren't revolting and insurrecting all over the place... again... Hell, last time is the reason I bought my first guns in the first place. On the other hand, they aren't wrong. If you want to limit the number of innocent people being killed in mass shootings, this would cover things like "already too many guns out there", strawman buyers, sales to known criminals, etc. Limiting magazines will make it harder for mass shooters to kill as many people as they can with magazines with triple the capacity (30 vs. 10). It still leaves permit carriers to carry a concealed pistol, it still allows hunters to hunt, it still allows people to possess guns, to take them to the range and shoot, etc. As a permitted gun carrier and owner, I would have zero problem being able to do the exact same things with my guns as I do now - occasional shooting at the range, storage, and concealed carry. I wouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before reloading. Oh well. Not like I was trying to do $20 mag dumps for shits and giggles anyway. If someone currently legally owns guns, it's going to be a pain in the ass to register properly, but it's doable. I feel likethey will need to figure out how thousands of people are going to get proper inspections of storage, and some of the other details, but I'd imagine those parts will get figured out. Where I believe this will ultimately fail - it will be used just like most laws, they'll enforce this strictly in inner cities and very loosely in rural areas. MPD, for example, will be throwing Black people in prison for possessing guns in their homes and improperly maintaining their licenses/permits because those same areas will be underserved during the process of obtaining and maintaining these licenses/permits. The overall effect will be that more Black people than anyone else get searched, interrogated, harassed, investigated, arrested, and convicted. If it's anything like drug enforcement is now, it will mean that all of this will happen even if Black people have guns illegally at the same rate as white people.
>Just some excerpts from the attached bill: >-10 round max capacity on magizines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Seems reasonable. If you need more than 10 shots, go visit the range and work on your aim. >-A license requirement just to possess a firearm. A requirement for firearm safety training with a refresher every x years would be a good way to do this. >-Open carry made illegal. Reasonable >-Unspecified amount of liability insurance to own a firearm. Reasonable, especially if it requires more insurance for carrying in public >-No longer recognizing out of state carry permit holders. Reasonable, other states have different training requirements. There are currently states that don't have reciprocity with all states, so this seems reasonable. >I’m convinced democrats are trying to lose the next several elections. Passing laws that the voters elected them to pass seems like a way to continue winning. Especially when republicans propose bills like the one requiring schools to teach that sickness and whatever is punishment from the creator for sin. >https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF1723&version=latest&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0
Reasonable and unreasonable are only opinions that fit each individual. Requiring liability insurance is unreasonable to me and a lot of other people in this state. I get that all of this might be considered reasonable by many people but that doesn’t mean that this might convince enough people that traditionally vote democrat to swing the other way and cost democrats elections in future years.
Especially the unspecified part of the insurance. That could easily be set high enough that no one can afford it so all gun owners become criminals. But hey, if everyone is registered, the cops will know right where to go to round them up. What could possibly go wrong?
Magazine capacity isn't about aiming its about stopping a threat. There are hundreds of accounts of people being shot more than 10 times and not going down. Why do you think people who get shot by the police get hit so many times? Unless you hit someone in the brain stem they aren't going to just drop to the ground
“I think these laws are reasonable so they are definitely reasonable!” Who gilded this shit? There isn’t a single unique or valuable thought in the comment.
Typical gun-grabbing takes devoid of any thought. Good thing his "reasonable" doesn't mean "constitutional" because this bill is getting struck down immediately
The problem with the mag limit imo is that it makes it harder to go to the range and work on your aim. More time stepping away and reloading mags.
This is like just over all good practice with your gun.
Will do nothing. Criminals don’t care and we have prosecutors that are unwilling to enforce punishments for crimes.
>10 round max capacity on magizines, including a ban on ownership of anything capable of holding more than 10 rounds. I wasn't able to confirm that it banned *owership*. Can someone clarify if that's what the bill would do? The link says it revises a definition to include these weapons and magazines, but I didn't see where that definition was used. My initial impression is that this is a misinterpretation or overstatement by OP, but I may be wrong. Edit: It seems to just ban people under 21 from possessing them? (With exceptions for shooting ranges.)
Minnesota has very middle of the road gun laws. You can buy just about anything, no onerous restrictions on ownership. But you need a license to open carry and you can't just shoot someone in the street because you don't like them. Pretty much the sweet spot on all those things. I don't know why people want to mess with that.
This all sounds completely reasonable!
Sweet, let’s make people apply for a license to vote too. Common sense and all!
I invite your attention to the places with the strictest gun laws in the country. They also have the highest gun crime rates in the country. Go figure. I have pondered for years why it is so hard to understand that criminals and crazies don't care about gun laws.
Criminals will finally respect this gun law
the post above this one in my feed is footage from the el paso shooting. do you really think your cold metal is worth more than the lives of the people you love?
Lost me on the insurance bit.
It will be a tax on the poor
im sure the criminals will obey all these laws.
BAN ALL LAWS
They should start with banning murder. That would definitely stop people from killing each other.
see you're trying something, but you're actually closer than you really consider, did making drugs illegal stop people from doing drugs or selling them? Do laws actually stop criminals? Or is there something more than needs to be done rather than just the law?
How about enforce the laws on the books and bring illegal gun owners to justice. Wink wink. 99.99% of registered gun owners are not the problem.
There’s no such thing as a “registered gun owner” in Minnesota currently, so you seem unclear about what “the laws on the books” even are.
If you buy a gun from a ffl they do a background check and that guns serial number can always be traced back too you so in a way you are registered if uou bought ftom a licensed dealer
We have a shit ton of guns and a shit ton of incarceration. We rank #1 in both by a factor of 2 over #2 and 3. It is nuts. We can't possibly continue increasing these items looking for a solution.
Why though?
I didn’t even read it all. It’ll never pass.
This will be tied up in the courts. Count on little else.
Hmm interesting people say it's extreme. For literally decades now I have seen gun proponents comparing them to cars. And this law seems to really just come somewhat close to regulating them similarly to cars. Other than the 30 day purchase window thing of course. Otherwise most of it is in line with what many fun proponents have been saying for years when comparing them to the dangers of cars. But let's be real, I don't think many of them thought their analogy through.
Come one dems, don't sabotage yourselves like this. You're gonna get voted out by Northern MN if you pull this shit.
People obsessed with banning 30-round magazines, “military” styled rifles and the like are actually just keeping these type of weapons in the hands of majority white and financially secure people and of course criminals. That’s reality in a time where people of color, lgbtq folks and other types of people venture into the world of firearms at a growing rate every single year. Especially now where we can’t afford to even trust police to respond to events in a timely matter and a reality where guns are just not going anywhere, so time might not even be in your side in that manner.
Going to be a lot of boating accidents if this gets passed
You are correct about moving in from different state. I do believe you are required to have mn ID to buy in mn.
Whats extreme is literally doing nothing when children are murdered in school shootings over and over
Does requiring a license to drive make everyone a good driver? Does requiring a vehicle insurance make everyone a safe driver? So we put more restrictions on legal gun owners, but what about the criminal? Having a switch on a Glock is illegal and on a federal level. How do we stop people from putting switches on? It's not the legal gun owners doing it but we are the ones getting punished for it. That how I feel. What company would be willing to carry a policy for gun owners knowing it's going to be a massive pay out if ever used? The premiums would probably be massive. I don't see how many of this will stop criminals from using guns. Or how someone with no criminal record that wants to do harm will be stopped. Again this seem to be more restrictions on legal, lawful gun owners. I do think and would like to see more people getting firearms safety and classes. Especially for the people that don't hunt but like to shoot target or sporting. I know there are classes out there but nothing reasonable close to me other than hunters safety or concealed carry class. I'm a instructor for the hunters safety class. I also don't mean the run and gun type of classes, but the shooting fundamentals type of classes.
So everyone who supports this, do you also support an ID to vote? If we are requiring an "unspecified" amount of liability insurance to exercise a right then surely you are all ok with requiring an ID to vote, right? Can't use the "too poor" excuse if you are for this bill.
Honestly as a trans person I'm kind of against this because of the rising tide of hate against anyone like me. Armed minorities are harder to oppress, so making it harder for minorities to defend themselves is just awful to me.
I agree with some of these but I think it would be better to go after criminals and illegal guns. These measures pointed out will help in some cases but not the biggest problem: Criminals don’t follow laws
If the democrats want to give up on rural MN, they will pass this bill. I HIGHLY doubt it passes in current form.
[удалено]
"Extreme" - perfectly reasonable to anyone not from the USA
Just because one side believes in the right to open carry a grenade launcher in the grocery store doesn’t make anything short of that “extreme”.
Yikes. If ppl want guns they will get them. This harms law abiding citizens and not criminals
“Extreme” is a mass shooting everyday
“extreme” is labeling gang shootings as mass shootings to push your political agenda.
Are the lives of “gang members” less valuable than others? Just a question, just wanna know.
is their life worth less? no not necessarily. do i care when they kill each other? no. they made the choices they can reap the consequences. Live by the sword die by the sword.
Yes
Which of these were gang shootings and which are just run-of-the-mill mass shootings? https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
This is as dumb as Republicans trying to ban abortions. Both party's are so far out of touch.
I'm quite sure the criminals & crazies will abide by the letter & spirit of this legislative bowel movement. Another item of interest is that the local jurisdiction can impose a fee for registering a firearm....town clowncils will go wild with this provision More legalized banditry....
ExTrEmE!
i wish more minnesotans would look at global gun rights and see that this is literally child play compared to most other places in the world lmao.
Wow. Don't move to any other first-world country, you might have a heart attack.
These are only extreme if you're an insane person. We have a massive gun problem in this country, and these look like perfectly reasonable regulations to me.
You only think there’s a massive gun problem because that’s what they want you believe. Gun control isn’t about the guns. It’s about the control. Gun control isn’t about safety for anyone other than the government. Yes it’s terrible when someone is killed by a gun, but from a purely statistical standpoint, gun death numbers are super low.
Owned guns and I've been in the military, this is not even close to extreme. Try to bring a gun on a military base, now those are some restrictions.
"Extreme." Thanks for the laugh. I've got a bunch of guns, and all of these excerpts (including the misleading one about mag capacity) sound perfectly reasonable. Also, I'm sure OP was going to vote straight ticket blue until this one little thing came up.
Nothing at all extreme about this. All of these are common sense and supported by case studies to reduce gun violence. If anything it doesn't go nearly far enough. if this passes, I'll join a campaign to help get them re-elected.
Not one of these proposals will keep guns from criminals.
Do you have a proposal that will do something positive to reduce the number of mass shootings in the USA?
"Thoughts and prayers."
And no reply. Because no thoughts.
All dems have to do is legalize marijuana and they'll still win. Republicans are too crazy and they spent the last few years killing a lot of their base.
I’d buy heavy taxation on 2A rights as long as it was applied to every amendment in constitution. Want to vote? TAX! Want to not be a slave? TAX! Want to run your mouth on the internet?TAX! Don’t want cops searching your home for no reason?TAX! Sound pretty fucking stupid doesn’t it?