Tag: Minnesota

Don’t Fall for the False Dichotomy

It’s inevitable that a person involved in the political realm will eventually be forced to make a decision between standing up for their principles or maintaining their political alliances. Gun owners who also oppose furthering the police state now have to make that decision. Between the two primary factions two options have emerged: HF237, which attempts to prohibit private sales, or HF1323, which will advance the police state.

Both sides in this debate have adopted an “us” versus “them” methodology. In face the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) has the following to say:

Some anti-gun activists have been working to create a split among gun owners, hoping to weaken our position by making us fight among ourselves. They are trying to portray the Criminal Control bill, HF1325, as a gun control bill.

As I mentioned in my coverage of HF1323 (HF1325 is a clone of HF1323 for those who are curious) the bill contains several points that I would qualify as gun control, specifically Section 12, which would make it a felony to falsely report your firearms as lost or stolen. I consider that section a method of gun control because in the event of an “assault weapon” ban it would prohibit you from reporting your “assault weapons” as lost. With the passage of HF1323 the police would have reason to kidnap you if you reported your firearms as lost during an attempted confiscation. This, in addition with the mess of data that the bill would mandate to be entered into state or federally managed databases, makes for a frightening proposition. Things get a bit more ridiculous when the GOCRA page presents only two two options:

Don’t let the gun grabbers divide and conquer us. Call and email your Minnesota senator and representative today:

  • Ask them to support Rep. Hilstrom and Sen. Ortman’s criminal control bill.
  • Ask them to oppose Rep. Paymar’ss [sic] bill.

That’s a false dichotomy because there is a third option, oppose both bills. There is no need to pass more legislation. What’s broken in regards to gun control isn’t the absence of restrictions, it’s the number of restrictions. Gun-free zones have greatly reduced the cost of performing violence. No amount of background checks, data in police databases, or new laws will correct that problem.

What surprises me isn’t GOCRA’s advocacy of HF1323, it’s their tenacity in supporting it. I haven’t seen any suggestion that people oppose both bills. In fact, based on what I’ve seen written on their website, they seem to imply that you’re either with gun owners by supporting HF1323 or you’re against them by opposing it. It’s a ridiculous attitude to hold and it saddens me to see it posted on their website.

As I said at the beginning of this post, eventually politics will lead you to make a decision between your principles or your political alliances. My principles won’t allow me to support any legislation that creates new gun control measures or grants more power to the police state. Fortunately I’ve escaped the political realm and am now working on solutions outside of the state’s ability to control. My solution relies on mutual cooperation instead of “us” versus “them” strategies. It’s also something different, which is desperately needed since the political means has lead to a continuous erosion of gun rights. I urge everybody to oppose both bills being presented and find alternative means of advancing gun rights. The time of passively begging politicians to give us a few scraps from the table is over. We don’t need their blessing, permission, or acknowledgement and it’s time we started realizing that.

Gun Control Advocates Dislike Turnabout

Joan Peterson is a gun control advocate who lives in the same state as I’m currently occupying, Minnesota. Her zealotry is notable and I believe she would love nothing more than to see a law passed that granted the state a monopoly on legal firearm ownership. Her latest blog post demonstrates an interesting characteristic of gun control advocates, they dislike turnabout:

Isn’t it interesting that the gun rights extremists are more than willing to give up some of their rights to privacy and government interference when it suits their own purposes? Surely requiring everyone in a community to own a gun fits this description.

[…]

At least convicted felons would be exempt. That’s a relief. What about dangerously mentally ill people or domestic abusers? What about those convicted of drug crimes? What about minors? Where do you draw the line? How will you know who is legal and who is not if this is a requirement? Will “jack booted government thugs” go door to door to make sure those in the home are actually legal gun purchasers? Will you invade their privacy? How will you enforce this law? I mean, shouldn’t we make sure we enforce the gun laws we already have? What will happen if you refuse to have a gun? Will you be charged with a crime and sent to jail? Will you be fined? Remember now, these are the very same people who object to any paperwork requirements when a gun is purchased because it might lead to some sort of government record of gun ownership. How does this objection square with that point of view? Because of the stupid idea that a measure like this will keep the government from passing reasonable gun laws to keep us all safer in our communities, the NRA extremists are violating their own talking points. Hypocrisy as far as the eye can see…..

