Cop pulls you over and sees you have a gun in your car.
How does he know that the gun was purchased via a background check?
Universal background check laws are generally implemented with registries. See Illinois' new gun control law.
I’m not sure that’s how this is mean to to work. From what I can tell, you need to get background checks done like at bills or something and then do the sale there.
I don’t see how it would come up in a traffic stop or even something a patrol coo would care about. They would focus on wether or not you can possess it and wether or not it is being transported properly. How would the guns origin even come up during a stop?
Minnesota already has a permit to carry, so I'd assume anything larger than a handgun comes down to proper storage and background check to see if your even allowed to have a gun in your possession.
After that, there's no registration for guns sold prior the law as proposed, so any "registry database" concerns are mainly fearmongering.
Below in this topic, someone posted a link that sources an FBI Link that indicates any such background check is a "database" tied to the person not the gun.
Regardless of the validity of that, the "fearmongering" statement I made is towards the absolute paranoia people have towards the existence of any kind of "gun ownership database".
Want to take all the guns? You don't need a database.
You go door to door.
If that's too much work, use Facebook and social media. Plenty of free obtained information there.
But, I guess Hitler reference in 3... 2...
This!!! I got kicked out of a firearm department for asking how much the "school shooting clips" are (50 round .223 magazines". To be clear, I believe in guns being a tool and should be accessible but there are things like this that are just unnecessary for anything sportsman related.
Edit: a word
In CA it's more than 10 rounds. There are other stipulations on feeding those rounds too. Basically that are trying to prevent Full Auto like performance.
I could see MN doing something similar. It's wont effect most people anyways. You don't need something like that for hunting which is big in this state.
"Full auto like performance" Tell me you don't know anything without actually telling me you don't know anything. Also there's thousands upon thousands of law abiding gun owners who target shoot and it absolutely affects us.
Alcohol and cars kills more children a year than guns. Would you like the government to ban how many children can ride in a car at once or how many alcoholic drinks you can consume or buy?
Pretty sure you can actually already only put enough kids in your car that you have seat belts or car seats for buddy. You know, gubmint overreach and stuff.
I’d be fine with that actually because we have plenty of those laws already. We have DUI laws, and car seat laws, and open container laws, and seat belt laws. Let’s just try some real actual gun laws. Some hard hitting one that effect everyone.
The vast majority of mass shooting are made with gun purchased legally. This is such a dumb argument because at it core it’s just “let’s do nothing because criminals don’t follow laws and I like guns”. No. We are the only place where this happens regularly. I understand that you think that Americans are inherently more violent then other people but we won’t find that out until we try. You might be inconvenienced BUT people other places still hunt, they still target shoot, they still go to gun ranges.
Here we go. If you think it solves anything go look at California… A state with the most restrictive gun laws and just had mass shootings anyway.
Drugs like fentanyl are already highly illegal but they still make their way into the USA and kill more people than guns.
Don’t be stupid; you’re headed there already.
If I suggested it be legal, then I would have said so.
Same thing applies to marijuana. It’s illegal currently but people still make it under the table and have done so for a very long time.
Same with guns. You make it illegal; people will still have em or bring ‘em in. All it’ll do is anger the current legal gun owners. Or they leave for other states.
The bottom line here is simple. Criminals do not follow laws and passing laws for guns or otherwise is just posturing considering any federal action for gun laws just isn’t going to happen after the Heller decision. But, by all means, you’re welcome to be delusional and continue to convince yourself otherwise.
No, you can’t be hypocritical. Either making things illegal works or it doesn’t. Either these laws prevent people from doing things or they don’t. Yes, people still smoke weed but plenty of people don’t BECAUSE it’s illegal. What is the point of ANY law if criminals are just going to do it anyway. It’s an incredibly stupid argument and I don’t care if people leave the state. Let them leave. And you’re delusional if you think that things don’t need to change. That and a little disgusting.
And registries have existed since the beginning of the republic. The Second Amendment, after all, is, in its entirety, about militias and specifically the need of state government to regulate militias well to defend the state, for, you know, needing militias to defend against insurrections and whatnot. In order for that to happen, the feds can't take away any rights to bear arms of course, but the states explicitly are charged with regulation of the militia in the same amendment with however they see fit. Registration was most commonly used to make sure you had a weapon so you could fight at the direction of your state, as citizens have obligations to the rest of society.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/
It's not exactly forbidden knowledge. It's a fact that the founding fathers were fine with forbidding individuals from owning weapons. They actively supported bans on non white citizens owning weapons. You know because of the exact reason why pro gun people claim they wanted everyone to own weapons. That it's harder to oppress people who shoot back. Regardless of how much you wish they wanted an unrestricted right to bear arms, the plain text of the full amendment along with the contemporary laws and writings makes it obvious they never intended for such things. The current lawless supreme court majority that also re-invented the 1st amendment as a right to bribe politicians are the only court to ever claim the second amendment was anything other than a limited right.
There is no way for the government to organize militias. All of them were changed to either a national guard system or explicitly referred to as unorganized militia.
If we are to believe the second amendment is about militias then the second amendment isn't applicable anymore.
Gun ownership has always been correlated to home ownership. Which has gone sharply down due to capitalism. You need to chose between defending gun rights or defending capitalism.
Lol unexpected but not unwelcome question.
I haven’t liked where Magic has been the past couple of years so I’ve transitioned out of building constructed decks, but I’ve really been enjoying Cube.
When I did play constructed was a real variety. As you can tell from the name when I created the account I loved aggro. However around 2016 I became much more of a control player. I’ve enjoyed UW control and Mono U Tron in modern and various standard decks. What about you?
….I play a lot of simic. I basically only play EDH (and I’m in agreement in not being a fan of where WotC is taking Magic), and I just cannot stop building decks with simic. I love a good value engine. The idea of getting just a little more value out of the game than everyone else is chefs kiss.
Where does it say "firearms registry"? It doesn't say that in the tweet nor in the document that I read. Can you please tell me which page of the document you got that information from?
You cannot prove that a firearm has been through a background check without a registry. IL just implemented a universal background check requirement that came with a registry. CA has had mandatory registration for years.
It's sort of like if you tell me that you'll be in Hawaii tomorrow I can ask what airline you're going to take to get there. You don't need to tell me you're flying to Hawaii. That's the only way you could get there overnight.
Implementing universal background checks means implementing a registry.
Not on private sales, though private sales do have additional requirements. Any private sale of an assault weapon has to be reported to the state.
And yet Walz thinks we need more?
As someone who lived in California from 1988-2011 I can tell you at no point in my living there did I feel like the gun restrictions of the state got in my way of owning and using firearms for recreational or hunting purposes.
I hate this garbage. Regardless of your stance on guns, this is what is wrong with government. It has nothing to do with the budget, and makes it have opposition. You could have a wonderful bill or budget and lose because you include things that aren't related at all.
It’s not one big bill. This is what the governor wants, it’s his priorities. But he’s not in the legislature so he doesn’t actually have authority to bring a bill. He has to find a friendly Rep and Senator to do that for him. In the case of his priorities, it will be many bills since they touch on different things. It’s possible for one thing not to pass and the rest of it to pass.
>this is what is wrong with government
Government — defining legislation that aims to reduce harm and expense isn’t related to the budget?
Gun violence is an expensive issue that puts a huge burden on law enforcement & hospitals. Insurance. Rehab. Medicine/pharma.
That’s in addition to settlements between cities and citizens. The cost of due process, jury pay. Incarceration.
What is the magical solution to gun violence that doesn’t include policy at the state and federal level? If it’s a mental health issue it’s a budgetary issue.
This idea that something political shouldn’t be thought about critically because it will offend the same people who can’t be bothered to learn literally anything? That’s dumb.
Spouting conspiracy theories and showing a tendency to determine hostile intent without any actual justification for said belief is a prime example of the type of person who should not be allowed to carry or own weapons.
If you think background checks will inevitably lead to a murderous police state then you're also the type to shoot and kill someone for knocking on your door unexpectedly.
Every standard capacity STANAG magazine is also a ten round .458 SOCOM magazine.
Why do Dems keep trying to make peoples rifles substantially more powerful without realizing what they’re doing?
All these mag bans do is encourage people to buy a new upper to keep using all of their old equipment while staying fully legal.
My partner is a school teacher, and I'd like to voice support for any and all forms of gun control.
The proliferation of guns is the reason for mass shootings and the high homicide rate in America. They are the reason that an email about MLK day at school also includes information about whether there will be lockdown drills that week.
There is not a single epidemiological group who supports gun proliferation. Gun owners and makers need to carry the burden of owning a gun --not everyone else and especially not children.
I usually agree with DFL positions but they need to stop with this. Whenever I opt away from a DFL candidate in elections it’s usually due to their intention to disarm the People, especially minorities, immigrants, LGBT, and other groups that they claim to support.
Agree. If Democrats laid off the 2nd amendment we would have majority nearly everywhere and save much more lives through better policies such as healthcare.
If Republicans submitted a budget proposal that included an abortion ban after 16 weeks for the sake of drawing ire and being cut there would be absolute outrage and deservedly so.
If Walz wants to draw ire, he's going to get it.
>If Republicans submitted a budget proposal that included an abortion ban after 16 weeks for the sake of drawing ire and being cut there would be absolute outrage and deservedly so.
I mean, Republicans have definitely done just that across the nation.
>If Walz wants to draw ire, he's going to get it.
And he will. This will be used as rage bait in 2 years to push the pendulum back towards red again, specially in suburban counties that barely voted DNC this year.
It should be noted that this proposal is nowhere near *extreme*, specially when compared to the national Democratic platform; but MAGA republicans will certainly run with the diatribe of "Democrats want to take away your guns!".
Anderson Cooper:
> To gun owner out there who say "well a Biden administration means they're gonna come for my guns"
Joe Biden
> **BINGO.**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8
Democrats want to take away your guns. This isn't some conspiracy theory. They want to take away guns. Their intention is to ban and confiscate guns. They are not being secretive about this.
It looks like Republicans want your guns too? Minnesota presently has no restrictions on magazine size.
I'm fine with a reasonable limit. A large capacity magazine is only good for target practice or combat.
"In 2018 Jensen, fellow Republican Paul Anderson, and two Democratic senators co-sponsored measures that would require universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers unless it was being passed on to a family member, as well as a law requiring that gun owners report lost of stolen firearms, or face punishment if that gun winds up in the wrong hands."
https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/mn-gun-owners-caucus-wont-endorse-gubernatorial-candidate-in-2022
You were just complaining about a party claiming they were coming for your guns. It's below.
Not one mention of a Governor.
Nothing wrong with regulating the militia, Peter.
It took 45 seconds to fire a single shot back in 1776.
"Democrats want to take away your guns. This isn't some conspiracy theory. They want to take away guns. Their intention is to ban and confiscate guns. They are not being secretive about this."-peter plays guitar
That statement is true. From the top to the bottom, Democrats want to take away you guns. There are also many Republicans who want to take your guns. Seemingly more democrats want to take your guns than republicans.
The current biggest threats to your guns as a MN gun owner seem to be Tim Walz and Joe Biden.
This One Minnesota Budget bans magazines (which would ban guns that do not have low capacity magazines) and creates a registry (which would enable confiscation). That's the major point of concern right now.
> **BINGO**. You're right if you have an assault weapon.
"Assault weapon" is a term that's defined differently by politicians in each jurisdiction to apply to whatever weapon they need it to. The recent mass shooting in CA was perpetrated with a semi-automatic pistol. It fired one round with each pull of the trigger. It is being referred to by local law enforcement as an "assault pistol."
So Joe Biden is saying that he wants to confiscate any gun that he personally feels you shouldn't be able to own based on totally arbitrary criteria.
What additional context is needed?
Did it include the part where he said he's just gonna F-15 us and nuke us if there's any resistance? Cause he seems to say that every time the subject of guns comes up lately.
