I was pretty sure Minnesota was likely to get a special session to discuss gun control following the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School. T
In truth, it might not happen, and for good reason.
See, a special session is something Gov. Tim Walz can schedule, but that's all he can do. The legislature has to agree to pass anything, and that's where we get into issues.
Walz and Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislative leaders released a proposal for a special session that includes a ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. They’re also pushing for a special legislative session on Monday. The proposal also included expanded “school safety funding” and increased “funding for mental health treatment,” which are Republican priorities. None of the proposed bills included details.
Republicans are not on board, however, and because the two parties share power in the Legislature, bipartisan agreement is necessary. The House is tied 67-67 between Republicans and Democrats. The Senate is currently short two members until a Nov. 4 special election, after which Democrats are expected to maintain their slim majority, but until then, they are a vote shy of the necessary 34 to pass any bills.
Democrats say Republicans are unwilling to even consider any new restrictions on guns. Which wouldn’t be surprising: Republican voters are against new gun regulations, recent polling shows.
In a statement Tuesday, Walz said the DFL proposal “meets the expectations that Minnesotans have for their elected leaders — that we respond to threats to public safety and take direct action on guns.”
“Our offer addresses mental health, school safety, support for law enforcement and most importantly, common sense gun laws,” Walz said.
And that's the problem.
See, Republicans in the state made it clear. They weren't interested in restrictions on guns. Their constituents don't want that. They don't want them even entertaining the possibility of that. I'm sorry, but you can't pull the "this is what we were elected to do" card, then be mad at the other party for doing exactly what they were elected to do.
That's pretty hypocritical, though that would be nothing new for Walz.
Because of the current makeup of the legislature, this was simply not going to happen, simply because the Republicans in there weren't about to put gun control on the table. It's possible that we'll see these measures pass in the next session, but for now, it just wasn't going to happen. From what I've picked up, though, the House is still going to be deadlocked, and even a number of Senate Democrats are less than thrilled by gun bans.
For all their talk of compromise, Walz and Democratic legislative leaders are unwilling to do it by the rules they expect the right to live by. They're not willing to really give anything at all without getting something in return, but they routinely offer such "compromise" to Republicans, where they agree to take just a little less than they want, all without giving anything in exchange.
So, Republicans have held firm, as they're expected to do on gun issues, and the DFL is crying about it because they're just supposed to get their way no matter what.
Which is why state Republicans haven't budged.
They know what's happening, and if gun control was on the table for discussion, they knew that would be all that was up for discussion. There'd be nothing in the debate for them besides ridicule from the left for not tripping over themselves to pass gun control and from their constituents for even signaling they might be open to it.
And, frankly, they made the right call. They've held firm, which is what we want from a state Republican party when it comes to guns, gun control, and gun rights.
There are a few other states that could learn from this example.
