The assassination of a state lawmaker in Minnesota and the attempted assassination of another were awful things. It's ridiculous that we've come to that as a nation, where people think this is the way forward. I can't say violence is never the answer, because it most definitely can be, but we're not remotely to a point where it's the only solution, and it's not even the best solution. It just makes everything worse.
And those two shootings are providing a prime example of just how it can make things worse.
Minnesota, after all, is a pretty blue state, but there's one bit of law that's unusual for a state like that. They allow people with permits to carry guns in the Capitol.
Why wouldn't they? People with permits have been vetted as not being criminals, are typically among the most law-abiding citizens in the entire nation, and generally aren't something to worry about.
But Minnesota likes gun control, at least of late, and so this is weird.
Now, the shootings are prompting some lawmakers to revisit that law.
The Minnesota Capitol security debate is about to become a gun control debate.
At a hearing Wednesday, Aug. 20, of the Advisory Committee of Capitol Area Security, Sen. Bonnie Westlin, DFL-Plymouth, pivoted from kind words about Melissa and Mark Hortman and John and Yvette Hoffman to declare that, “No topic should be off the table. We need to fully explore every topic that impacts the security of the people who come to the building and that is going to include a conversation about weapons detection.”
Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, a member of the committee, said that weapons screenings have bolstered security in the state’s courtrooms.
“The Minnesota Capitol is often called the people’s house and no one believes that more than I do, but I also believe that the time has come in 2025 to rethink how the people’s house operates,” Hudson said.
...
The debate over Capitol security is coming into focus two months after former House Speaker Hortman and her husband died from gunfire and Sen. Hoffman and his wife were severely wounded. Here is what to know about the meeting and what comes next.
Now, they've gotten a lot of feedback from people in the state who don't want the ban to happen, and there's a reason they should be listened to.
First, let's consider where these shootings took place.
They weren't in the lawmakers' offices. They weren't in the Capitol. They were at their homes.
Why didn't the alleged killer go to the Capitol to shoot them instead? Why not just wait until they were in session, then kill them and anyone else, all in one building?
I can't say for certain, because I haven't talked to the guy, but I can't help but feel as if part of the issue there was the possibility of armed citizens putting him down before he could kill everyone he wanted dead.
In other words, while Minnesota lawmakers are saying they're worried about Capitol security, they're probably looking to change a rule that makes them vastly safer than they would be otherwise.
Which, really, is par for the course these days.
Tom's note: This was written prior to the incident at a Minneapolis Catholic church and school. While I'm sure that will play into the debate going forward, and I'm not going to change my take because of it, I do feel it's important to provide the context at the time of this writing.
Editor’s Note: While blue states are considering nonsense like this, President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member