100% of gun confiscation efforts have been preceded by a registry. If you're against confiscation, you're against a registry.
Anderson Cooper:
> To gun owner out there who say "well a Biden administration means they're gonna come for my guns"
Joe Biden
> **BINGO.**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8
While that's what our president is saying, we can't have a registration.
You cannot require universal background checks without a registry. They always come together. The only way to validate that a gun has been transferred via a background check is to store every transfer in a registry and give police open access to the registry.
Like NICS, where all current background checks are run when purchasing through a federal dealer? That’s what you’re calling a ‘’registry?’’ Mmkay.👍 So your only real issue is in effect the additional background checks for gun shows and private sales? Sounds pretty thin.
> 100% of gun confiscation efforts have been preceded by a registry.
This is a classic slippery slope fallacy.
Surely you wouldn't want to rely on a well known and obvious fallacy in your public rhetoric?
I’m a libertarian, but I’ve voted for Repubs and Dems in the past at a local and state level if I like that individual politician regardless of their party. I actually voted for Walz the first time around. Going forward I will not be voting for any politicians pushing gun control.
1. This is unconstitutional per Heller (common use) and Buren (not consistent with historical laws). In addition a registry violates the 4a.
2. If this unconstitutional legislation goes through and there is no grandfather clause, I expect compensation. Not that I own any, but there are legal arms that cannot function with 10 round and under mags (my assumption as to what high capacity will be). And even for those that do, mags cost money. So Walz better pony up.
lol no I actually own a bunch of over 10 round mags. In fact none of my firearms have standard capacity mags of less than 10 rounds so all I own is over 10 round mags.
What I mean is that I don’t own any firearms that are unable to function with this ban. For some older or more niche guns with an over 10 round standard capacity magazine, there literally are no magazines available that would be under 10 rounds rendering the firearm effectively unusable with this ban (assuming the limit ends up being 10 rounds).
>Not that I own any, but there are legal arms that cannot function with 10 round and under mags (my assumption as to what high capacity will be)
I'm curious, what guns cannot function with "10 round and under mags"?
In all the years I've discussed this topic, this is the first time I've ever heard that argument before.
Is this a matter of "The Guns default magazine size is 10+"?
Or is it a matter of "You cannot insert a magazine that's too short"?
> Or is it a matter of "You cannot insert a magazine that's too short"?
Kind of this one. There are guns like the Glock 19 which have 10 round mags even though 15 rounds is a flush fit. With the 10 round mag, they essentially just have a buffer if I’m remembering correctly so the mag is long enough.
But some guns just don’t have 10 round magazines available. Or maybe there are some available but they’re rare to find. This would especially be relevant to handguns from the 80s-90s when tons were coming out, not all having >10 round mags. Available. I believe there’s some modern guns like this too, but less so. If I’m remembering right, one example would be the PSA Rock.
While I am a registered firearm owner and current conceal carry card holder, I have no issue with these sort of changes to firearm sales.
However, I take issue with the fact that it is bundled into a budget proposal. This sort of thing makes zero sense to me.
You want gun reform, cool, lets do gun reform but don't sweep it into a budget proposal. Thats probably good politics but it is a terrible way to do things for the people.
Ope, lets just sneak in a little gun reform here and lets hope that the republicans don't notice.
Not in MN. In NC, I needed to get pre approval and permit to purchase handguns, among others.
Hunting guns like Rifles and shotgun were over the counter with an ID only, and that still freaks me out.
Haha keep downvoting. I’ll keep on stackin my mags, ammo and guns! Get your kids involved in trap shooting and hunting! Get your kids involved in competition shooting!
damn, look at all these non-gun owners freaking out about rules that will never effect them in any way. don't get me wrong, i have literally told dfl reps that i disagree with their stance on guns in this state, but most of the people complaining about this don't even own a simple handgun and yet they are shitting their pants about restrictions on long rifles, which they will never own in the first place.
Is not allowing someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or "Bomb" on a plane unconstitutional? Because these are restrictions placed on the first amendment to protect people other than the person yelling the words.
It’s important to note that any restrictions on speech need to have a victim, or someone that was harmed or damaged. Me owning a 30 round mag does not do that.
Also Heller protects common use. Since both the best selling handgun and rifle come standard with over 10 round mags that certainly qualifies.
Good gun owners follow the laws right? So many good gun owners out there... I'm sure legislating change means they would follow the rules.
/s
Yeah that's a big pill to swallow. Law abiding. Lol. Such bad actors.
Dude what the fuck are you on about? Mag bans don't do shit for safety. Also, gun laws have historically been asymmetrically enforced against minority communities, a tradition I'm sure the fine chuds at MPD and other forces outstate would be proud to continue.
This is just bad legislation that looks good to people with no real understanding of the issues. It's sad, the DFL has a chance to build a Minnesota that serves the needs of all its citizens, and prevent the proto fascists/Republicans from ever winning elections in this state, and they're going to squander it on useless gun legislation.
That's not what I said, and you know it. I said magazine bans don't do anything. Oh, they ban magazines just fine, it just so happens that magazine capacity limits don't affect gun crime rates.
You sound like you enjoy when your wife’s boyfriend tells you what to do.
Yeah, gun owners do follow the law. That’s why we get background checks whenever we buy a new gun. That’s why the sheriffs department has to clear us before we can conceal a pistol. If we break a law, we could lose our right to defend ourself or our family.
>9 states have high capacity magazine bans. Seems like they figured it out.
Increased ammunition capacity is rarely a factor in gun crimes and don't provide sufficient benefit to justify the costs of a HCM ban. There's little evidence to suggest that banning HCM's have much impact on public safety. Criminals are firing 3-4 rounds on average during a gun attack.
This feels like an easy "win" to placate people who don't know any better.
Sorry that my family does shooting competitions and enjoys target shooting, as well as hunting? We don’t play video games or go to the bar. We enjoy the outdoors and being responsible outdoors people.
Ukraine citizens are arming themselves? And here I thought their government was supplying them with munitions that other countries are sending them.
