Minnesota Gun Owners Fighting Slate of New Bruen Response Gun Control Bills

By
Dan Zimmerman
-
65
Gun control supporters from Moms Demand Action and allied organizations rallied at the Minnesota State Capitol on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2023., in St. Paul, Minn. Gun control bills are advancing at the Minnesota Legislature this year, backed by Democrats. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

You may have heard about the Bruen response gun control bills currently under consideration in Maryland. Like similar laws passed in other deep blue anti-gun states, Democrats are reacting to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Second Amendment rights with legislative hoplophobic hissy fits, ramming through a range of new gun control laws and limits on where lawful gun owners can carry.

Backed by support from Michael Bloomberg’s red-shirted bots, Minnesota seems bound and determined to be included on the list of states being sued by pushing through a wide-ranging slate of new gun control measures, including registration, wait times, insurance mandates, “sensitive places” restrictions and more.

The folks at the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus have nicely summarized what they’re up against and how Minnesotans can fight back.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

65 COMMENTS

  1. By all means, please create bills that are a raft of items so the laws can get tossed based off the most absurd premises.

    • Yeah, I often wonder about this. Our three major challenges against recent Dem-enacted gun control in CA – Duncan v. Bonta (mag capacity), Miller v. Bonta (AWB), Rhode v. Bonta (ammo restrictions) – are about to advance to the final phase under the supervision of the Honorable Judge Robert Benitez, who has already ruled in certain capacities against these very laws, but now finds them back on his desk due to the appellate circus route they took. California has already been showing signs of acknowledging they’re going to lose bigly on all three fronts.

      So in light of this, why oh why dear God in Heaven do other States attempt to enact the very same types of laws that are in the process of being declared unconstitutional (CA) or outright slapped down entirely (SCOTUS). It’s as if they just want to make ripples in their own ponds so they can tell the Karens they “did something”, even though those somethings will be struck down and a lot of time, money, and frustration will be wasted.

      • I saw Newsom’s hissy fit the other day, it was freaking awesome! Fuck Bonta in the ass with Becerra’s head.

        • “I saw Newsom’s hissy fit the other day,…”

          The *sneer* on Newsom’s face as he said “so-called right” in that video demonstrates the naked contempt he and his ilk has for us, and America… 🙁

        • ==
          Everyone please realize, that as a constitutional Republic at the common law, public servants can only perform those duties privileged to them to do…….ALL ELSE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED.
          =
          NEITHER THE U.S. NOR THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTIONS PRIVILEGE TO THE PUBLIC SERVANTS, THE AUTHORITY TO ACT UPON RKBA FOR ALL LAWFUL CITIZENS.
          =
          SEE: FEDERALIST 49 BY MADISON ” CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS” —- WHAT IS NOT PRIVILEGED, IS DENIED.
          =
          LAW IS NOT “ROCKET SCIENCE”.

      • “So in light of this, why oh why dear God in Heaven do other States attempt to enact the very same types of laws that are in the process of being declared unconstitutional (CA) or outright slapped down entirely (SCOTUS).”

        Rules for radicals: When you lose, double down; the enemy will eventually tire. (And eventually, the courts will be solidly leftist)

        Keeping the ball spinning is the goal. So long as gun control laws are in the court system, there is a good chance they will be in effect until the SC once more plays footsie, then the cycle begins again. There is no penalty for playing games.

      • Do something paired with what do we do now and being stuck with double down on what worked in the past even if it will just get tossed repeatedly.

      • i think you answered your own question 🙂 it costs them nothing to vote for gun control even if it gets tossed by the court. then they can say “i stood up to the NRA” and get re elected. thank goodness there are three branches to government.

  2. Not only is the intent of these states to delay implementation of Bruen, but to bankrupt the organizations representing legal gun owners. No money, no resort to the courts. No resort to the courts, no SC cert. And so on.

      • That likely won’t happen, all the SCotUS has to do is stamp ‘GVR’ on it, and send it back to the court it came from, with instruction to follow the ‘Bruen’ standard.

        Make no mistake, the moment the balance changes on the high court, all recent hard-fought gains, from ‘Heller’ to ‘Bruen’ will be on the chopping block… 🙁

        • “Make no mistake, the moment the balance changes on the high court, all recent hard-fought gains, from ‘Heller’ to ‘Bruen’ will be on the chopping block… ”

          More likely overturned/repealed “en masse”.

        • As you say, If SCOTUS shifts then EVERYTHING is on the chopping block because of the Abortion ruling. Make no mistake, the progressives are going full on bat-sh!t crazy in their lust for things evil.

        • You better believe it! These bastards will do everything they can to pack the SC when they see it’s going downhill fast.

  3. “Only one of these needs to reach SCOTUS and cause a more pervasive ruling than Bruen”

    its probably going to happen more sooner than later. there are just too many cases out there overall in the pipeline that are SCOTUS bound for it not to happen.

    • all dealing with the same basic issue, states ignoring Bruen the law of the land. for example its already blantly unconstitutional to ban the MSR, has been for years, and Bruen stated it too by incorping the past cases but here we are with states continuing to enact laws that ban and Biden pushing for a ban.

      • That’s primarily because it’s (currently) not illegal to propose, or even pass, laws that are prima facie unconstitutional, and those that propose and pass such laws are generally immune from civil rights lawsuits.

        • 300
          those that propose, cosponsor and vote for such blatantly unconstitutional laws should automatically have to pay all costs incurred by the plaintiffs when ruled as such.
          from their own pockets, pension funds etc.
          might actually make them read the constitution?

        • True, but if SCOTUS itself admonished us to disregard unconstitutional laws as “null and void” [see Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)], and we consider it our duty to do so as free Persons, then the challenge becomes how to do so in the face of such laws when they’re codified and considered by the State to be valid.

          I bring to your attention the train wreck that is California, the so-called leaders of which openly defy the Constitution and consider it to be their Leftist duty to do so.

        • @I Haz A Question

          We already did that concept once, it was called the Revolutionary War – disregarding the tyranny of the crown and kicking it out.

          Unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional, period. It is only that its not strictly illegal to have laws that are prima facie unconstitutional that have not yet been ruled as unconstitutional in the courts. That allows these laws to be in play, but does not mean they are actually legal under the law of the land of the U.S. constitution.

          There is actually no ‘duty’ upon the citizen to ‘obey’ an unconstitutional law, it is the consequence of not obeying that law that imposes obedience to the law but there is no duty to it.

          When there is a purposeful intent of a ‘state actor’ to create laws contrary to the law of the land to be used to suppress the rights of the people under that law of the land – its tyranny.

          There is a duty and obligation to throw off the yoke of tyranny lest you continue to live under tyranny, our country was founded on this very principal. If we continue to let it happen we are doomed to live under that tyranny.

          These unconstitutional gun-control laws, this tyranny, must be fought and defeated. If that means being contrary to and resisting the unconstitutional law then that’s what it means – we did that concept before in the necessary extreme, it was called the Revolutionary War – today its being fought in the courts but its also necessary to be contrary to and resist these unconstitutional laws as tyranny must not be allowed to take firmly take root.

  4. Bruen brings out the stench of torches, burning crosses, sheets and nooses inherent with the Gun Control democRat Party.

    • just say it Debbie.

      you’ve been trying to talk around it ever sense some one complained you were saying it too much.

      it needs to be said, it needs to be visible, not only as a reminder here but also for the general public that happens by.

      gun control is racism plain and simple. its very foundation and the foundation of the democrat party is racism plain and simple. gun control was born from racism and it is still today.

      so just say it and get it out instead of finding creative ways to talk around it without really saying it.

  5. “Only one of these needs to reach SCOTUS and cause a more pervasive ruling than Bruen”

    Yes, but without money, without a plaintiff because the 2A defenders are bankrupt, that one case never reaches the SC.

    In addition, the SC has no real enforcement capability (as it was designed); US Marshals are not going to be sent to arrest all the people involved in defying the SC.

    The SC is loathe to revisit a decision, or expand a prior decision “Bruen” did not declare all gun control laws null and void. Instead, the SC declared certain gun control laws invalid, and in need of further review IAW the SC decision; “Bruen” was ordered to be sent back to the appellate courts, which remanded “Bruen” to the trial courts. NYS became the first to defy, without penalty, the SC , after which we have seen a cascade of new gun control laws directly defying the SC. Each of those has to be re-litigated, along with those laws yet to be enacted.

    Not sure of the actual procedures, but it is interesting that the SC did not simply vacate/overule, permanently, lower court decisions involved in “Bruen”, and the Californication suits that followed. (“In May 1955, the Court issued a second opinion in the case (known as Brown v. Board of Education II), which remanded future desegregation cases to lower federal courts and directed district courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation “with all deliberate speed.” )

    Because even the SC is subject to political compromise, I conclude that a ruling such as “Brown v. Board of Education” could not get a majority vote, but sending the matter back to the lower courts allowed for the partial solution to reach a majority.

    • Sam
      isn’t the first rule of lawyering to not ever get a solid, permanent, final ruling?
      you know, keep the gravy train rolling

      • “isn’t the first rule of lawyering to not ever get a solid, permanent, final ruling?
        you know, keep the gravy train rolling”

        Seems to be the current jurisprudence.

    • Any ruling in Bruen or its progeny will be self-enforcing. Unlike Brown, where physical force was needed to enroll black students in schools and universities, the Second Amendment as declared by SCOTUS can be enforced privately through 42 USC section 1983.If a law is declared unconstitutional, any police officer effecting an arrest, and any police department which has a policy of enforcing an unconstitutional law is opening itself up to huge damages and attorneys fees for any person unlawfully detained or arrested. Prosecutors bringing criminal charges could potentially be held liable as well, despite their general grant of immunity. Second, no trial court will attempt to enforce an unconstitutional law, not because of a threat of sanction, but because it would be slapped down hard for ignoring binding precedent. And because civil rights actions have an attorney’s fees and costs provisions, there will plenty of attorneys willing to take on these cases.

      • Pro-2A lawyers will have a brisk business filing and settling such lawsuits… 🙂

        • Assuming they aren’t all disbarred by the Leftist state bar associations. We’re already seeing that with regard to obvious election fraud.

          PS: Why is the TTAG website being maintained by incompetents who can’t recognize an e-mail address in caps, unlike 90% of the other websites out there?

      • “but because it would be slapped down hard for ignoring binding precedent.”

        What, precisely is “slapped down hard”? Does it apply to appellate courts that defy the SC by remanding law suits below the level the SC directed?

        If 42, 1983 is not self-enforcing, and so far has not been applied to any 2A decision. Thinking that “under color of law” has any real meaning is using up valuable brain cells, to no avail. (one wonders why 42, 1983 hasn’t been a major legal tool regarding 2A. do we just have dumb lawyers on our side?)

        Only activism can defend against activism….and “they” have more billionaires.

  7. How does one register a magazine when none come with a serial number?
    Yeah, I know, I’m assuming too much intelligence on their part.

    • You have to take them to the DMV where they forward your magazines to a contractor that laser etches them for 10 bucks each. After you pay the 50 dollar registration fee to the DMV they return your magazines to you after a 10 day waiting period. Then you pay 100 dollars for a new driver’s license that is marked to show you a eligible to possess that which you purchased legally 20 years ago.

    • “How does one register a magazine when none come with a serial number?”

      Simple: identify the manufacturer, calibre, maximum capacity, number of magazines owned, maybe even pictures. The smart state will require the owners to apply unique identification marks, and definitely pictures.

      The really smart state will position coppers at every gun store, gun range, with the power to demand to see which firearms you are using, and the magazines better match your registration, even the ones you bought that day.

  8. lol
    This sounds like craziness to me.

    Restrict things that are banned? Even if I agreed to any of this, it makes no sense. Your going to ban something and then say 18-20 year olds can’t have it? What’s the point? If it’s banned then NO ONE gets it! This is written as if it’s done by a 12 year old. Just step back for a moment and let’s just say for the sake of argument that doing this isn’t illegal. It makes no sense. THIS is the reason WHY gun control laws do NOT work. There is nothing that even comes close to reality in it.

    THIS is a great example as to why I don’t do social media. Ignorance is what drives it.

    • “THIS is a great example as to why I don’t do social media. Ignorance is what drives it.”

      TTAG is an element of “social media”.

      Jes sayin’

      (if you mean the “big three”, the contraction is ‘Youtwitface’)

  10. I still don’t get the bit about insurance. These idiots ought to ask their insurance brokers about these things first before proposing them. The fact is that in all fifty states, it is unlawful to indemnify for intentional misconduct, so in the vast majority of shootings there will be no possibility of insurance paying any liability claims. And if it was a negligent shooting, like a hunting accident, I suspect most homeowner’s policies will defend and indemnify.
    What these provisions really come down to are nothing more than attempts to make gun ownership more expensive–and they know it no matter what comes out of their mouths.

    • “I still don’t get the bit about insurance.”

      Because it isn’t available; won’t be available. If the customer cannot obtain mandatory insurance, sales dry up, the firearms industry dries up.

      The Californication SC declared, a coupla years ago, that a law impossible to comply with remains a valid, enforceable law.

      The US SC has yet to be faced with a similar situation.

    • My buddy up there is freaking out, he was born and lived in Illinois until 1999 and moved up there to because of a job transfer. He was talking a lot of nonsense after Illinois passed it’s bill in the lame duck session.

      I know here Kwame Raoul has about 24 hours to produce every gun and magazine banned. It looks the judge in the case is going to hopefully follow Bruen to the letter.

  13. After the Democrats stole the last election the state of Minnesota turned to sheet.

    It was always borderline but now Democrats can pass everything they want, from abortion up until birth, to higher energy costs when we have snow 6+ months a year, to banning gas powered lawn mowers, etc. Now it’s gun control.

    I’ve already decided I’m not registering anything.

  14. There is one very effective solution to all this for law abiding gun owners and that is civil disobedience and non-compliance. Given the number of gun owners simply do not comply where it is possible and put the onus on them to do the police work which they have neither the people nor resources to spend that kind of time doing. These same people are the ones defunding the police, the laws they pass will ultimately be struck down as jeeust about all of them are unconstitutional and they know that from the get go. Bruen was very clear about putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of gun ownership and most of these laws revolve around that very premise. If you don’t fight back before long your only reply to whatever they want you to do will be Yes Master!!!!!

    • I don’t see anything in this that’s very effective at doing anything accept stirring the pot.

      How does one register a banned semiautomatic rifle? Seems to me that it’s a double negative that can ONLY be seen as ‘status quo’. Even if you could actually do this, it would be unconstitutional on the 5th amendment grounds.

      This whole thing is nothing short of stupid that I might would think was conjured up by someones AI system.

  15. Note all the old rich white liberals pictured supporting this legislation. It’s the same 50 or so individuals who keeping changing from red shirts Mom’s Demand Gun Control to orange shirts Protect Minnesota’s Criminals to the wholly ironic yellow shirts for Unrestrict Abortion in Minnesota. It’s almost like these anti-civil rights protestors suddenly believe we can trust the police to keep citizens safe by violating the civil rights they don’t like.

  17. “Y’all know what the end game is.”

    Not likely to ever happen, but if so, people thinking the nation will just go on as it is are not resident in reality.

    Ain’t gonna be on boogie, Lou.

    • “MOMS DEMAND ACTION”

      The only thing they are demanding is the law abiding be ‘gang raped’ by unconstitutional laws.

  19. People can get in trouble for repeatedly filing frivolous lawsuits.

    Likewise, there should be a sanction for legislators repeatedly filing anti-2nd Amendment laws that blatantly deprive rights of citizens. Courts of appeal and SCOTUS could be asked what an appropriate charge would be and the corresponding punishment.

    Or citizens could push through a law that it is considered treason or the next closest thing and the punishments could be immediate removal from office, permanent ban from serving in government and lobbying government and loss of all pensions and perks.

  20. This crap is part and parcel of the DFL’s (stands for Democrats, not Dirty Fucking Liars, regardless of the applicability) take-over of all organs of state government. They have their chance so they are ramming through every POS wet dream they can come up with – transgender sanctuary, drivers’ licenses for illegals, votes for felons, etc, etc. Think of it as a house invasion: they’re stealing everything they can, wrecking what they can’t and shitting on the kitchen counters.

  21. quote———-You may have heard about the Bruen response gun control bills currently under consideration in Maryland. Like similar laws passed in other deep blue anti-gun states, Democrats are reacting to the Supreme Court’s affirmation of Second Amendment rights with legislative hoplophobic hissy fits, ramming through a range of new gun control laws and limits on where lawful gun owners can carry.——quote

    As one can see the States are ignoring the Bruen Decision because they know it was about the right to carry not the right to own guns. The States also know that the Supreme Court will let lower anti-gun laws stand so they will not open up a Pandora’s box of gun related cases that would clog up the courts for decades.

    • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. You are a pip. In order to carry a gun, you have to own (possess) one. Is that too hard for your beady little mind to grasp? Be advised the courts are being :”clogged” with new law suits to over turn your Leftist radical gun laws.

Comments are closed.