Between Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minnesota gun owners already have to put up with some of the worst anti-2A politicians in the country. Ellison's Assistant Attorney General John Zwier, though, is giving them a run for their money.
Zwier plans on filing as a candidate for a seat in the state House (in a deep-blue district, naturally), and is tryng to generate some positive press for his upcoming campaign by proposing one of the dumbest gun control measures I've seen in more than two decades of reporting on Second Amendment issues.
Before we get to that dumb idea, though, let's start with this idiotic contention Zwier made in a recent column at the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
In the U.S., we give firearms rights. When a criminal uses a firearm, the firearm can be taken off the streets, and out of the criminal’s hands, only if the firearm is proven, by a preponderance of evidence, to be “involved in or used in” a violation of certain federal laws. If any part of criminal’s arsenal is not “involved in or used in” a violation, then it cannot be taken off the street. Once convicted, a felon may be “prohibited” from possessing a firearm and, indeed, such possession becomes an additional criminal offense that the government could charge. But the reality is that criminals often have easy access to all but the firearm they used in their original offense.
This system is obviously worthless for preventing gun violence. Evil gets a free ride, easy access to the tools that facilitate murder and mayhem.
I hate that this needs to be said, but no, firearms don't have rights. Yes, we punish the individuals who violate our laws, not the inanimate objects. If someone is convicted of a DUI or even vehicular manslaughter, for instance, we don't send their car to the junkyard. The car did nothing wrong. The car is incapable of doing wrong or right, just like firearms. A gun can be used for lawful purposes or unlawful purposes, but a gun is never going to act on its own.
Now, it's nice that Zwier acknowledges that, with all of the gun control laws we have in place, criminals can still easily and illegally acquire firearms. That would lead most of us to come to the conclusion that we need to get tough on violent offenders, but not Zwier. No, he's come up with this brilliant idea.
All firearms out in public, on our city streets, should have visible trigger locks. Just like with the adoption of seat belts, firearm safety culture can make this adjustment. And, like with DUIs, failure to responsibly transport a trigger-locked firearm should be enforced with civil penalties and possible forfeiture of the firearm. The moral community should be empowered to enforce this. The public should be educated on what these trigger locks look like and should be asked to report anytime they see a firearm without one. Firearm retailers can help by selling every firearm with a trigger lock, and requiring it be engaged as an individual walks out of their store. Quick reporting of an unsecured firearm or of an individual unlocking their firearm on our city streets, could give law enforcement an earlier warning of when evil is about to strike.
I hardly know where to begin with this, but let's start with the fact that the vast majority of firearms "out in public" aren't visible at all. Yes, open carry is legal in Minnesota, but most folks with a carry license are going to carry concealed.
Even for guns that are openly carried, though, most holsers are going to cover and conceal the trigger, which means it would be impossible for the "moral community" to enforce Zwier's big idea.
Zwier wants retailers to require a trigger lock to be engaged before a customer walks out of the store with a firearm, which tells me that he's never spent much time in a gun store. Can you imagine a retailer requiring a customer to take a gun out of its packaging and fiddle around with it in their establishment before they can exit the premises?
And, of course, requiring an active trigger lock on every firearm that's lawfully carried would render them absolutely useless for self-defense. I'm sure that's just fine with Zwier but it's beyond problematic from both a constitutional and common sense perspective.
Does Zwier believe that his grand idea should apply to police as well? After all, it's far more common to see a pistol on the hip of a police officer than a private citizen. Maybe he should ask a cop what they think about having a trigger lock on their service weapon, both on and off-duty.
More importantly, does Zwier believe that violent criminals would abide by this law? As he says, "criminals often have easy access to all but the firearm they used in their original offense," and our gun control regime is "is obviously worthless for preventing gun violence." Why, then, would he expect this law to be any different? Criminals would still obtain guns on the black market, through theft, or through family and friends. They would not, however, be walking around with a trigger-locked gun. Would someone intent on committing an armed robbery or a carjacking be concerned about the possibility of a civil penalty or the forfeiture of a firearm they likely didn't legally possess to begin with?
I'm not sure how Zwier came up with this idea or if he ran it by anyone with any experience carrying a firearm, but I'm sure glad he decided to share it with the rest of us. Now we know that Ellison's not the only anti-2A wackjob in the Attorney General's office, and the voters of House District 64A can make an informed decision about whether or not to have a complete crackpot representing them in the statehouse.
Editor's Note: Sadly, anti-gun zealots like Zwier are in positions of power at the local, state, and federal level.
Help us continue to shine a light on their unconstitutional proposals and efforts to erode our Second Amendment rights. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member