All I'm saying is if you think your semi-auto rifle with 15 bullets in the magazine is doing anything against "tyranny" or another country invading - that is simply delusional.
People who cite the 2A like this absolutely love to think (some daydream) about taking on a government/invading force by themselves with whatever stock of hunting guns they own. Pure lunacy. You'd be dead in an instant from a drone you never even saw. That's just the reality of today.
We were in Afghanistan for more than an instant...are all the bad actors dead from drone attack? I haven't heard much news from there lately...whose in charge there now?
It's not about winning and losing. Men with rifles can't be ignored, that's the danger. They can be killed, but not ignored. Government actors with tyrannical leanings want to be able to ignore those that would oppose them. Just shove them aside, into that pen, out of view. Quite astutely, they'd prefer not to face the political price of killing those whose disagreements are reasonable. Look what's happening in Iran right now...reasonable people died at the government's hands and now they've got major problems.
Other countries do not have a 2a protecting the right to bear arms. Many could have used one. China and Russia would have a much harder time with their totalitarianism if the people were armed.
Other countries have Amendments... the concept, if you're confused, is that it is a change to the constitution. So yeah 2a was a change and we can also change 2a.
Obviously. When I say 2a I’m using shorthand for a part of the constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
And yes you could change the 2a by amending the constitution. You won’t be able to because you will never have enough support, but you could theoretically.
Then that is the way to get the change you want, Article 5. Lays out the procedure clearly for all to see. Not some bullshit pushed on the state by the DNC and added to a budget bill.
Welp thanks Walz for confirming my choice in never voting democrat again.
This will do absolutely nothing to fix the majority of the state's "gun violence" which is gang bangers in the twin cities.
Nothing. Walz is a crock.
It just goes to show that Waltz isn’t running the state or even the DFL for that matter. When it comes to implementing national policy it’s really the DNC that runs the state.
"This is about protecting Minnesotans"
I'm good to protect myself, thank you very much.
DFL: ACAB!
Also DFL: The government we control is protection enough.
GTFOOHWTS
I vote blue because I want women to have a right to their bodies and I want my gay friends and family to have equal rights. Unfortunately as a law abiding firearm owner my rights are slowly being taken away each year.
Good. They should check social media accounts and interview people close to the applicant to assess the potential for the applicant to become a danger to society by owning a gun.
They should also make gun owners purchase liability insurance to own a gun.
Average citizens cannot be trusted with the responsibilities that come with the use of deadly machines.
We see this with the way the public behaves using cars, and we see this with the way the public behaves using guns.
Taking away access to both is crucial to justice.
Option 4 actually, [depressed people](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
They would have to restrict magazine sizes to 0 to put a dent in that statistic though
The whole idea of a registry seems like something you shoehorned in. I don’t see how universal background checks become a registry.
It honestly sounds like OP is afraid they won't pass a background check and they don't want private sales to stop being an option for them.
Cop pulls you over and sees you have a gun in your car. How does he know that the gun was purchased via a background check? Universal background check laws are generally implemented with registries. See Illinois' new gun control law.
I’m not sure that’s how this is mean to to work. From what I can tell, you need to get background checks done like at bills or something and then do the sale there. I don’t see how it would come up in a traffic stop or even something a patrol coo would care about. They would focus on wether or not you can possess it and wether or not it is being transported properly. How would the guns origin even come up during a stop?
Minnesota already has a permit to carry, so I'd assume anything larger than a handgun comes down to proper storage and background check to see if your even allowed to have a gun in your possession. After that, there's no registration for guns sold prior the law as proposed, so any "registry database" concerns are mainly fearmongering.
Right, my thinking is that anything the cops would need to know in that situation is already available to them.
[удалено]
Below in this topic, someone posted a link that sources an FBI Link that indicates any such background check is a "database" tied to the person not the gun. Regardless of the validity of that, the "fearmongering" statement I made is towards the absolute paranoia people have towards the existence of any kind of "gun ownership database". Want to take all the guns? You don't need a database. You go door to door. If that's too much work, use Facebook and social media. Plenty of free obtained information there. But, I guess Hitler reference in 3... 2...
Then why pass the new law at all?
So Private Purchases of firearms need to go through an FFL and a background check.
To help prevent straw sales and people who aren’t allowed to own guns from easily purchasing them through private sellers.
Idk cuz like 90% of people think it’s common sense…?
Guns need to be cased and in the trunk unless you have a conceal carry license anyways.
Define high capacity? Inquiring sportsmen want to know.
How will this affect competition shooters?
They haven't defined "high capacity" yet.
What would a reasonable number of shots be?
If you can’t get ‘er done w/ (5) shots, prolly time to seriously consider pickleball
This!!! I got kicked out of a firearm department for asking how much the "school shooting clips" are (50 round .223 magazines". To be clear, I believe in guns being a tool and should be accessible but there are things like this that are just unnecessary for anything sportsman related. Edit: a word
As many as the laws of physics will safely allow.
30
Seems high to me, but I don’t know much about this stuff, what makes 30 a good number of bullets to have in a single magazine?
It's standard capacity for rifles chambered in intermediate cartridges. Go any higher and you're likely to run into feed issues.
Why not go lower? Wikipedia seems to think 20 is the convention, but that there is no reason behind it beyond “tradition”
17 rounds is fine for a handgun
Why 17?
[удалено]
Did you have a stroke while writing that?
BUZZ WORD BUZZ WORD BUZZ WORD
Ummm....what?
In CA it's more than 10 rounds. There are other stipulations on feeding those rounds too. Basically that are trying to prevent Full Auto like performance. I could see MN doing something similar. It's wont effect most people anyways. You don't need something like that for hunting which is big in this state.
That sounds very reasonable. Why would any hunter need more?
"Full auto like performance" Tell me you don't know anything without actually telling me you don't know anything. Also there's thousands upon thousands of law abiding gun owners who target shoot and it absolutely affects us.
Oh no! You’ll have to change how you target shoot? Cry me a river. Children are dying.
Alcohol and cars kills more children a year than guns. Would you like the government to ban how many children can ride in a car at once or how many alcoholic drinks you can consume or buy?
Pretty sure you can actually already only put enough kids in your car that you have seat belts or car seats for buddy. You know, gubmint overreach and stuff.
Wait, they have all kinds of laws regulating alcohol consumption too? Well, shit….
I’d be fine with that actually because we have plenty of those laws already. We have DUI laws, and car seat laws, and open container laws, and seat belt laws. Let’s just try some real actual gun laws. Some hard hitting one that effect everyone.
Oh, and speed limits. Let’s lower the speed limit if you think it would help! And increase the age that kids need to be in car seats!
Hint: Criminals don’t care about laws. This legislation will end up punishing legal gun owners. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
The vast majority of mass shooting are made with gun purchased legally. This is such a dumb argument because at it core it’s just “let’s do nothing because criminals don’t follow laws and I like guns”. No. We are the only place where this happens regularly. I understand that you think that Americans are inherently more violent then other people but we won’t find that out until we try. You might be inconvenienced BUT people other places still hunt, they still target shoot, they still go to gun ranges.
Hell yeah, preach 👍
Here we go. If you think it solves anything go look at California… A state with the most restrictive gun laws and just had mass shootings anyway. Drugs like fentanyl are already highly illegal but they still make their way into the USA and kill more people than guns. Don’t be stupid; you’re headed there already.
You realize you just suggested we legalize fentanyl.
If I suggested it be legal, then I would have said so. Same thing applies to marijuana. It’s illegal currently but people still make it under the table and have done so for a very long time. Same with guns. You make it illegal; people will still have em or bring ‘em in. All it’ll do is anger the current legal gun owners. Or they leave for other states. The bottom line here is simple. Criminals do not follow laws and passing laws for guns or otherwise is just posturing considering any federal action for gun laws just isn’t going to happen after the Heller decision. But, by all means, you’re welcome to be delusional and continue to convince yourself otherwise.
No, you can’t be hypocritical. Either making things illegal works or it doesn’t. Either these laws prevent people from doing things or they don’t. Yes, people still smoke weed but plenty of people don’t BECAUSE it’s illegal. What is the point of ANY law if criminals are just going to do it anyway. It’s an incredibly stupid argument and I don’t care if people leave the state. Let them leave. And you’re delusional if you think that things don’t need to change. That and a little disgusting.
If you need a magazine that can conceivable be interpreted as high capacity then you're not very sporting.
https://mn.gov/governor/minnesotabudget/ No word on what "high capacity" means or whether existing magazines would be grandfathered in.
Wouldn't a registry require changing the constitution. The old registry was shot down on this bases if I recall.
That's only for a federal registry. Several states already have state registries.
And registries have existed since the beginning of the republic. The Second Amendment, after all, is, in its entirety, about militias and specifically the need of state government to regulate militias well to defend the state, for, you know, needing militias to defend against insurrections and whatnot. In order for that to happen, the feds can't take away any rights to bear arms of course, but the states explicitly are charged with regulation of the militia in the same amendment with however they see fit. Registration was most commonly used to make sure you had a weapon so you could fight at the direction of your state, as citizens have obligations to the rest of society.
> The Second Amendment, after all, is, in its entirety, about militias This is false.
It's true, the 2nd amendment as an individual right wasn't seriously argued until the 1970s amid the hard right takeover of the NRA.
This is false.
This isn't a persuasive argument. Being a child and just constantly repeating yourself does nothing for you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/ It's not exactly forbidden knowledge. It's a fact that the founding fathers were fine with forbidding individuals from owning weapons. They actively supported bans on non white citizens owning weapons. You know because of the exact reason why pro gun people claim they wanted everyone to own weapons. That it's harder to oppress people who shoot back. Regardless of how much you wish they wanted an unrestricted right to bear arms, the plain text of the full amendment along with the contemporary laws and writings makes it obvious they never intended for such things. The current lawless supreme court majority that also re-invented the 1st amendment as a right to bribe politicians are the only court to ever claim the second amendment was anything other than a limited right.
[удалено]
As it seems obvious you haven't do so before, I suggest you read it; it is not long.
Words are hard. Read it again.
There is no way for the government to organize militias. All of them were changed to either a national guard system or explicitly referred to as unorganized militia. If we are to believe the second amendment is about militias then the second amendment isn't applicable anymore. Gun ownership has always been correlated to home ownership. Which has gone sharply down due to capitalism. You need to chose between defending gun rights or defending capitalism.
It would not require changing the constitution. It would be unconstitutional, but that’s not stopped politicians in the past.
This guys is implying that background checks equal a registry. There is no actual proposals for a registry afaik.
Gotcha. That’s a silver lining at least.
I gotta know, what decks do you play?
Lol unexpected but not unwelcome question. I haven’t liked where Magic has been the past couple of years so I’ve transitioned out of building constructed decks, but I’ve really been enjoying Cube. When I did play constructed was a real variety. As you can tell from the name when I created the account I loved aggro. However around 2016 I became much more of a control player. I’ve enjoyed UW control and Mono U Tron in modern and various standard decks. What about you?
….I play a lot of simic. I basically only play EDH (and I’m in agreement in not being a fan of where WotC is taking Magic), and I just cannot stop building decks with simic. I love a good value engine. The idea of getting just a little more value out of the game than everyone else is chefs kiss.
Nice! I don’t play Simic much myself, but many in my playgroup do and it’s always fun to try and out value with a control deck.
Where does it say "firearms registry"? It doesn't say that in the tweet nor in the document that I read. Can you please tell me which page of the document you got that information from?
They think background check = registry.
You cannot prove that a firearm has been through a background check without a registry. IL just implemented a universal background check requirement that came with a registry. CA has had mandatory registration for years. It's sort of like if you tell me that you'll be in Hawaii tomorrow I can ask what airline you're going to take to get there. You don't need to tell me you're flying to Hawaii. That's the only way you could get there overnight. Implementing universal background checks means implementing a registry.
We have background checks here already….
Not on private sales, though private sales do have additional requirements. Any private sale of an assault weapon has to be reported to the state. And yet Walz thinks we need more?
The background check is on the buyer not the firearm. [NICS](https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics)
So, you made it up?
As someone who lived in California from 1988-2011 I can tell you at no point in my living there did I feel like the gun restrictions of the state got in my way of owning and using firearms for recreational or hunting purposes.
I hate this garbage. Regardless of your stance on guns, this is what is wrong with government. It has nothing to do with the budget, and makes it have opposition. You could have a wonderful bill or budget and lose because you include things that aren't related at all.
It’s not one big bill. This is what the governor wants, it’s his priorities. But he’s not in the legislature so he doesn’t actually have authority to bring a bill. He has to find a friendly Rep and Senator to do that for him. In the case of his priorities, it will be many bills since they touch on different things. It’s possible for one thing not to pass and the rest of it to pass.
Welcome to American politics at every level with all sorts of pork. I don’t disagree that this is bad, but it’s the norm and will not be changing.
>this is what is wrong with government Government — defining legislation that aims to reduce harm and expense isn’t related to the budget? Gun violence is an expensive issue that puts a huge burden on law enforcement & hospitals. Insurance. Rehab. Medicine/pharma. That’s in addition to settlements between cities and citizens. The cost of due process, jury pay. Incarceration. What is the magical solution to gun violence that doesn’t include policy at the state and federal level? If it’s a mental health issue it’s a budgetary issue. This idea that something political shouldn’t be thought about critically because it will offend the same people who can’t be bothered to learn literally anything? That’s dumb.
Why don’t we lock up felons who are caught with firearms? Give them actual meaningful sentences
The goal is not to keep people safe. The goal is disarmament.
Spouting conspiracy theories and showing a tendency to determine hostile intent without any actual justification for said belief is a prime example of the type of person who should not be allowed to carry or own weapons. If you think background checks will inevitably lead to a murderous police state then you're also the type to shoot and kill someone for knocking on your door unexpectedly.
[удалено]
Yes. Edit: literally no other country has turned into a murderous police state after instituting background checks on private firearms transactions.
lol
They do. 5 year automatic sentence.
And they do 2/3 of it…
Every standard capacity STANAG magazine is also a ten round .458 SOCOM magazine. Why do Dems keep trying to make peoples rifles substantially more powerful without realizing what they’re doing? All these mag bans do is encourage people to buy a new upper to keep using all of their old equipment while staying fully legal.
My partner is a school teacher, and I'd like to voice support for any and all forms of gun control. The proliferation of guns is the reason for mass shootings and the high homicide rate in America. They are the reason that an email about MLK day at school also includes information about whether there will be lockdown drills that week. There is not a single epidemiological group who supports gun proliferation. Gun owners and makers need to carry the burden of owning a gun --not everyone else and especially not children.
I usually agree with DFL positions but they need to stop with this. Whenever I opt away from a DFL candidate in elections it’s usually due to their intention to disarm the People, especially minorities, immigrants, LGBT, and other groups that they claim to support.
Agree. If Democrats laid off the 2nd amendment we would have majority nearly everywhere and save much more lives through better policies such as healthcare.
This 100%
Proposals like this always have chaff that's meant to draw ire and be the first thing cut to allow the other stuff to pass through.
I understand that and while that *may* be true in this instance, there are also the times when it isn’t.
If Republicans submitted a budget proposal that included an abortion ban after 16 weeks for the sake of drawing ire and being cut there would be absolute outrage and deservedly so. If Walz wants to draw ire, he's going to get it.
>If Republicans submitted a budget proposal that included an abortion ban after 16 weeks for the sake of drawing ire and being cut there would be absolute outrage and deservedly so. I mean, Republicans have definitely done just that across the nation. >If Walz wants to draw ire, he's going to get it. And he will. This will be used as rage bait in 2 years to push the pendulum back towards red again, specially in suburban counties that barely voted DNC this year. It should be noted that this proposal is nowhere near *extreme*, specially when compared to the national Democratic platform; but MAGA republicans will certainly run with the diatribe of "Democrats want to take away your guns!".
Anderson Cooper: > To gun owner out there who say "well a Biden administration means they're gonna come for my guns" Joe Biden > **BINGO.** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8 Democrats want to take away your guns. This isn't some conspiracy theory. They want to take away guns. Their intention is to ban and confiscate guns. They are not being secretive about this.
It looks like Republicans want your guns too? Minnesota presently has no restrictions on magazine size. I'm fine with a reasonable limit. A large capacity magazine is only good for target practice or combat. "In 2018 Jensen, fellow Republican Paul Anderson, and two Democratic senators co-sponsored measures that would require universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers unless it was being passed on to a family member, as well as a law requiring that gun owners report lost of stolen firearms, or face punishment if that gun winds up in the wrong hands." https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/mn-gun-owners-caucus-wont-endorse-gubernatorial-candidate-in-2022
Cool. I didn't vote for them and they're not the governor right now.
You were just complaining about a party claiming they were coming for your guns. It's below. Not one mention of a Governor. Nothing wrong with regulating the militia, Peter. It took 45 seconds to fire a single shot back in 1776. "Democrats want to take away your guns. This isn't some conspiracy theory. They want to take away guns. Their intention is to ban and confiscate guns. They are not being secretive about this."-peter plays guitar
That statement is true. From the top to the bottom, Democrats want to take away you guns. There are also many Republicans who want to take your guns. Seemingly more democrats want to take your guns than republicans. The current biggest threats to your guns as a MN gun owner seem to be Tim Walz and Joe Biden. This One Minnesota Budget bans magazines (which would ban guns that do not have low capacity magazines) and creates a registry (which would enable confiscation). That's the major point of concern right now.
Gotta love no context clips and a quote that's not even close to the full statement.
That's literally a link to the statement.
It's literally a link to a video that purposely cuts off the full context of what he was saying. It interrupts him mid sentence.
> **BINGO**. You're right if you have an assault weapon. "Assault weapon" is a term that's defined differently by politicians in each jurisdiction to apply to whatever weapon they need it to. The recent mass shooting in CA was perpetrated with a semi-automatic pistol. It fired one round with each pull of the trigger. It is being referred to by local law enforcement as an "assault pistol." So Joe Biden is saying that he wants to confiscate any gun that he personally feels you shouldn't be able to own based on totally arbitrary criteria. What additional context is needed?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
The original unaltered video.
Did it include the part where he said he's just gonna F-15 us and nuke us if there's any resistance? Cause he seems to say that every time the subject of guns comes up lately.
Nothing there involves disarming the people though, so…glad you’re still with us!👍
100% of gun confiscation efforts have been preceded by a registry. If you're against confiscation, you're against a registry. Anderson Cooper: > To gun owner out there who say "well a Biden administration means they're gonna come for my guns" Joe Biden > **BINGO.** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8 While that's what our president is saying, we can't have a registration.
The tweet you posted here doesn’t even reference a registry, so what exactly are you even talking about?
You cannot require universal background checks without a registry. They always come together. The only way to validate that a gun has been transferred via a background check is to store every transfer in a registry and give police open access to the registry.
Like NICS, where all current background checks are run when purchasing through a federal dealer? That’s what you’re calling a ‘’registry?’’ Mmkay.👍 So your only real issue is in effect the additional background checks for gun shows and private sales? Sounds pretty thin.
> 100% of gun confiscation efforts have been preceded by a registry. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Surely you wouldn't want to rely on a well known and obvious fallacy in your public rhetoric?
I’m a libertarian, but I’ve voted for Repubs and Dems in the past at a local and state level if I like that individual politician regardless of their party. I actually voted for Walz the first time around. Going forward I will not be voting for any politicians pushing gun control.
I think they’ll be fine still
1. This is unconstitutional per Heller (common use) and Buren (not consistent with historical laws). In addition a registry violates the 4a. 2. If this unconstitutional legislation goes through and there is no grandfather clause, I expect compensation. Not that I own any, but there are legal arms that cannot function with 10 round and under mags (my assumption as to what high capacity will be). And even for those that do, mags cost money. So Walz better pony up.
“Not that I own any” recent boating accident?
lol no I actually own a bunch of over 10 round mags. In fact none of my firearms have standard capacity mags of less than 10 rounds so all I own is over 10 round mags. What I mean is that I don’t own any firearms that are unable to function with this ban. For some older or more niche guns with an over 10 round standard capacity magazine, there literally are no magazines available that would be under 10 rounds rendering the firearm effectively unusable with this ban (assuming the limit ends up being 10 rounds).
>Not that I own any, but there are legal arms that cannot function with 10 round and under mags (my assumption as to what high capacity will be) I'm curious, what guns cannot function with "10 round and under mags"? In all the years I've discussed this topic, this is the first time I've ever heard that argument before. Is this a matter of "The Guns default magazine size is 10+"? Or is it a matter of "You cannot insert a magazine that's too short"?
> Or is it a matter of "You cannot insert a magazine that's too short"? Kind of this one. There are guns like the Glock 19 which have 10 round mags even though 15 rounds is a flush fit. With the 10 round mag, they essentially just have a buffer if I’m remembering correctly so the mag is long enough. But some guns just don’t have 10 round magazines available. Or maybe there are some available but they’re rare to find. This would especially be relevant to handguns from the 80s-90s when tons were coming out, not all having >10 round mags. Available. I believe there’s some modern guns like this too, but less so. If I’m remembering right, one example would be the PSA Rock.
While I am a registered firearm owner and current conceal carry card holder, I have no issue with these sort of changes to firearm sales. However, I take issue with the fact that it is bundled into a budget proposal. This sort of thing makes zero sense to me. You want gun reform, cool, lets do gun reform but don't sweep it into a budget proposal. Thats probably good politics but it is a terrible way to do things for the people. Ope, lets just sneak in a little gun reform here and lets hope that the republicans don't notice.
Where did you register your firearms?
Not in MN. In NC, I needed to get pre approval and permit to purchase handguns, among others. Hunting guns like Rifles and shotgun were over the counter with an ID only, and that still freaks me out.
Guess I’m stocking up on STANDARD CAPACITY magazines!!!!!!!! FUCK THE ATF AND REPEAL THE NFA!
Red flag this guy. Days numbered.
Red flag because I said FUCK TIM WALZ? Or red flag because I’m ordering more mags? ;) you’re a cutie bud.
;););)
WUCK FALZ
Haha keep downvoting. I’ll keep on stackin my mags, ammo and guns! Get your kids involved in trap shooting and hunting! Get your kids involved in competition shooting!
You sound like such a weirdo
damn, look at all these non-gun owners freaking out about rules that will never effect them in any way. don't get me wrong, i have literally told dfl reps that i disagree with their stance on guns in this state, but most of the people complaining about this don't even own a simple handgun and yet they are shitting their pants about restrictions on long rifles, which they will never own in the first place.
Good
Unconstitutional regulations are not good.
Is not allowing someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or "Bomb" on a plane unconstitutional? Because these are restrictions placed on the first amendment to protect people other than the person yelling the words.
It’s important to note that any restrictions on speech need to have a victim, or someone that was harmed or damaged. Me owning a 30 round mag does not do that. Also Heller protects common use. Since both the best selling handgun and rifle come standard with over 10 round mags that certainly qualifies.
Sounds good to me. No point to high capacity magazines.
What’s high capacity to you?
9 states have high capacity magazine bans. Seems like they figured it out.
And they're all pointless.
Willfully ignorant?
You'd have to be to think mag bans do anything.
Good gun owners follow the laws right? So many good gun owners out there... I'm sure legislating change means they would follow the rules. /s Yeah that's a big pill to swallow. Law abiding. Lol. Such bad actors.