Notice how every question she asks is also a valid question when discussing gun control. How can a law against mentally ill individuals owning firearms be enforced when many mental illnesses can’t be detected until their symptoms begin to manifest? Why should a person convicted of growing, selling, or using cannabis be prohibited from owning firearms? None of those acts are violent in of themselves.

Obviously I oppose laws that require people to own a firearm just as I oppose laws that prohibit people from owning firearms. With that said proposed laws requiring people to own firearms is turnabout. It’s using the tactic beloved by gun control advocates, enforcing their personal desires onto a entire population by using the state’s capacity for violence, against them. Demanding everybody in a community own firearms is no different than prohibiting everybody in a community from owning firearms. Regardless of what is being demanded by the state the consequences of violating the demand are the same, men wearing costumes and carrying guns will kidnap you and lock you in a cage. That’s the difference between myself and gun control advocates, I have no desire to send armed thugs to kidnap you if you do something I disagree with. In fact I’ve not heard a single advocate of gun control explain how using the state’s capacity for violence to fight violence makes sense. If the desired end is to abolish violence then violence cannot be the means as it is mutually exclusive to the end.

Consider the following paragraph taken from her blog post:

As we all know, most reasonable gun owners, and even NRA members, want reasonable gun laws. I have written about that many many times before on this blog. NRA lobbyists don’t like new gun laws, right? That’s what they claim. But, wait- they love the gun laws that they, themselves, write and push on the public.This is ludicrous, stupid and dangerous. Where is common sense? A gun in the home is more likely to be used against you or someone in the home than to be used for self defense. Sure, guns are occasionally used for self defense in a home invasion or attack of some kind. But more often a gun is used in a suicide, homicide or accidental shooting.

Here statement that “A gun in the home is more likely to be used against you or someone in the home than to be used for self defense.” is a ridiculous one. But Joan asks a pertinent question, “Where is the common sense?” How can one oppose gun violence and advocate for laws that require men with gun to kidnap or murder people who violate those laws? Gun control advocates always seem to miss the fact that gun control laws are enforced by men with guns. Even worse, those men with guns are less accountable because people view their actions as being legitimate by default. If a police officer shoots somebody many people will believe the shooting was legitimate unless an investigation, which may or may not occur, says otherwise. On the other hand if I were to shoot somebody many people will believe the shooting was illegitimate unless an investigation, which will almost certainly occur, says otherwise. If gun control advocates want to grant a monopoly on gun ownership to somebody wouldn’t it make more sense if the monopolist was usually held accountable? Why do gun control advocates generally believe that the common sense solution is to give the monopoly to individuals that are held less accountable for their actions? She closes with the common gun control advocate tripe of having a discussion:

Let’s have some real discussion about whether guns in the home are a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.

Let’s have some real discussion about whether granting the state a monopoly on violence is a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether having a state, an entity with a monopoly on violence, actually is necessary. It’s hypocritical to claim an opposition to violence while advocating solutions that rely on violence. Is having a gun in the home a good idea? That’s subjective. For some people it is, for others it’s not. Is a gun necessary for self-defense? Once again, that’s subjective. Each person has unique knowledge regarding themselves that is derived from their monopoly on life experiences. I cannot know what is best for you because I lack your unique knowledge about yourself and you cannot know what is best for me for the same reason. Therefore it’s egotistical, to say the least, to believe you know what is best for everybody else.

I should point out that Joan made a mistake in her post. She omitted the asterisk after saying:

People are free to own guns if they want to.

The asterisk should say “So long as those people are people I personally approve of, only own firearms that I personally approve of, and can have their firearms revoked the second I no longer personally approve of them.” Joan doesn’t believe people are free to own firearms, she believes select people, those she personally approves of, are allowed to have a temporary privilege to own certain firearms.

I will close with a thought. As a gun control advocate Joan appears to believe that gun owners are, at least on some level, inherently violent and therefore warrant more scrutiny in our society. As an anarchist I believe that statists are, at least on some level, either violent or ignorant of how the state works. I don’t believe Joan is ignorant of how the state works. She seems to have a very strong desire to control other people and she sees the state as her tool for doing so. In all likelihood her desire to control other people derives from fear of other people and that fear is likely cause by projecting characteristics of herself, namely her desire to control other people, onto everybody else. It appears that she’s caught in a vicious cycle of having a desire to control other people leading to a fear or other people leading to a desire to control other people and so on.

