Kind of Pitiful: A Collection of Short Essays on the Antics of the Antis[Updated 9/12/03]
Kind of Pitiful: A Collection of Short Essays on the Antics of the Antis
September 12, 2003:More from the "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota"
Rebecca Thoman's small group of True Believers has a feature they call "Under Fire," where they reprint what are, presumably, the least coherent letters of criticism they receive.Here's one of their latest, with commentary by me. All in all, he makes some good points, but I do wish he'd toned it down a little.
Best Use of Our Energy? Isn't there more productive use of this organizations efforts than targeting law abiding citizens?Well, no. There's not really much of an "organization." Try as hard as she does—and Rebecca and her friends try very hard—they can't get a lot of folks to show up. The largest contingent of their crowd at the House hearings on the MPPA were a van full of retired Million Mommers from Duluth, who—if I overheard them right—basically looked forward to their trips down south as an excuse to hit the Mall of America after a quick trip to the legislature. Ending gun violence has nothing to do with having a uniform method of issuing permits across the state. If your organization had acted proactively, you would have gotten involved with the legislation before it became law.Well, that's true enough. Rebecca and company could have had a seat at the table for negotiating changes to the law. The trouble is, the only bill that they were ever willing to back was worse for permit holders than the old law.
I think it would have made sense for them to have sat down and talked, last year. If they'd seen the handwriting on the wall, and if they'd been sensible, they'd have gone with last year's bill, which was far more accomodationist. I'm sorry that we didn't have a previous year of shall issue in Minnesota, but one of the results of the DFL leadership's delay-at-all-costs strategy that Rebecca adopted was what is, I think, a model shall issue bill, one that explicitly accepts that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution recognizes a "fundemental individual right" to keep and bear arms.
That said, please don't fall for the "gun violence" meme. Inappropriate violence is a problem—moreso in the US than in some other countries; less so than in others. Gun laws don't seem to make much of a difference; Mexico, with very severe gun control laws, is a very violent society, for example.
As a result of your inaction and the inaction of all your lefty brother and sister organizations,(including MN Sheriffs and MN demorats in the house and Senate) Minnesota will have a significant number of permit holders that will remain permitted through the duration of their 5 year permit. That gives 5 MORE years to collect MORE and MORE data that debunks your hysteria.Yup. I'd have left out the "lefty" bit—permit holders seem to come from all sorts of political orientations. My advice is to cash in and seek out a new cause before you get so damn distraught over a non-existent ghost that you end up doing something you regret. Why not take up the abysmal state of education in Minnesota or how about the economic disparity between ethnic groups or how about those nasty machines.... SUV's. 2000LBs of twisted steel killing gas hogging terrorist enabling dick extensions.....right? Err...I think the writer should switch to decaf before emailing.
Good riddance to a bunch of fools sinking in a matchstick boat.
P.S. Nice job on getting 200 people to the rally in Eagan! How about the 15,000 sigs at the fair. Wasn't there like 2 million visitors to the fair? Well no matter, I know that there is over 400,000 residents in the city of MPLS alone. Or, over 5 million in the state of Minnesota. So 'your side' has an overwhelming .3% of the population firmly in your corner right now. WAY TO GO! David Stone September 01, 2003 Well, first of all, we don't know that they actually got "15,000" signatures at the State Fair. It's vanishingly unlikely. On the eighth day of the Fair, I stopped by their table, and found a very lonely woman, with largely empty petition sheets. Her claim was that they'd already gotten two thousand signatures. Could they really have gotten an additional thirteen thousand in the remaining days? Nah.
And then their massive Eagan rally, which they trumpet as a success: out of the entire state, they managed to get two hundred people there—and about half of them were either the press, or pro-reformers, not antis.
That's part of the problem that they have: their campaign of fear and hysteria is, in actuality, resonating only with a very few people.
4 September 2003—More for the Kind-of-Pitiful File: Sheriff Frank
From the Stillwater Gazette. Comments interspersed.County sheriff signs gun permits "under protest"Huh?By MIKE MITCHELSON
Staff Writer
(Created 9/4/03 9:05:00 AM) STILLWATER—For Washington County residents applying for concealed-carry permits, $100 is buys evidence of their sheriff's disapproval.
Since the Minnesota Personal Protection Act became law on May 28, Sheriff Jim Frank has signed each permit not only with his name, but with "subrecuso," a Latin word meaning "under protest"—and the County Attorney's Office has said he has every right to do it.Yup; the sheriff has to obey the law, and his feelings don't have a lot to do with that. That said, he can turn down anybody who he has evidence would be a risk to "self or others" if given a permit. Is he doing that? Or does he admit he's issuing permits to dangerous people? If he is, he should stop, immediately."I'm protesting the fact that I'm forced to sign and issue those permits to people that I don't feel should be getting them," he said.
Frank's opposition to the new legislation, which loosens restrictions for the issuance of concealed-carry permits,"Concealed-carry permits"?
is well documented. In June, he submitted an editorial to area papers, including the Gazette and the St. Paul Pioneer Press.As to whether or not it loosens restrictions, that's debatable. While a "may issue" law has been replaced by a "shall issue" law, in several ways, restrictions have been tightened:
"I am (concerned) about the sheer number of new guns that will be in circulation," he wrote.The sheriff should know that the Minnesota Personal Protection Act didn't change the number, "sheer" or otherwise, of guns in "circulation."
"There will now be more guns for people to kill people with. I am not talking about road rage or out-of-control sports fans. I am talking about children who get their hands on permit holders' guns. I am talking about heavy-duty criminals who steal permit holders' guns. I am talking about those "unloaded" permit holders' guns that will kill people. I am talking about suicides that will be committed by permit holder's guns."He's certainly talking about them—I guess that's easier than pointing to any.
"The vast majority of new permit holders didn't have a need to carry a gun before the law changed. What changed except the law? Please spend a lot of time thinking and weighing the options. Your life and others depend on it. I will make the prediction that more lives will be taken than those saved under this new law."So far, the number of lives saved is inderminate, but the number of lives taken is zero.
Still, he's pointing in the right direction: in the long run, the success of the MPPA will be determined by the costs vs. the benefits.
Not surprisingly, there have been complaints about his action.It is. Which is why the sheriff's little stunt is so disturbing. It's not a serious thing, after all. If the sheriff can point to real problems with the law, he should—but all he's got is predictions that haven't come true in other states."One person thought I had desecrated their permit," he said. "Other people think that I shouldn't be allowed to ... express my opinion to the gun law on an official document, but that's not what this is. ... As much as I protest the law, (this) protest is that I have to put my name down giving someone a permit to carry a gun around, which I think is a pretty serious matter."
Relax, Sheriff: the sky isn't falling.
Gun owners irritated with the added commentary on their new permits have complained to County Attorney Doug Johnson, but to no avail. Permit regulations say nothing about what can be written on the document, he said.Yup. But the state permit card is uniform; Sheriff Frank can put his little bit of grafitti on it. But is grafitti a serious way of dealing with this?Although it is a county document, Johnson said, "But the statute does not say 'this' is what a gun document looks like. Each sheriff can design their own. And that is what Sheriff Frank has done. ... What he is required to do is issue a valid permit to those who are eligible for them and he is doing that."
Johnson said he received an e-mail from a permit holder who wrote that they had contacted the State Attorney General's Office. The Attorney General's Office did not respond to phone messages by press time today.He doesn't, of course, point to these "gun enthusiasts," or show how they've "twisted" his protest.Frank maintains the majority of Washington County residents support his position on the gun law. Gun enthusiasts, in this case, have "twisted" his current signature protest.
"I have said publicly that I think the gun legislation is poorly done," he said. "But the other part, what I'm really protesting is the fact that ... I am required to issue these permits and put my name to something I don't think is the right thing to do. But I'm under law—mandated—to put my name on it. So that's really where I'm coming from."It's kind of too bad for the sheriff; he's obligated to follow the law, and he doesn't like it. Perhaps he needs to find another occupation?
14 August 2003—"Citizens for a Safer Minnesota"
From Citizens for a Safer Minnesota.
Yes, it took some effort, but the Linden Hills Co-op Board of Directors decided at their July 31st meeting to officially ban guns. Thanks to all of you who helped convince the LH Co-op that this was in the best interest of their customers. Linden Hills Co-op joins the Wedge, Mississippi Market and Whole Foods Co-op as leaders among grocers. We're still working on the other major grocery chains, including Lunds-Byerly's, Kowalski's, Rainbow and Cub.Trying to remain neutral: Some business owners who have decided not to post still like to believe that they have the authority to prohibit guns on their premises. However, the way the law is written, no sign is a welcome sign for guns. You'll see that the conceal and carry proponents are THANKING Target for supporting the Minnesota Personal Protection Act by not posting: www.mnccrn.org.
Find out how you can help with the Campaign to Post.
Please remember to THANK and PATRONIZE the business owners who have posted!
It's been a bad year for the anti-reform hysterics. The Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act passed both the Minnesota House and Senate in a bipartisan vote—a bit close in the Senate, but by a huge margin in the House—and was signed into law by Governor Tim Pawlenty on April 28th. Second, it went into effect on May 28th, and literally thousands of carry permits have already been issued, with more to come.
But the worst—for the antis—was yet to come: nothing happened. No "blood on the streets", as they had predicted; no permit holders involved in "fender-bender shootouts." Near as I can tell, we've yet to have a permit holder so much as discharge a firearm at anything except a target on the range. The legislature doesn't even meet until February, and, realistically, the chances of a repeal bill even making it to the governor for his veto are nil.
Yes, that's a good thing—but not for the antis.
What are they left with? Not a lot.
Rebecca Thoman, a physician specializing in the sexual dysfunction of women, runs an organization called "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota." They're pretty long on theater, and have a pretty slick website, but pretty short on ideas.
Without blood running in the streets, without legions of permit holders' guns leaping out of their holsters and purses, without either a reason or support for repeal of the MPPA, they're left with "The Campaign to Post," which they trotted out with much fanfare, right after the bill passed. Their goal was to get businesses all across the state to post NO GUNS signs. "No sign is a welcome sign for guns", they trumpeted. Pass out "No Sign? Not a Dime!" cards to businesses, they said.
Bang? Nope: thud. It's not impossible to find businesses that have posted, but you've got to look pretty hard, even in the metro area. See gunfreezones. Of the major retailers, none have gone along with Rebecca and her friends. They were, initially, fairly successful with some restaurants along Grand Avenue in St. Paul, but a string of robberies at posted establishments have already persuaded some restaurant owners to take the signs down. (It seems that even barely literate criminals can figure out that a sign reading "FREDS FOOLISH FOODS BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES" is an invitation. Rebecca and her friends aren't quite that clever.)
Let's just take a look at grocery stores—which is where Rebecca and her friends have had their major victories, such as they are.
There are 651 grocery stores in the city of Minneapolis. After much effort and passing out as many "No Sign? Not a Dime!" cards as Rebecca and her friends could, they've managed to persuade the Wedge, Mississippi Market, the Whole Foods Co-op and now the Linden Hills Coop to post NO GUNS signs.
Yup. Out of 651, they've been successful with a whole four, and are reduced to trumpeting their ability to persuade the Linden Hills board as a great victory. Yup— in their most successful niche, in the city in which they've had the most success, they're up to merely a 99.39% failure rate.
They've even withdrawn their aggressive "No Sign? Not a Dime!" cards, and replaced them with rather plaintive and somewhat whiny "Please become gun-free" cards. The "No Sign? Not a Dime!" campaign fizzled—retailers, no doubt, noticed that failing to post didn't hurt their businesses.
The question then becomes: why? For six years, the "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota" were able to effectively block the passage of the MPPA—Rebecca Thoman, a registered lobbyist, worked the legislators with great dexterity, skillfully playing on their fears. She stage-managed appearances by dozens of women bused down to the Capitol, in pink sweaters, often carrying teddy bears, and sporting "Minnesotans Against Being Shot" buttons, and persuaded literally dozens more to testify against reform. She and her friends gave out awards to legislators who, up until this year, successfully demagogued the issue, and seemed to be able to get almost any group to sign letters opposing the bill.
And now? Now, they're reduced to selling teddy bears, and pressuring compliant coop boards.
Thud.
Pitiful. Maybe they need a new campaign slogan? "Today, the Linden Hills Coop; tomorrow, the Edina People's Vegetable Cooperative?"
Hmmmm... not quite as snappy as "No sign? Not a dime!"
Update, 19 August 2003: The "Citizens for a Safer" Minnesota have removed their boast about the Linden Hills Coop's decision to post from their webpage.
I guess it looked kind of pitiful to them, too.
No, they didn't go with "Today the Linden Hills Coop. Tomorrow the Edina Peoples' Vegetable Cooperative!"
Alas.
They've replaced it with a bit of text that they adapted from a deeper portion of their website. It isn't nearly as embarrassing, I guess.
It's State Fair Time Again State Fair is a great time to grill elected officials! While you're checking out the world's largest sow and enjoying deep fried delicacies,Steady, Joel; no cheap shots. You're not exactly anorexic yourself.stop by your favorite political party's booth and ask what your state lawmakers are doing to repeal conceal and carry. For more ideas about questions to ask the politicians visit our Events page.Which is fair enough. I think that politicians showing up at the State Fair is a good thing; it gets them a chance to get out and meet people from every walk of life. One of Wes Skoglund's—yes, he's my state senator, but don't blame me; I didn't vote for him—problems is that he spends far too much time with Rebecca Thoman and Norm Orenstein.They've got some suggested questions for elected officials.
1. Will you support efforts to restore local governments' authority to restrict gun-carrying on their property?Which is also fair enough. I think everybody should go to the State Fair. I go every year, and I've got a few questions, too. Feel free to print these out and ask them. You can, if you'd like, email me the answers you get. I'll post my own answers on the website and—if you give me permission—yours, too.
2. Do you support repeal of conceal and carry?Over the almost three decades that Minnesotans who want to or need to carry handguns in public have had to get permits, how many times has there been a problem with a permit holder carrying on government property?
Why do you think that there haven't been any real problems with permit holders since the Minnesota Personal Protection Act passed this last April? Since there haven't been, what do you think is behind the "Citizens for a Safer Minnesota"'s frantic cries to repeal it? Do you think that they might be afraid that their time to demagogue the issue is quickly passing?
Since the MPPA seems to be working just fine, isn't talk about repeal or amendment a solution in desperate search of a problem?
Will you support efforts of some metro-area county and city governments and the University of Minnesota to restrict carry permit holders rights to protect themselves? Would you support withholding state payments to these groups until they comply with the law, or is it okay with you when they break the law?
Do you support leaving the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act of 2003 intact, since it's obviusly working very well?
For DFLers:
Do you support the self-destructive choice of the Senate DFL leadership to demagogue gun issues? Wasn't losing the House and the Governor's office bad enough?
Don't you think those DFL state Senators looked kind of silly prancing around the Senate floor in their bulletproof vests?
Sure. Let's ask a
lot of questions.
Last modified Saturday, 27-Sep-2003 09:16:27 PDT.