Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is exerting whatever political muscle he has to get an "assault weapons" ban to his desk this year, including giving cover to Democrats opposed to the ban by accusing Republicans of refusing to "compromise" by objecting to a floor vote on the bill.
This week Walz, who has yet to actually call a special session of the legislature even though he's repeatedly talked about his plans to do so since the shooting at Annunciation Church in Minneapolis last month, told reporters that GOP leadership had informed him there would “never” be a vote on a “gun ban" if and when Walz does bring lawmakers back to the statehouse.
“I guess there’s a line in the sand, and I was told by Republican leadership that there would never be a vote on … a gun ban, and that’s not acceptable in reaching a compromise,” he said. “It’s clear to me that Republican legislators want to talk about everything else except guns.”
What kind of "compromise" involves voting to ban commonly-owned firearms that are in use for a variety of lawful purposes? What could Walz possibly offer that would make Republicans go along with that?
Is Walz is threatening to hold up votes on Republican proposals to increase school security unless the GOP acquiesces to a vote on a so-called assault weapons ban? That would be utterly despicable, given how desperate some of these districts are to upgrade their security on campuses, but I don't see what else Walz could be dangling as a "compromise".
While Walz never mentioned the opposition to a gun ban from some members of his own party, Republican leaders in the Minnesota legislature are reminding the public of that political reality.
House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said Tuesday that she thinks Walz could be mischaracterizing what was said by Republicans in leadership conversations.
“It appears to me that the governor is either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing the fact that even DFL leaders have acknowledged there are not enough votes to pass a gun ban,” Demuth said.
“I did not say there would never be a vote — but you need a bill in order to vote, and the governor has given no language or detail of what he wants voted on aside from vague bans,” she said. “If he is serious about wanting a vote, he should be honest about what he’s actually looking for a vote on instead of playing politics to further his campaign.”
“I asked for a floor vote on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons, and just let the members vote on it,” he said. “And if they believe that’s a bad idea, which obviously they do … then you can simply vote no.”
Yeah, that sounds pretty vague to me. What does Walz consider a "high-capacity" magazine, and what does the scope of his proposed ban look like? Are existing owners grandfathered in, or are they expected to destroy their magazines, modify them so they can only accept Walz's preferred number of rounds, or ship them out of state in order to comply with his ban?
What about "assault weapons"? How does Walz define that term, and again, what does he want to do with all the legally owned AR-15s and other guns he believes should be banned?
These details might be unimportant to Walz, but they prove Demuth's point. Not only has Walz not even called a special session at this point, but he isn't offering any serious policy solutions. He's not even offering a serious gun control proposal. He's simply delivering bumper sticker slogans and talking points from groups like Everytown and Giffords. Maybe we'll see some specifics in the future, but at the moment Walz is grandstanding for gun control and exploiting those children who were shot and killed while attending a school Mass.
Editor’s Note: Anti-gun politicians like Walz will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member