Minnesota CCW: Editorial: New right to carry / A bad idea is now a bad law

Minneapolis Star-Tribune ^ | May 29, 2003 | Minneapolis Star-Tribune

[jdege]

The hullabaloo that the new Minnesota Personal Protection Act has caused is just the beginning. The law is riddled with contradictions and infringements on rights that may take years to sort out. Indeed, wags have begun to call the law the "Full Employment for Lawyers Act of 2003."

[jdege]

Bang!

[jimkress]

Well, we've had "shall issue" in Michigan for about two years. No blood in the streets, unlike the predictions from the newspapers, the police, etc.

[wideawake]

As Bishop James Jelinek of the Episcopal Church observed, "The front door of an Episcopal Church has special meaning. Many front doors are painted red, a color which invokes the blood of Christ and signals a 'sanctuary.' "

I wonder when the Bishop last preached a sermon on the blood of Christ and its saving power.

[TomB]

The tenant's statutory gun right trumps the owner's constitutional property rights.

I wonder if they would feel the same way if a white property owner exercised his "constitutional property rights" by not renting to a black family?

I'd think not.

[OREALLY]

Very bad news for muggers.

[Puppage]

Churches are sanctuaries, places of worship

Yeah? So, crime NEVER happens there? I recall not to long ago a wacko in New York that went crazy with a sword, only to be stopped by what?

That's right...A PERMIT HOLDER!!

Let's dig a little deeper......how many church shootings by CCW holders have there been, EVER, in the other 34 states with the right to carry???Hmm?

[The Old Hoosier]

They worry that the law prohibits them from requiring that renters ban guns from the areas of church property they use.

What!!! Liberals, concerned about landlords' rights!!!!???

[The Old Hoosier]

I'd be surprised if he believes Christ is God.

[Travis McGee]

The law declares that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers the right of individuals to bear arms -- something to which the U.S. Supreme Court has never agreed.

Do I detect a trace of anti-gun bias here?

[Puppage]

That's because it is a really stupid law .

Stupid...a FEELING.

Cures no ills...

So, if YOU were being attacked & I had my gun.....WOULD YOU WANT ME TO INTERVENE?

I believe that would cure YOUR ill at that moment, no?

Am I missing something?

BEHOLD...THE MIND OF THE DEFENSELESS

[wideawake]

Given his colleague John Spong's track record, I wonder.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

You should send the editors at the (Red) Star Tribune some of these:

[Xphantasos]

What a bunch of whiney imbeciles.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

What ? Liberals concerned about full employment for lawyers ?

[eddie willers]

I wonder if they would feel the same way if a white property owner exercised his "constitutional property rights" by not renting to a black family?

Bullseye.

[AndyTheBear]

Let me get this straight, some pyscho goes on a public property with the intent of shooting up the place. Unless the proprieters are using metal detectors or some other thing catagorically more invasive then having a sign, how could a policy of no guns on the premisis have any chance of stopping him?

Do we expect that he will be desuaded by some policy statement written in the back of some dusty filing cabinet that even the clerk may not be aware of?

Obviously the only safety that the potential victims posses lies in their ability to defend themselves. Moreover this ability is enhanced by pistols.

[goldstategop]

Did you really expect objectivity from the Red Star? They've opposed this law from the outset. :)

[goldstategop]

The law has been in force barely a day and the Red Star rushes out an editorial to proclaim it "stupid." How do they really know?? The arrogance of the liberal media never ceases to amaze me and its no wonder they keep losing circulation and profits.

[goldstategop]

Bwahahaha!!! And here I thought trial lawyers were the liberals' best friends. Gee sheesh, you'd think the Red Star of all newspapers would be delirious at the prospect of new employment for their allies. Or am I missing something here?? ;-)