Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Despite opposition, Hoffman sticks to her guns(MN)
fergusfallsjournal.com ^ | 14 February, 2012 | Ryan Howard

Posted on 02/14/2012 1:42:15 PM PST by marktwain

Senator Gretchen Hoffman isn’t letting police union opposition to a gun bill she sponsored get to her. Instead, she’s focused on the voices of support she’s received on a piece of legislation she’s dubbed the “Stand Your Ground” bill.

The bill (SF 1357) expands gun owners’ self-defense rights. Currently, the use of deadly force is authorized when a person believes they are in danger of bodily harm or death, but the new bill presumes that threat may be posed by a home invader. It also eliminates residents’ “duty to retreat” from a threat if possible, instead allowing deadly force.

The bill is opposed by Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. One reason for the opposition, according to leadership, is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.

Though Hoffman said she has the utmost respect for law enforcement, she does not believe their concerns will come to fruition if her bill is passed.

“There is no authority under the bill to shoot at a peace officer, especially when they’re carrying out their duty,” she said, noting Minnesota Supreme Court precedent about police officers’ duty to announce themselves.

“I think some of the objections they used in this bill were the same that these associations used (against) the consent to carry bill a few years ago,” she added.

Nevertheless, she and others are working on making slight language changes in the bill in the hopes of making many law enforcement officers more comfortable, including language that definitively prohibits the use of deadly force against police officers who are engaged in law enforcement activity.

Though official law enforcement channels have voiced objection to the bill, Hoffman said she’s encouraged by many individual police officers who have told her they support her efforts.

“One police officer has told me he has never been polled by his union as to where he stands on this,” she said.

Otter Tail County Sheriff Brian Schlueter did not wish to comment in depth on the bill without doing further research, but he did say he had liked parts of the bill when it was originally introduced in the last legislative session.

“I haven’t spoken with (Hoffman) recently about it,” he said.

Fergus Falls Police Chief Kile Bergren could not be reached for comment. Police chiefs in Pelican Rapids and Perham declined to comment without further knowledge of the bill.

The bill, which has already been approved by the House of Representatives, has been passed out of committee in the Senate. Hoffman, a Republican, expects it will pass – with some Democrats supporting it – once it has been discussed on the floor, an event that will likely happen late this week or sometime next week. She’s unsure if Governor Mark Dayton will sign the bill, but she’s hopeful, citing previous comments by Dayton recognizing concerns over citizen self-defense.

“We’ll be working with him,” she said. “I know some of the advocacy groups will work with him also.”

Though she’s conscious of law enforcement concerns, Hoffman said her primary thoughts lie with her district’s residents and gun owners, many of whom have shown support for the bill.

“I know that my district is a very big Second Amendment district,” she said, adding, “(The Second Amendment) is not for hunting; it’s for protection. I’m getting a lot of broad support out of the district.”


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: banglist; castle; hoffman; mn
Those who want the Constitution restored are a powerful voting block.
1 posted on 02/14/2012 1:42:22 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“Duty to retreat”. What kind of ridiculous nonsense! So you should give up your property rights because someone wants to steal your shit? And you need to rely on the police to enforce your right to your own private propety? Screw the police union.


2 posted on 02/14/2012 1:47:33 PM PST by bigdirty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

>>One reason for the opposition, according to leadership, is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.

If you enter my home without permission, I’ll shoot whether you are a cop or not.

If you are serving a legitimate warrant, then the occupant must be a criminal and will stand his ground, regardless of what the law “allows”.

Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s what makes them criminals!


3 posted on 02/14/2012 1:48:44 PM PST by Bryanw92 (The solution to fix Congress: Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
The bill is opposed by Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. One reason for the opposition, according to leadership, is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.

Hasn't happened anywhere else with the Castle Doctrine.

If they are really that concerned, they could restrict SWAT teams to doing things that aren't illegal.

4 posted on 02/14/2012 1:49:34 PM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“...the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission.”

Wow! I’m kind of surprised they came out and admitted this. That was what I figured the real reason was when I read that they opposed it - but figured they would SAY something about accidents, the children, etc.


5 posted on 02/14/2012 1:52:38 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

If you enter my home without permission, I’ll shoot whether you are a cop or not.

Totally agree with you. This is one of the very purposes of the right to keep and bear arms, so that government officials of whatever level cannot enter a private home without cause or warrant.


6 posted on 02/14/2012 1:54:17 PM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“...changes in the bill in the hopes of making many law enforcement officers more comfortable.”

Jeez - I guess I should have read farther into the article before posting. How about she adds something into the bill about prohibiting “no knock” military style raids?


7 posted on 02/14/2012 1:55:20 PM PST by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe the Pimpernel; All

“Hasn’t happened anywhere else with the Castle Doctrine.”

It already happened before the current law in Minnesota.

In 2007, a police swat team broke down the door of a family in Minnesota. The father responded with shotgun fire, and stopped the assault.

The Vang family later received a large settlement from the city.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.china/2007-12/msg00649.html


8 posted on 02/14/2012 1:59:06 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Cool!

I can't imagine the SWAT thugs not burning the house to ground and killing everybody inside, though.

There must have been TV cameras nearby.

9 posted on 02/14/2012 2:17:03 PM PST by Joe the Pimpernel (Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Duty To Retreat ? LOL .. The Constitution backs my “ Duty To Reload “ !!

Snoot ;o)


10 posted on 02/14/2012 3:32:47 PM PST by snooter55 (People may doubt what you say, but they will always believe what you do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

I totally agree with your sentiment. And they are the rules us cheeseheads in WI now enjoy.

On a different note, What ever happened to those mutts in AZ that gunned down an ex-jarhead inside his home? In front of his wife and kid no less.
If that turns out to be a “Bad Shoot” (We will never know), I’m sure there are many who would volunteer to drop the hammer on those JBT’s.


11 posted on 02/14/2012 3:50:39 PM PST by BigpapaBo (If it don't kill you it'll make you _________!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BigpapaBo

>>On a different note, What ever happened to those mutts in AZ that gunned down an ex-jarhead inside his home? In front of his wife and kid no less.

I’m sure that turned into another “nothing to see here folks, move along” case.


12 posted on 02/14/2012 4:04:12 PM PST by Bryanw92 (The solution to fix Congress: Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“is that the bill could make gun owners more apt to shoot law enforcement officers who enter homes without permission. “


13 posted on 02/14/2012 4:30:31 PM PST by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I see a tremendous opportunity here.

“There is no authority under the bill to shoot at a peace officer, especially when they’re carrying out their duty,” she said, noting Minnesota Supreme Court precedent about police officers’ *duty to announce themselves.*

“...including language that definitively prohibits the use of deadly force against police officers *who are engaged in law enforcement activity*.”

HERE’S THE IDEA: What about a state law that prohibits the use of deadly force against police officers *executing a legal warrant*, or in active pursuit.

So police officers would *NOT* be protected if they were conducting a *warrant-less*, “home invasion”-style search!

I think it could be further tailored so that police officers would only have protection on those *rare* instances when a SWAT operation *had* to be conducted. No more “non-violent” or misdemeanor SWAT raids. No more “the SWAT team had nothing to do, so they decided to tag along” raids.

And if the police raided the wrong house, failed to ID themselves, and were shot, the shooter could not be prosecuted, because they were lawfully defending their home at the time.

Lots of possibilities, here.


14 posted on 02/14/2012 5:08:35 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson