Gun bill advances, opposed by Dayton

  • Article by: BOB VON STERNBERG , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 4, 2011 - 9:53 PM

Measure would expand Minnesotans' right to use deadly force. Police officers say it creates "safety issue."

  • 58
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mcjoe1May. 5, 1112:36 AM

Why do people need the right to use deadly force when there's a full assortment of non-lethal weapons that are more practical for the common household. If I'm defending myself in my home, I'd rather have a taser and some mace over a firearm. In nearly all situations, people that break into homes just want material items. Aren't there some real pressing items for our legislature to tackle???

cadguymarkMay. 5, 11 2:10 AM

I am betting that this is one the GOP will not put it up as an amendment and let the people decide.

nichole1957May. 5, 11 2:58 AM

It seems like this Governor opposes everything that has common sense to it. And as far as people thinking tasers and chemicals are sufficient I wish they would stop betting my safety according to what they think is right for them.

xsnowdogMay. 5, 11 5:44 AM

Many anti gun people will make irrational claims of potential problems to oppose this law even though the PROBLEMS HAVE NOT OCCURRED other places where there are similar laws.

stevensp0May. 5, 11 6:19 AM

I can't wait to see this play out when the first plain clothes law enforcement officer is shot by a person "defending" his property. The GOP is pandering to every base, and is passing baseless Bill. Welcome to Minnebama!

RossbergMay. 5, 11 6:49 AM

I can currently defend myself in my home but not in my garage? What about a breezeway? I can't defend myself on my porch? Does that mean open porch, screen porch, 3 or 4 season? What about an intruder who moves from area to area? Should I be color coding parts of my property to designate acceptable areas where I may defend myself since it's unlikely I'll remember them all during an intrusion? What about carjackings? That's the problem with the existing law. An intruder isn't going to concern himself with any rules. Why put the burden on a homeowner to do so?

jdcollins82May. 5, 11 6:55 AM

mcjoe1, great comment. When someone breaks into your home with a gun and you confront them with your mace or taser, I wish you luck. They're not always after material posessions...think about it. Maybe next time the writer could mention how this is already law in almost half the states in this country and police there support it and have had almost no problems whatsoever with law-abiding Americans defending themselves. I love how the police reps says that he understands the police can't "always be there immediately". Are they EVER there "immediately" during a home invasion? Never.

off2atmMay. 5, 11 7:00 AM

Another solution in search of a problem. Name one case this would apply. GOP needs to focus on Jobs instead planned parenthood, MPR, gay marriage, voter ID, birth certificates, and other issues that simply don't matter when the economy is on the edge.

highlife75May. 5, 11 7:08 AM

stevensp0----Not sure I have heard of plain clothes officers busting windows or smashing doors down at 2 am, maybe in your world? No they usually knock on the door or ring the doorbell from the side of the door, will anounce who they are, show a badge, tell you why they are there, with or without a warrant. Any swat team doing a forced entry is well prepared for someone armed, and they still anounce who they are. An more bizar scenerios I can debunk for you?

jburchettMay. 5, 11 7:37 AM

These responsible citizens want to alleviate fears when protecting property and dayton who sides with criminals over law abiding citizens does not like them having guns to be used as deterrent of crimes against them or their property.Truly amazing that this state led by someone of this caliber.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters