Guns at the Minnesota Capitol? Here's a compromise.

  • Article by: Joshua Gruber
  • Updated: September 9, 2013 - 4:50 AM

It's simple. We could require screenings, metal detectors for all.

  • 28
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ruphinaSep. 8, 1311:36 PM

And of course, as it always does, "try a little compromising with guns" is code-speak for "you compromise by giving up all your gun carry rights because I feel uneasy, and your uneasiness with being helpless doesn't matter". Bill G.

25
47
srahamimSep. 9, 13 1:21 AM

Great article Joshua! Safety of the public must always remain our paramount concern, and this proposal would do a great job of striking a balance between safety and liberty. Excellent piece.

37
17
Willy53Sep. 9, 13 5:38 AM

I can't believe we're having this debate. No guns in public buildings. No guns in city buildings, no guns in hospitals, no guns on private premises that don't want them. This is not a code to take your guns. It is common sense and based on factual history. You can have your guns if you're not a felon or psychotic, get all of them you want. Make your home your fortress, get a permit to carry but you can't take them into public buildings or posted private premises. A proliferation of guns in public does nobody any good. When Giffords was shot a carrying bystander nearly shot her aids when they rushed to her while the shooter was long gone. This discussion is absurd.

41
26
dakmarknetSep. 9, 13 6:41 AM

Gun permit carriers should be required to pass a state certified test administered annually and only in Minneapolis by a State board of certified physchologists. I would like to see permit holders fall into the same catagory as do smokers in that they would be considered a viable source for funding of necessary state expenditures. Raise the fee $200/annually after they are certified by the State board. In addition, I would like to see each permit holder who carries must wear a certified highly visible colored vest to alert the public that they are carrying. This would aleviate any concerns a law abiding citizen would have if a permit holder shows up at a local establishment wearing a concealed handgun. Currently no one knows if the individual carrying a gun is a permit holder or not. They must be readily identified.

27
28
robdoarSep. 9, 13 6:57 AM

Your initial premise is wrong. No permit holder goes somewhere where they think they might "need" a gun. We try desperately to avoid any situation that would need a gun. People have the right, and are entitled to provide for themselves, which includes their security. I would not object to a weapons / baggage screening which maintained the current exemption policies. A line for legislators, law enforcement, and permit holders. No one wants people who shouldn't have a gun to carry.

20
29
EleanoreSep. 9, 13 7:40 AM

Sounds like an unnecessary expense since the state can’t find money for metal detectors and screeners at every school in the system. I’d do schools first, then some other places, then the capitol. Since the capitol has a high density of security officers already, they are currently one of the most secure places in the state and don’t merit more funding. I wouldn't have a problem with screening but it does have to apply to everyone. No one has acted against the state more than some of the elected and appointed people who pass through the doors. The same standard needs to apply to them, and they need to be just as inconvenienced as the rest of the citizenry at a minimum. History shows they should face more scrutiny but I assume they will fail that responsibility check as well.

17
26
EleanoreSep. 9, 13 8:28 AM

Today’s the day. One responsible representative can end the stadium and MSFA waste by adding a rider of common decency to today’s legislation for the governor to sign. The Governor can sign it, and Minnesotans will have dodged a billion dollar bullet of waste and loss. This will also allow us to see those who would knowingly choose to harm Minnesotans by denying this common sense responsibility in favor of political advancement for themselves and their parties by placing that and the big donor profiteers ahead of their duty. What will we see today? Whatever it is we need to remember it next election, and the one after that, and the one after that. Individuals and parties which put their own advancement ahead of their duty, the state and our laws cannot be tolerated in positions of attack, as these are when used unethically and lawlessly.

6
21
artynouveauSep. 9, 1310:09 AM

My proposal for a “modest compromise:” Eliminate the requirement to notify the Public Safety Commissioner of intent to carry a gun into the Capitol. Anyone who wants to enter the Capitol area would have to pass though an obligatory screening and metal detector. Provide staff, legislators, AND PERMIT HOLDERS with their own line to go through, but without a screening. One more thing Joshua: You wrote, “…although permit holders have been known to abuse that privilege…” Privilege? When did a right protected (not granted) by the constitution become a “privilege?”

10
29
texas_technomanSep. 9, 1310:40 AM

Conceal and carry is not a right guaranteed by the constitution, if it was there would be no reason for each state to pass a law allowing it. Even the supreme court says that the 2nd amendment is not without limits. I have a metal detector in my county courthouse, why not the statehouse?

24
15
EleanoreSep. 9, 1310:51 AM

"Conceal and carry is not a right guaranteed by the constitution, if it was there would be no reason for each state to pass a law allowing it." - The states actually usurp the constitutional civil right by assuming they have the authority to infringe on it. They don't, not any more than they can install a state religion, ban free speech, or institute slavery. We carry our permits around inside of us and no one may legally deny that civil right.

13
22

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT