People with concealed carry permits are shown to be among the most law-abiding people in the nation. The reasons are probably many, but the truth is that anyone who is inclined to break the law probably won't go through the hassle of getting a permit in the first place. As a result, permit holders are less likely to engage in criminal activity than the police, judges, actors, or politicians--all groups that some people seem to think should be exempted from gun control laws.
While peddling their opposition to something like national reciprocity, the anti-gun advocates claim that part of the problem is that different states have different standards, so why should California have to respect a permit from Georgia?
But the truth is that they don't care about the standards for issuing a permit at all. They don't see your right to self-defense as anything. They oppose it with every fiber of their being, and they actually prefer if you can't exercise it. In fact, at least one individual literally tried to claim the Second Amendment doesn't impact our ability to defend ourselves.
And that's illustrated by something Cam wrote about last month, and that I was reminded of earlier today.
We have heard some bonehead gun control bills coming from the anti-gun left, but this one takes the cake...and the whole dessert table.
In a state where unhinged gun control nuts are as standard as Somalis gaming the system, Assistant Attorney General John Zwier has gone entirely off the rails.
Zwier, who plans on running for the Minnesota House, has proposed what must be one of the dumbest, tone-deaf gun control proposals yet, according to Bearing Arms. His proposal will have criminals jumping for joy because, as we know, criminals do not obey the law. Without further ado, Zwier wants to make it a requirement that all guns being carried must have a trigger lock in place. More on that in a bit.
In a recent column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Zwier proposed that firearms have rights. You read that correctly: the second-most-powerful law enforcement official in Minnesota implied that firearms have rights. Here is his “logic”:
“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 [the] criminal’s arsenal is not ‘involved 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.”
As Cam correctly noted, guns do not actually have rights. People have rights. Taking people's property requires the court to examine the facts. It should be noted, though, that "a preponderance of evidence" is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," such as what people deal with in criminal cases.
Regardless, Zwier's proposal is the most brain-dead idea I've literally ever heard.
If I find myself in a life-or-death situation and need my firearm, especially out and about the town somewhere in Somali-held Minnesota, I don't have time to fiddle with a gun lock before protecting myself. While I'm doing that, I'm probably being murdered before I can get the gun out of the holster, the key out of my pocket, the key inserted into the lock, turn the key, remove the lock, and engage the bad guy.
There's no amount of drilling you can do with your weapon to change that fact, either.
Zwier is, at best, a complete and total idiot. He's such an idiot that he makes Gov. Tim Walz look like a savant without the "idiot-" part attached. Only someone so stupid they need constant reminders to breathe could possibly think this is a viable solution to anything, much less that it would do any good.
After all, criminals don't have carry permits. They don't obtain guns lawfully. They don't do any of that, so why would they put a lock on it? They wouldn't.
Yet even if they did, since they get to pick the time and place of an engagement, they'd just take it off.
Not that they'd even own a gun lock, much less use one.
The truth, though, is that Zwier's entire diatribe is premised on the idea that you really don't have a right to self-defense, that you should be left at the mercy of the merciless. He's fine with you being beaten to death and your wife and daughter being sexually assaulted before they join you in the afterlife, just so long as you can't access your firearm at some time when he, personally, doesn't think you should.
This isn't anti-gun politics. This is pure evil, in my book. He knows good and well that's what we're up against as armed citizens, and he'll still make the proposal, knowing Minnesota is leaning anti-gun and may well pass something like that sooner or later.
He wants you dead, all so he can then use your corpse to justify more gun control.
If that's not evil, what is?
Editor’s Note: The radical left 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