Enhancing the Police State in the Name of Defending Gun Rights

The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) has been making noise about a piece of legislation that they are selling as an alternative to the bills being offered by gun control advocates. I voiced my concern based on what was said about the bill in the news. The bill, H1323, was officially unveiled yesterday and I can say it’s not the common sense legislation that was being promised, although it didn’t end up throwing the mentally ill under a bus as I feared. The legislation itself isn’t as bad as what is being pushed by the gun control advocates but it does reek of a desperate ploy to offer the gun control advocates a piece of meat in the hopes that they will relent and an attempt to appear, what Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned referred to as, tough on crime.

Most of the bill consists of amendments to currently existing statutes. The amendments, in general, either requires data be electronically entered into a searchable database, creates mandatory minimum sentences or flat out creates new crimes. From the viewpoint of being touch on crime the bill is effective. Being tough on crime, at least politically, necessarily means granting the state more power, which is never good for the general populace. Because of that fact I find the legislation, overall, troubling. Consider section one of the legislation:

Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 241.301, is amended to read:
241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. by electronic entry into a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension-managed or federal searchable database within 24 hours of receipt. The bureau shall convert the fingerprints and thumbprints into an electronic format for entry into the appropriate searchable database within 72 hours of receipt if the data is not entered by the commissioner.

Currently Statute 2012, section 241.301 reads:

241.301 FINGERPRINTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER STATES.
The commissioner of corrections shall establish procedures so that whenever this state receives an inmate, parolee, or probationer from another state under sections 241.28 to 241.30 or 243.1605, fingerprints and thumbprints of the inmate, parolee, or probationer are obtained and forwarded to the bureau of criminal apprehension.

The statute, as it currently stands, has no mention of a database whereas the statute, under H1323, would mandate the taken fingerprints be converted into an electronic format and entered into a database either managed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehensions or a federal agency. Databases of people in the hands of the state are never good. I won’t post every instance in the bill where information is mandated to be added to a database, I’ll leave that up to you, but much of the bill deals with exactly that and it makes for some rather Orwellian reading.

Second 11 is also worrisome as it creates new minimum sentences:

Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.165, subdivision 1b, is amended to read:
Subd. 1b. Violent felons in possession; violation and penalty; mandatory sentences. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.
(b) A conviction and sentencing under this section shall be construed to bar a conviction and sentencing for a violation of section 624.713, subdivision 2.
(c) The criminal penalty in paragraph (a) does not apply to any person who has received a relief of disability under United States Code, title 18, section 925, or whose ability to possess firearms has been restored under subdivision 1d.
(d) Unless a longer mandatory minimum sentence is otherwise required by law or the sentencing guidelines provide for a longer presumptive executed sentence, a person convicted of violating paragraph (a) shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for:
(1) 60 months;
(2) 120 months if the person has a prior conviction under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States; or
(3) 180 months if the person has a combination of two or more prior convictions under this section, section 624.713, subdivision 2, paragraph (b), or a comparable law of another state or the United States. Sentencing a person in a manner other than that described in this paragraph is a departure from the sentencing guidelines.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

I don’t like prisons, they’re a form of collective punishment as the taxed are forced to pay for the food, water, clothing, housing, and guarding of those convicted of crimes. Minimum sentences are nothing more than a forced duration of how long the taxed are forced to pay for a convicted man’s incarceration. On top of being a form of collective punishment prisons, especially as they exist in the United States, are ineffective. Norwegian’s Bastoy prison island, a novel facility that actually treats prisoners like human beings while requiring them to provide heavily for their own needs, has a recidivism rate of 16% compared to the United States rate of 67.5%. We should be focusing on alternatives to the United States prison industrial complex instead of putting more people in those ineffective cages for longer periods of time. I don’t see the justice in punishing the taxed and putting people in cages, which is why I find this section particularly offensive.

Section 12 specifically makes it illegal to falsely report lost or stolen firearms:

Sec. 12. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.505, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 3. Lost or stolen firearms; false reporting. (a) Whoever informs a law enforcement officer that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing that the report is false, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person:
(1) is convicted a second or subsequent time of violating this subdivision; or
(2) violates paragraph (a) while knowing that the firearm has been transferred to someone who intends to use it in furtherance of a felony crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Under the proposed “assault weapon” ban many people discussed how they would simply report their “assault weapons” as lost. Reporting firearms as lost is one possible way to avoid a gun grab. If H1323 passes, and an “assault weapon” ban later passes, the police will have grounds to kidnap and charge you with a gross misdemeanor if you claim you lost your “assault weapons.” Personally I would prefer it if the police didn’t have grounds for kidnapping me if I reported my arms as lost.

