The Status Quo Has Got to Go
Gun rights culture has metastasized. The only suggestions seem to be a total ban on one side and mental health treatment resources and school fortification on the other side. We need back-to-basics constitutional legislation to put community safety needs front and center.
We can start doing that by requiring firearm trigger locks at all times when an individual is not actively and legally wildlife hunting, at a shooting range or firearm training facility, or inside their own home.
All firearms should be displayed and sold with firearm locks and firearm locks should be required whenever an individual or company is transporting firearms.
All military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be kept out of our cities and towns. Firearms in these cities and towns should be required to be kept/stored in a state armory or private gun club, for use on shooting ranges and in firearm training facilities. These weapons should otherwise be off our city streets.
Failure to lock a trigger in public should be enforced by in rem civil forfeiture penalties and not by in personam criminal penalties. Conciliation and small claims courts should have jurisdiction over these forfeiture cases. Notice of hearing should be by immediate receipt and reference to the county court website for docketing.
Ammunition should be assessed a luxury/public health tax, with larger quantities purchased at the same time assessed a higher tax.
What Would New Legislation Look Like?
1) If we want to make a dent in the shoot-first culture, we have to start with trigger locks. All firearms should be required to be displayed and sold with trigger locks (including in pawn shops). We shouldn’t need legislation for that, just a commitment from firearms merchants to only sell firearms with trigger locks attached. But, if the private sector balks, legislation could help enforce it. Min. Stat. 609.666 already deals with negligent firearm storage. Selling firearms without a trigger lock could be an administrative offense (enforced with a civil fine). In cities and towns that choose to opt in, let’s also make it illegal to transport or carry a firearm without a trigger lock. We could enforce the transportation piece, again, not by criminalizing the individual, but with an immediate impoundment of the illegally transported firearm—with the possibility of forfeiture if the individual fails to show that they have and will use the trigger lock. We already do this with DWI cases, where irresponsibly and dangerously driven vehicles are impounded (or forfeited) until a responsible party comes forward.
In Federal court the US Government can bring a civil case against property involved in criminal activity. In this case, I propose that we authorize the state and counties to forfeit firearms involved in the criminal activity of negligent storage or illegal transportation. We could prosecute these cases against the property regardless of whether the individual is charged (and criminal conviction would result in a presumption of forfeiture).
2) Utilize/empower Conciliation Courts (which already handle some asset forfeiture cases) to rule on firearm impoundments and forfeiture. The question for the court would be simple: was a firearm (by a preponderance of the evidence) possessed without a trigger lock outside the home (and not in the act of animal hunting in a permitted area and not in the act of self-defense). An amendment to Sec. 491A.01 could strengthen this as a fast and fair process.
3) Let's also make a statement by strengthening gun free zone laws. Let's amend this statute to include places of worship. This would likely be legally challenged, but I look forward to putting the courts in the awkward position of justifying firearm freedom over child safety.
I also think we should repeal MN Stat. 471.633, the preemption statute that prevents cities from experimenting with regulations that could keep our cities and towns safer. Innovative solutions for cities and towns are being held hostage by the more liberal firearm culture in rural communities.
4) Ammunition should be taxed much more aggressively than it currently is. Ammunition should come with a luxury/public health tax, like cigarettes and cannabis. Greater amounts of ammunition bought at once could garner a higher tax. One could imagine that shooting ranges and clubs being exempt from a bulk tax for ammunition used exclusively on their premises. When I trained with the Army Reserve, ammunition was strictly policed. Gun clubs and other firearm training facilities could have similar rules.
Each of these ideas will face obstacles. But they're based on the constitution, on respect for individual responsibility, and on the value we all place on the safety of our communities, ourselves, and our children. Together we can reimagine the ways we think about firearms and firearm legislation and make Minnesota a safer, better place.
Is It Constitutional?
It begins with the Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Scotusblog summarized the lengthy opinion:
District of Columbia v. Heller - SCOTUSblog
Holding: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition -- in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family and property is most acute -- would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Dick Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the district must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - SCOTUSblog
Holding: The right of individuals to keep and bear arms in self defense applies against state and local governments as well as the federal government.
As is made clear in these Supreme Court Opinions, the right to bear arms is not without limits.
Because the proposed Minnesota legislative ideas respect the individual’s right to own and maintain firearms (those for self-defense in one’s home and those for militia purposes), the ideas above are constitutional.
Mental Health
We know that an act of violence is often impulsive, even for someone who has been ideating violence against themselves or others for a long time. Anything that we can do to change the culture around firearms, to slow down the move from ideation to action, would help lessen suicide and public violence. Disengaging a trigger lock, as little time as it might take, could be enough to conquer the impulse and save a life.
In our cities, law enforcement and the public could also use the visual clue of an individual carrying a firearm in public without a trigger lock as a bright red flag that someone is either in a mental health crisis or actively planning to use a firearm. The legislation above would allow law enforcement be alerted and to disarm an individual who is acting recklessly, without criminalizing the mental health crisis itself.
See: The Suicide Epidemic in Rural Minnesota; See also: Possible Brain Trauma from Firearm Shooting
Contact me
Interested in organizing together? Fill out some info and I will be in touch shortly. I can’t wait to hear from you!