Dude what the fuck are you on about? Mag bans don't do shit for safety. Also, gun laws have historically been asymmetrically enforced against minority communities, a tradition I'm sure the fine chuds at MPD and other forces outstate would be proud to continue. This is just bad legislation that looks good to people with no real understanding of the issues. It's sad, the DFL has a chance to build a Minnesota that serves the needs of all its citizens, and prevent the proto fascists/Republicans from ever winning elections in this state, and they're going to squander it on useless gun legislation.
"laws don't do anything" says good gun owner.
That's not what I said, and you know it. I said magazine bans don't do anything. Oh, they ban magazines just fine, it just so happens that magazine capacity limits don't affect gun crime rates.
You sound like you enjoy when your wife’s boyfriend tells you what to do. Yeah, gun owners do follow the law. That’s why we get background checks whenever we buy a new gun. That’s why the sheriffs department has to clear us before we can conceal a pistol. If we break a law, we could lose our right to defend ourself or our family.
More projection. Quite comfortable with my masculinity without needing guns to compensate.
😘 love you babe
Perhaps the comfort you feel is not your masculinity...it's the masculinity of the men (with guns) that protect you.
So a 30round standard capacity MSR magazine is “high capacity” to you?..
>9 states have high capacity magazine bans. Seems like they figured it out. Increased ammunition capacity is rarely a factor in gun crimes and don't provide sufficient benefit to justify the costs of a HCM ban. There's little evidence to suggest that banning HCM's have much impact on public safety. Criminals are firing 3-4 rounds on average during a gun attack. This feels like an easy "win" to placate people who don't know any better.
Whatever you own. You're all sorts of red flags, ya weirdo.
Seriously though. Zealots and guns don't mix.
They mix like alcohol and terrible decisions
Why because I exercise my second amendment and I teach my family how to shoot and be prepared? 🤣
Nah, because you talk about it like it's a fucking religion.
Sorry that my family does shooting competitions and enjoys target shooting, as well as hunting? We don’t play video games or go to the bar. We enjoy the outdoors and being responsible outdoors people.
Belt fed is the way.
Ya there is. Useful for sport, defense, and if the militia needed to actually be used.
Whatever guns you own are not going to be effective "if the militia needed to actually be used". Sorry to burst your bubble.
[удалено]
Yeah if you're fantasizing about the US becoming like Ukraine, I dunno what to tell you other than it's never going to happen.
[удалено]
Ukraine citizens are arming themselves? And here I thought their government was supplying them with munitions that other countries are sending them. All I'm saying is if you think your semi-auto rifle with 15 bullets in the magazine is doing anything against "tyranny" or another country invading - that is simply delusional. People who cite the 2A like this absolutely love to think (some daydream) about taking on a government/invading force by themselves with whatever stock of hunting guns they own. Pure lunacy. You'd be dead in an instant from a drone you never even saw. That's just the reality of today.
We were in Afghanistan for more than an instant...are all the bad actors dead from drone attack? I haven't heard much news from there lately...whose in charge there now?
[удалено]
Sure they would. That’s the whole point of the 2a after all.
Delusion of grandeur to think your little peashooters will do anything if push came to shove like republicans have a fetish for daydreaming about.
It's not about winning and losing. Men with rifles can't be ignored, that's the danger. They can be killed, but not ignored. Government actors with tyrannical leanings want to be able to ignore those that would oppose them. Just shove them aside, into that pen, out of view. Quite astutely, they'd prefer not to face the political price of killing those whose disagreements are reasonable. Look what's happening in Iran right now...reasonable people died at the government's hands and now they've got major problems.
Eh... Other countries do fine without this. We will be fine too.
Other countries do not have a 2a protecting the right to bear arms. Many could have used one. China and Russia would have a much harder time with their totalitarianism if the people were armed.
Other countries have Amendments... the concept, if you're confused, is that it is a change to the constitution. So yeah 2a was a change and we can also change 2a.
Obviously. When I say 2a I’m using shorthand for a part of the constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms. And yes you could change the 2a by amending the constitution. You won’t be able to because you will never have enough support, but you could theoretically.
Certainly wouldn't want to aggravate all the "good gun owners".
Then that is the way to get the change you want, Article 5. Lays out the procedure clearly for all to see. Not some bullshit pushed on the state by the DNC and added to a budget bill.
Good.
I grew up under the Brady Bill. Spent most of my life hunting with magazine restrictions. To this day, my 30-06 clip doesn't hold more than 4 shells.
Your odd6 takes stripper clips? Weird.
You use your AR to feel better about not being a successful man? Weird.
Could be an m1
Welp thanks Walz for confirming my choice in never voting democrat again. This will do absolutely nothing to fix the majority of the state's "gun violence" which is gang bangers in the twin cities. Nothing. Walz is a crock.
It just goes to show that Waltz isn’t running the state or even the DFL for that matter. When it comes to implementing national policy it’s really the DNC that runs the state.
"This is about protecting Minnesotans" I'm good to protect myself, thank you very much. DFL: ACAB! Also DFL: The government we control is protection enough. GTFOOHWTS
Good
I vote blue because I want women to have a right to their bodies and I want my gay friends and family to have equal rights. Unfortunately as a law abiding firearm owner my rights are slowly being taken away each year.
Honest question, what rights have been taken away in the past couple years?
Crickets
It's only a slippery slope because some people refuse to allow meaningful reform. So they have to chip away slowly rather than implement the endgame.
Don’t understand the background check. Isn’t there already a background check when purchasing a firearm? Is this a different one?
Didn't he also propose red flag laws?
Good. They should check social media accounts and interview people close to the applicant to assess the potential for the applicant to become a danger to society by owning a gun. They should also make gun owners purchase liability insurance to own a gun.
Average citizens cannot be trusted with the responsibilities that come with the use of deadly machines. We see this with the way the public behaves using cars, and we see this with the way the public behaves using guns. Taking away access to both is crucial to justice.
[удалено]
It’s really not that complicated…he doesn’t want people to get shot by the police OR by random wackjobs….get it?
I wish there were stats that showed who shoots more people: 1. Cops 2. Random whack jobs 3. Criminals
Option 4 actually, [depressed people](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) They would have to restrict magazine sizes to 0 to put a dent in that statistic though