Section 15 is interesting as it would prevent a prohibited person from legally possessing ammunition as well as firearms. I’m not sure why this was added but it’s entirely unnecessary and bordering ridiculous. If a person can’t legally possess a firearm then possessing ammunition is irrelevant since ammunition is meaningless without a firearm and somebody willing to violate a prohibition against possessing a firearm is almost certainly willing to violate a prohibition against possessing ammunition. This section also includes a minor change of language that I’m baffled by:

(3) a person who is or has ever been ordered committed in Minnesota or elsewhere by a judicial determination that the person is mentally ill, developmentally disabled, or mentally ill and dangerous to the public, as defined in section 253B.02, to a treatment facility, whether or not the order was stayed, or who has ever been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, unless the person’s ability to possess a firearm has been restored under subdivision 4 6;

Perhaps I’m wrong about this but if a person has been ordered committed and they refuse to go aren’t they violating a court order and therefore committing a crime? Aren’t redundancy like that what gun rights advocates continuously criticize when new laws are added to the books? Is there some point to adding this language other than to appear touch on crime?

Section 16 creates more minimum sentences, this time for prohibited persons in possession of firearms or ammunition. What I stated about Section 11 is true here, minimum sentences are not going to fix anything as the entire concept of incarceration, at least as it exists in the United States, needs to be addressed. More specifically when it comes to punishing prohibited persons it’s important to point out that many prohibited persons have no violent history, they were merely charged with a nonviolent felony. While there is some ground on which to argue for a person with a violent history being prohibited from owning arms there is absolutely no ground on which to argue for a person with no violent history being prohibited from owning arms. A catchall minimum sentence will adversely effect both violent and nonviolent individuals who violate a prohibition against owning arms.

There is some good news in the bill as Section 19 does establish some mechanism for those prohibited from owning a firearm due to a mental illness to restore their ability to legally possess a firearm:

Sec. 19. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.713, is amended by adding a subdivision to read:
Subd. 6. Restoration of firearms eligibility to civilly committed person; petition authorized. (a) A person who is subject to the disabilities in section 624.713, subdivision, clauses (3) and (5), or United States Code, title 18, section 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4), because of an adjudication or commitment that occurred under the laws of this state may petition the court in which the adjudication or commitment proceedings occurred or a district court of competent jurisdiction to remove all the disabilities. A copy of the petition for relief shall be served upon the county attorney’s office of the jurisdiction in which the petition is filed. The department or office may, as it deems appropriate, represent the interests of the state in the restoration proceedings.
(b) The court shall receive and consider evidence in a closed proceeding, including evidence offered by the petitioner, concerning:
(1) the circumstances regarding the firearm disabilities from which relief is sought;
(2) the petitioner’s mental health and criminal history records, if any;
(3) the petitioner’s reputation, developed at a minimum through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence; and
(4) changes in the petitioner’s condition or circumstances since the original adjudication or commitment relevant to the relief sought. The court shall grant the petition for relief if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. A record shall be kept of the proceedings, but it shall remain confidential and be disclosed only to a court in the event of an appeal. The petitioner may appeal a denial of the requested relief, and review on appeal shall be de novo.
(c) The court administrator shall promptly electronically transmit information of the order granting relief to the person under this section to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or to any official issuing a permit under section 624.7131, 624.7132, or 624.714 and notify the United States Attorney General that the basis for the person’s record of firearm disabilities being made available no longer applies.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

Honestly this is all the bill should have been, a mechanism for those who have had their legal ability to possess a firearm because of a mental illness to seek redress. While that one nugget of good is nice to see, Section 20 continues the bad by creating a felony for being unable to read minds:

Sec. 20. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 624.7141, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. Felony. A violation of this section is a felony:
(1) if the transferee possesses or uses the weapon within one year after the transfer in furtherance of a felony crime of violence; or
(2) if the transferor knows the transferee intends to use the weapon in the furtherance of a felony crime of violence.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective August 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

How is somebody supposed to know if the person buying their firearm intends to use it to commit a felony? Section 22 effectively makes straw purchases more illegal, unless you’re a law enforcement officer (how else are they going to buy firearms to smuggle to Mexican drug cartels), and the remainder of the bill just demands more data be entered into government managed databases.

My only real question is this: why was a bill introduced at all? Do gun rights activists really believe that gun control advocates will back off if we offer them a sufficient compromise? Gun owners have compromised with gun control advocates numerous times and they have always come back for more. This bill implements nothing that would have prevented the Connecticut shooting, which is what sparked this insanity. The Connecticut shooter murdered his mother and stole her firearms. No amount of data in government managed databases, background checks, or mental health evaluations would have prevented that. There is nothing in this bill would have prevented that. Reading through this legislation, with the exception of Section 19, reeks of a foolhardy attempt to appear tough on crime in the hopes of satisfying statists. No bill, need to get tougher on crime, or data in government managed databases is necessary. In fact we have too many laws on the books as it is.

I leave you to make your own decision regarding this bill. As an anarchist I’m not going to meddle in the affairs of the state or spend my time begging politicians to support or reject legislation. What I will say is that this legislation isn’t good and I wouldn’t write letters or make phone calls to politicians urging them to support it. If you’re going to meddle in the state’s affairs then encourage the politicians to take no action, they’ve done enough damage already.

A Sick Feeling in My Stomach

Via Facebook I learned that the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) and Tony Cornish have been working on a alternate gun bill to be introduced Wednesday. The word alternate instantly raised red flags in my mind as it implied further restrictions on gun ownership just not a severe as what has already been proposed. After reading this article I’m even more worried:

House Speaker Paul Thissen and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk said that a plan backed by gun rights advocates stands a better chance of passing this session even as some who favor tighter gun control hope for more substantive changes. Among other things, the new proposal set to be unveiled Wednesday morning addresses some mental health issues and adds to the parameters of what would disqualify someone from legally owning a gun.

Emphasis mine. I’ve voiced my concern regarding the gun rights movement’s decision to throw the mentally ill under the bus. By blaming mental illness the gun rights movement basically handed the gun control advocates a victory so long as they justify their efforts by claiming they are meant to prevent the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Unfortunately the issue of mental illness is a very difficult topic in this country because it carries such a severe social stigma. If further prohibitions against gun ownership are created based on mental health it will discourage those suffering from mental illness from seeking professional help.

I will withhold judgement until after I read the bill but I am worried that it may be an attempt to toss the mentally ill under the bus in the hopes that such a sacrifice will satisfy the gun control advocates.

Paymar Unveiled His Gun Control Plans

Michael Paymar, one of Minnesota’s most zealous gun control advocates, has unveiled his gun control plan now that the numerous hearing have concluded. Not surprisingly he said an “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine ban will not be pursued at this time, instead his band of merry men will be looking at universal registration (to make a later implemented “assault weapon” ban easier):

After hours-long hearings on gun violence in both chambers this month, Rep. Michael Paymar has released a package of policy changes that focuses on expanding background checks and stepped up penalties for gun crimes, but tosses out proposed bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazine clips.

The St. Paul Democrat and chair of the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee rolled out his “Gun Violence Prevention Act” at a press conference on Thursday. It includes his proposal to expand background checks and closes the so-called gun show loophole. The bill would also increase penalties for gun crimes and illegally selling firearms.

I’m not surprised to see the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans being tabled. As I mentioned in my post about the proposed increase of taxes on alcohol, the bans were likely a “worse option” presented primarily to make the serfs more accepting of a “better option.” Now that Paymar and his goons have been so magnanimous by removing the bans from the table they expect Minnesota gun owners to comply with stricter background checks out of gratitude. Beating people into submission with fear is probably the most common tool in the statist toolbox.

Pursuing stronger background checks and prohibiting private sales is a smart move on Paymar’s behalf. It’s easy to spin those bills in a positive light and gun rights advocates have practically handed them the ability to enact stronger background checks by focusing on mental health. Because the gun rights movement has spent so much time blaming mental illness the gun control advocates can propose strong background checks, under the auspices of preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms, and claim it’s something both sides can agree on. Instead of proposing databases and more restrictions on those who have suffered from mental illness, the National Rifle Association (NRA), and other gun rights organizations, should have been explaining how the stigma of mental illness in this country encourages people to not seek treatment and proposed working on overcoming that stigma. Now the gun control advocates have ammunition to use against us, much of which we supplied them.

On the upside any law that makes it hard to legally acquire a firearm will encourage more individuals to illegally acquire firearms. The more commerce that happens on the “black” market the less tax dollars the state can collect and the sooner it will collapse.

Bypassing Minnesota’s Alcohol Laws

The history of alcohol laws in Minnesota can best be described as asinine. If you look at the Minnesota Department of Health’s website on alcohol laws you’ll find such gems requiring all alcohol advertisements be approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety and requiring all kegs to be registered. One of the other asinine laws is a prohibition against selling alcohol on Sundays (unless you’re a bar or restaurant). Attempts to repeal the prohibition have been tried numerous times but have continued to fail. Four Firkins, a specialty beer store in Minnetonka, is moving ahead with the latest attempt to strike the prohibition from the books:

Jason Alvey, who runs specialty beer and liquor store The Four Firkens, will try to persuade lawmakers to let he and other liquor stores open on Sundays.

Alvey argues the ban on Sunday sales is outdated and should be repealed.

However, not everyone agrees.

The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association, along with other liquor store owners, say opening on Sundays would simply pull sales from other days and increase operating costs.

Alvey disagrees and says those who oppose Sunday sales don’t have to open seven days a week if a bill, sponsored by Senator Jeremy Miller, becomes law and repeals the ban. Instead, Alvey says liquor store owners could open on Sundays, reap financial rewards, and close on Mondays when he says sales are generally much slower.

The difficulty of getting the prohibition removed has been Minnesota’s own liquor lobby. As it currently stands most liquor store owners enjoy the prohibition against selling their goods on Sunday because it allows them to reduce their operating costs by not being open one day out of the week without having to suffer consequences of their competition being open on that day.

In addition to this constantly repeating battle another political issue involving alcohol has arrive, a bill that would increase the taxes placed on alcohol sales. Reading the bill will bring to light the fact that the tax increases would be tremendous, which is why I doubt the bill will pass in its current form. In all likelihood the bill is meant to be a “worse option” and a “better option” will be presented after some revisions. By doing this the populace of Minnesota are less likely to resist the increase because they will feel as though they got off lucky.

Being a practical man I wish to present a method that can be used to bypass both laws, along with every other Minnesota law regarding the sale of alcohol. If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time you’ve likely guessed that the solution I’m going to present is agorist in nature, and you would be correct. The so-called black market can once again provide a solution to tyranny and it only requires producers of desired goods who are willing to ignore the state’s decrees. Are you a person who is willing to brew beer and/or distill liquor illegally? Are you willing to also sell your brewed beer and/or distilled liquor on Sunday? Congratulations, you are the solution! Agorist alcohol stands to be much cheaper since taxes are not applied to the price tag. On top of that agorist brewers and distillers can enjoy the freedom of selling their goods anytime they please. To make things even better no begging the state for permits is required.

Instead of begging the state to allow the sale of alcohol on Sunday or not increase the taxes on alcohol sales as much as they’re currently planning the people of Minnesota can simply start producing alcohol outside of the state’s law. In that way Minnesotans can enjoy cheaper alcohol that is available every day of the week. Furthermore agorist alcohol doesn’t contribute money to the state, which is actively suppressing competition in the alcohol market and making everybody pay a higher price. An added benefit is the fact that alcohol, being a cheap form of entertainment, has traditionally done well during times of economic hardship and therefore stands to make current producers a good amount of profit.

Current Gun Control Bills Being Proposed in Minnesota

Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) has put together a list of gun control bills currently being proposed at the State Capitol along with MNGOCRA’s rating for how bad the bills are for gun owners. As it currently stands the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans are tabled but prohibiting private sales will be rigorously pursed:

The Minnesota Senate will not act to ban assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition clips this year, a DFL leader said Monday.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is chairing the Senate’s gun hearings this week, said he will focus on closing the loopholes in background checks and leave the issue of banning weapons or ammunition to Congress.

“The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban proposals are highly divisive,” said Latz, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Legions of concerned gun owners turned out for three days of hearings on gun issues last week, and Latz said such bans also do not have strong support from law enforcement.

On the other hand, he said, the idea of filling loopholes in background checks has strong public and police support, and he believes it can pass this year.

“Law enforcement does have broad consensus in favor of universal background checks, closing loopholes in existing statutes,” he said. “I want to focus on what has broad public support.”

