Governor Dayton Vetoed HR 1467

I’m in no way surprised about this but Governor Dayton vetoed HR 1467:

Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the so-called “castle doctrine” self-defense bill on Monday.
The proposal, supported by the gun-rights groups and opposed by Minnesota’s law-enforcement organizations, would have expanded the legal justification for citizens who use deadly force in threatening situations.

His reasoning? Well he took the advice of liars:

Dayton made his veto by letter without commenting publicly.

In his veto letter, Dayton said, he had to honor the opposition of law enforcement.

“The MN Police and Peace Officers Association, the MN Chiefs of Police and the MN Sheriffs Association represent the men and woman who risk their lives every day and night to protect the rest of us. When they strongly oppose a measure, because they believe it will increase the dangers to them in the performance of their duties, I cannot support it,” Dayton wrote.

No, they strong oppose the bill because it removes their feeling of superiority, that smug feeling they get by knowing they’re the only ones legally able to defend themselves wherever they roam. I will also add that no state that has passed these measures has noticed any additional danger to officers on the street, but facts are irrelevant to those in power.

Either way this is the outcome I expected. Any battle to win back powers taken by the state is long are arduous. We’ve seen where Mark Dayton stands on the right of self-defense and with this veto he’s flat out stated that he supports criminals over you and me. This battle certainly isn’t over, we’re not going to stop pushing this until it’s through and if that means ousting the governor and electing somebody less willing to side with criminals then that is what will be done.

2 thoughts on “Governor Dayton Vetoed HR 1467”

  1. Sadly I think this will have to go to courts for yet another definition of how you can defend yourself, luckily today a federal judge ruled that at least Maryland’s may issue permit system to be an infringement on your right to self defense. So maybe there is hope that a vague interpretation of what is reasonable before you defend yourself can also be thrown out.

    1. Yeah, although I feel bad for the poor person who has go through the court system just so they can affirm their right of self-defense.

Comments are closed.