Link (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/141525753.html)
Quote
Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
The governor rejected the measure, saying Minnesota citizens facing threats already have the legal authority to defend themselves and their families. He also cited strong opposition by organizations representing police officers, chiefs of police and county sheriffs.
"When they strongly oppose a measure because they believe it will increase the dangers to them in the performance of their duties, I cannot support it," Dayton said in a veto letter to legislative leaders.
Dayton added that, according to federal figures, there are more than 5 million guns in the state, showing that the "Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is properly being supported by lawmakers and law enforcers. ..." He said state law and court decisions "already provide the authorizations for law-abiding citizens to use deadly force to defend themselves or others, either inside or outside of their homes, so long as that force constitutes 'reasonable force.'"
And he noted prosecutors' concern that the law goes too far in justifying such shootings, allowing "anyone to claim that he or she acted reasonably when using deadly force."
Dayton also objected to requiring Minnesota to recognize concealed weapons permits from all states, which he said would "allow people to carry guns here under the considerably lower standards for the issuance of permits of some other states."
The governor waited three days to veto the bill out of respect to the House sponsor, Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder.
"It's a sad day in Minnesota for law enforcement," said Cornish. He said Dayton's decision is "mostly the fault of the chiefs and sheriffs and the talking heads, not the rank and file" and he questioned whether those leaders supported gun-owners rights.
Law enforcement opposed
The condemnation of the bill from organizations representing police officers, county sheriffs, police chiefs and prosecutors convinced the DFL governor to veto the bill, which had passed with support from Republicans and outstate DFLers. They argued that the bill could endanger officers by emboldening homeowners to "shoot first" into darkened yards and garages where officers might be in pursuit.
"We're obviously very pleased," said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. "The majority of legislators wanted to say, the hell with law enforcement ... That was disheartening. Nonetheless I'm pleased the governor is concerned about the lives of police officers."
Support for the measure came from the National Rifle Association, which urged members to call Dayton and urge him to sign. Supporters say the bill will return.
"In each state, the police organizations ran around in circles screaming and shouting the sky is falling," said Joe Olson, head of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance in Minnesota. "It hasn't fallen in any state. It wouldn't have fallen in Minnesota."
"The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries," said the Senate sponsor, Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas. "Today, the governor chose to withhold that right from law-abiding Americans."
Opposition to the bill came from urban legislators and gun-control organizations.
"We are certainly glad that he vetoed the bill," said Joan Peterson, a board member of Protect Minnesota. "This seemed like a bill that was going to allow people to shoot someone as a first impulse rather than as your last impulse."
"Whether it's a kid that enters your yard, or a neighbor having a conflict with another neighbor, or a road-rage incident, this bill broadly expands the use of self defense," said Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul. "I think it's reckless, wrong and unneeded."
Opponents said the "castle doctrine" was misnamed because current law already allows for the use of deadly force in a person's home, or "castle." Both sides agreed there are no known cases on record of Minnesotans being unfairly prosecuted for using deadly force in legitimate self-defense.
Backers: Law needed update
But supporters said the law is unclear and needed to be updated. The bill expanded the right of self-defense to yards, decks and porches as well as to vehicles, boats, motorhomes and tents. In what supporters called the "stand your ground" provision, the bill stated that the person facing the threat "is not required to retreat."
Prosecutors feared that the bill gave too much weight to what the person with a gun "reasonably believes" to be a serious threat, and said it could be used as a defense in violent crimes.
The bill also required Minnesota to recognize a weapons permit issued by any state, even those with no criminal background checks or training requirements. It would have made it harder for police to temporarily remove guns from volatile domestic situations.
The bill received strong support in both houses on final passage -- 40-23 in the Senate and 85-47 in the House. Olson said the measure is "close" to having the support required for an override -- a two-thirds vote in each chamber -- but Cornish said he would not have the votes to do so.
I'm a little disappointed, but not surprised. While I'm not entirely comfortable with the bill's provision that would've required recognizing other states' conceal-carry laws, overall I rather liked the expansion of what would've constituted "personal defense".
However, I don't own any guns myself, plus I live in a safe neighborhood, so I subsequently don't feel I'm exactly the most qualified person to hold an opinion on the subject. So for those here who *do* own & operate firearms, what I'm wondering is: Was this a good bill that Dayton should've signed? Or did it go too far?
QuoteGov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
Now, I'm starting to sound like Smuck here, but isn't it sort of the point of the Second Amendment that guns should balance abuse by government officials? Just saying...
I thought MN was fairly conservative?
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
QuoteGov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
Now, I'm starting to sound like Smuck here, but isn't it sort of the point of the Second Amendment that guns should balance abuse by government officials? Just saying...
I thought MN was fairly conservative?
I luv U man :-*
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 06, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
QuoteGov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
Now, I'm starting to sound like Smuck here, but isn't it sort of the point of the Second Amendment that guns should balance abuse by government officials? Just saying...
I thought MN was fairly conservative?
I luv U man :-*
If he keeps this up we may have to buy him a membership to the NRA for his birthday.
Quote from: Smuckatelli on March 06, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
QuoteGov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
Now, I'm starting to sound like Smuck here, but isn't it sort of the point of the Second Amendment that guns should balance abuse by government officials? Just saying...
I thought MN was fairly conservative?
I luv U man :-*
See, I occasionally learn. 8)
If I move to Gary, you and JH are going to go gun shopping with me and I'm getting a C&C permit.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PM
QuoteGov. Mark Dayton vetoed an explosive self-defense bill on Monday, saying the lives of police officers could be at risk if citizens are freer to use their guns when they feel threatened.
Now, I'm starting to sound like Smuck here, but isn't it sort of the point of the Second Amendment that guns should balance abuse by government officials? Just saying...
The problem is that what overly-self-entitled people consider "abuse" is getting more and more ludicrous each day. When you've got parents yelling at the police for busting teenage drinking parties, instead of yelling at their kids, the contempt for authorities that will eventually spill into unnecessary violence is selfish, misguided, and based around an impression that "freedom" somehow also includes "freedom from responsibility".
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PMI thought MN was fairly conservative?
The same state that sent Al Franken, Paul Wellstone, and Hubert Humphrey to the Senate?
QuoteThe problem is that what overly-self-entitled people consider "abuse" is getting more and more ludicrous each day. When you've got parents yelling at the police for busting teenage drinking parties, instead of yelling at their kids, the contempt for authorities that will eventually spill into unnecessary violence is selfish, misguided, and based around an impression that "freedom" somehow also includes "freedom from responsibility".
Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you here. But it was sort of odd that the governor's first excuse was based on protection of authority over protection of individuals. Not how I would have put it, really.
What about Jessie Ventura?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 06, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:03:24 PMI thought MN was fairly conservative?
The same state that sent Al Franken, Paul Wellstone, and Hubert Humphrey to the Senate?
...Which is a little weird when I think about it, because we generally dislike the extreme ends of the political spectrum (both left and right). Not many Minnesotans would consider themselves truly "liberal" or "conservative", at least in the political sense.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
But it was sort of odd that the governor's first excuse was based on protection of authority over protection of individuals. Not how I would have put it, really.
Indeed. It's not the point I'd have chosen to emphasize if I were him.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on March 06, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
What about Jessie Ventura?
He'd have signed that bill into law so fast, it would've made your head spin. After all, this is the governor who famously announced that he always carryed a concealed weapon. ;D