In all likelihood the politicians weren’t intending to pursuer the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans in a serious manner. Those bills were probably the bait whereas the prohibition against private sales is the switch. The state has a history of presenting very bad legislation, getting the serfs to beg them for leniency, and then presenting legislation that appears to be less egregious. It’s an effective strategy because it allows the state to grab more power will making the serfs breathe a sigh of relief because things didn’t turn out as bad as they could have.

With that said, the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans may be pursued during a lame duck session or as an amendment to a “must pass” bill at a later date. One thing is certain, the state isn’t going to allow the serfs to remain armed permanently. Armed serfs are harder to expropriate from and the state exists to expropriate.

More People Submitted Notice to Carry at the Minnesota State Capitol

How can anybody be surprised by this news:

The number of people who have notified authorities they will be carrying loaded weapons in the state Capitol area has spiked since the DFL-controlled Legislature put gun-control on the agenda in the wake of the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.

While there were 56 people filing such notifications all of last year, there have already been 148 notifications filed in the last month.

It is legal for a permit-holder to carry his or her loaded weapon into the state Capitol and most surrounding buildings — state Rep. Tony Cornish says he is armed every day, usually with a 40-caliber Glock with a high-capacity ammunition magazine. This past week, supporters of gun-owners’ rights have been a force at the nearby State Office Building, swamping committees that have been discussing background checks, bans on weapons and ammunition and other gun issues.

[…]

In all of 2012, when the pro-gun GOP held control of the Legislature, only 56 new notices were filed, according to a spokesman for the Department.

Based on this article it appears that the author is attempting to insinuate that the increase in notices is due solely to the Democratic Party taking control in the legislature. It’s not until the last paragraph that the real reason is mentioned:

Since Jan. 7, the day before DFLers took control and began talking about responding to the Connecticut shootings, there have been 148 notices filed. More More than 50 new notices were received from Feb. 1 to Feb. 6, which includes days the hearings were taking place in the State Office Building. That is nearly as much as were received all last year.

The sudden spike in notices wasn’t due to the Democrats taking control, it was due to the sudden push for gun control. People in the gun rights movement who carry everywhere and were planning to attend the hearing simply gave notice so they could do what they always do, legally carry a gun on their person. While the author notes that a mere 50 of the 148 notices this year were filed between February 1st and 6th he fails to note that the hearings were known about in January. Many people likely filed their notices as soon as the hearing dates were announced so they didn’t have to file their notices before entering the hearings.

In other words this story is really a non-story and required no more than one sentence to cover. What the author should have wrote was, “Gun rights activists who carry firearms everywhere carried their firearms when attending the hearings on gun control.”

Controlling the Message During the Minnesota Gun Control Hearings

During Wednesday’s gun control hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol a gun control advocate was given three times the amount of speaking time she was allocated and when the gun rights advocates took the stage several members of the committee, including the author of the bill being discussed, simply left.

Yesterday gun rights advocates that arrived at the hearing early were alerted to a sudden and otherwise unannounced change, all attendees of the hearing had to get tickets and tickets were going to be handed out in a manner that ensure an equal number of gun control and gun rights advocates were present. The reason for this wasn’t given although I have a friend who works as a Page for the House that claimed it was established to maintain order. I’m sure that’s what they told him, and I’m sure he believed what they told him, but it’s pretty evident the true reason for establishing the ticket system was to control the message by making it look like there weren’t as many gun rights advocates present as there were. Between the shenanigans that took place Wednesday and yesterday it was apparent that the committee had their minds made and that the hearings were entirely for show.

Of course this shouldn’t surprise anybody. Once again we return to the fact that committee hearings aren’t about listening to input from proponents and opponents of a bill, they exist to make the serfs believe they have some kind of decision making power within the state. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

How the Political Machinery Works

For the last three days there have been hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol building on the recently proposed gun control bills. So far gun rights advocates have greatly outnumber gun control advocates, which could make it seem as though gun rights advocates have a chance at shutting these bills down before they hit the floor. In an ideal world that would be the case but in the real world that’s not how things work. When you’re working within the political system you’re playing by the state’s rules, of which there is only one: the state gets to make the rules. Yesterday it became obvious that the hearings were nothing more than a sham, as hearing usually are. Gun control advocates were given disproportionately more time to speak and the author of the bill that was being discussed walked out when gun rights advocates were speaking.

It’s obvious that the people proposing this slew of bills have already made up their minds and that no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade them. Nobody should be surprised by this though, this is how statism works and why the political process is not an effective means of protecting your property.