Bill expanding self-defense rights passes in Minnesota Senate
February 23, 2012 at 12:54 pm in Grand Forks Herald
A bill that would expand Minnesotans’ self-defense rights was approved 40-23 Thursday night by the state Senate. The Personal Protection Act known by many opponents as the “shoot first” bill extends the right to use deadly force for personal protection outside the home to any place where an individual lawfully can be, sponsor Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, said. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
30 
54
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
23 
46
Re: Realist – “Let me get this straight: you’re walking in a park at night and someone walks up to you quickly with something in their hand. You assume they are going to kill you and you shoot them. Turns out they were wondering if you had seen their dog who had gotten out of the leash they are holding. Yeah, sounds like a good idea to me. What could go wrong?” . . . . . and if they have a knife rather than a dog’s leash you are mugged, raped, or dead.
I’ll agree with you that there are risks to allowing folks to conceal carry, but I think your premise is flawed. Most people who choose not to be sheep also practice heightened situational awareness; they are “switched on” as Geoff Thompson would put it. This doesn’t mean we walk around in constant paranoia, fearful of everyone we meet. It just means that we are always aware of our surroundings, and assessing any potential threats or abnormal activities. If I were your subject walking in the park, with someone quickly overtaking me on foot, I’d turn and confront them to let them know I am aware of their presence long before they are in striking range of me. Conversely, I would never walk up to someone quickly, especially in the dark, without first making voice or eye contact with them to show that I was no threat. Personally, in a threatening situation, I am going to retreat as far as possible before resorting to violence to defend myself, and I will warn an attacker that I am carrying. That’s just me, and how I would handle the situation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
20
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
38
Tundrabeast, I don’t routinely carry a gun, or anything other than a pocket knife, since I try very hard not to put myself or family in any situations that could be dangerous. That is the first step to self-defense. But you better believe that when I’m out with my family I’ve got my eye on you and any others that I may deem a beast until I’m convinced you’re no threat. I already explained that, maybe you should do a reread for better comprehension. I prepare for life. I prepare for work, for play, for emergencies, etcetera. I don’t walk around like a fool with my head down hoping no one or nothing will hurt me and the government will always take care of me. I will not live like a sheep. You are free to be a sheep, that’s OK and I don’t hold it against you. But don’t expect me to pay for your lack of due diligence.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
19
You’ve managed to take the issue way off track and I only fault myself for following that path with you. I don’t profess to know what the bill all includes, but my understanding of the bill is that it grants leway to probable shooting on the mere feeling of endagerment and not real endangerment as it is now. My point was and still is that this can open a door to homicide from within….Not the threat from strangers.
Now Nd….Someone who considers anyone who isn’t well armed as you are….I’d be more concerned about you under the same roof than a stranger in public….With an attitude like that I could see how you would consider it justice to shoot somone who you considered wrong headed…..Someone like myself who would debate an issue with you…You’d like to have me in your crosshairs right now……..I can just feel it wuffy
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
22
Tundrabeast…you are a man…try being a woman…I doubt anyone wants to kidnap and rape you. If I’m traveling alone I want protection with me. A steel club won’t help me but my Judge will.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
12
Good for you, TJ!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
10
The “Judge” = good choice and powerful voice tj.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
9
I have no problem with you needing a gun for protection. I know my sense of security isn’t the same as many, but then again I’ve been in several harsh conditions as a young man so it sort of conditions one to know the diference between real threats and just situations that require caution. But I have no problem with you handling a weapon…As long as you’ve taken the time to study it enough to really know what you’re doing if push ever came to shove…
I have a problem with a bill that makes it easier to excuse every shooting just because someone calls it self defense….That’s a slippery slope that can and will backfire if allowed to go through…..
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
23
Are there regulations against carrying a firearm in a semi?
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
I’ve never seen anything specific to that…My guess is we’re under the same allowances as any other citizen carrying weapons in vehicles…..I know that there’s an assumption that a lot of us do…I think that works in our favor most of the time in bad areas we sometimes have to venture into…….I just hope we never have it like Russia did after the fall of the Soviet Union….They literally had to have someone riding shotgun and truck stops had to have armed patrolled walls….Highway robbery was that serious over there for a while….
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
Probably shouldnt be running up to people in parks anyway.
A simple “Excuse me “Sir/Ma;am” should suffice to lower the tension.
Fact is simple, this law is to protect the home owner who shoots a person in his home that shouldnt be there.
Too many times we give the crook more rights and freedoms than we do the innocent homeowner.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Poor analogy. 99% of LEGAL concealed permit holders are not going to “shoot first and ask questions later”! It’s the lowlife who’s ILLEGALLY carrying you have to worry about.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
44
I know many liberal libertarians that believe in the right to defend themselves and the tools necessary to do it. I don’t see this as a left/right issue Craig, just a choice of whether you want to live as a sheep or a sheep dog.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
24
Yep and Liberals allow the assailant to sue and obtain judgements over those whom the assailant was attempting to rob, rape etc. There is something COMPLETELY wrong when a person in the commission of an action of harm is able to obtain compensatory remuneration based on illegal activities. It simply boggles the mind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
15
Castle doctrine law generally prohibits any kind of litigation, civil or criminal by next-of-kin of the dead ‘perp’ against the defending shooter, a big reason for this law and subsequent enhancements.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
12
“a big reason for this law and subsequent enhancements.”
Please explain….I really don’t know much about the law, and I don’t understand how this law would change liability if someone whould get shot in the act of a crime….I wouldn’t see a problem with that as long as it is absolutely proven that a crime was being or attempted to be commited….
Like or Dislike:
13 
11
Tundra:
1. Enhancements articles include, threats on your person in/by your vehicle.
2. Threats on/by your driveway, grocery store parking lot etc.
3.Threats in/by your home entrance.
4.Threats ANYWHERE you feel your life/loved ones is endangered OUTSIDE your dwelling which includes hotels, motels, camping tents etc.
Generally most states do NOT include threats to property, if you blast a guy trying to steal your truck and are NOT personally endangered (unless he tries to run you over), you go to jail if you shoot him.
Most courts allow you to kill, if “you feared for your life”…a key statement to keep in mind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
5
Thanks for the explaination
Like or Dislike:
18 
5
Tundra, you may find this website helpful in your quest for CCW info:
http://www.Handgunlaw.us
Like or Dislike:
12 
3
You’ve got to be kidding….Some of you “Dislike” me thanking the guy for an explaination….I’m guessing it’s a knee jerk reaction just because it’s me…..Such a loyal fan base I guess
Like or Dislike:
17 
6
The likes and dislikes seem so third grade to me. Do we really need them? If someone objects to a remark can’t they come out and say so instead?
Like or Dislike:
10 
15
Craig, we all know how “conservative” Minnesota is!
Like or Dislike:
15 
6
Logic dictates that if Pro-Gunners were as violent as Anit-Gunners say, there would be no Anti-Gunners.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
11
The column is titled the “shoot first” bill. It already shows what slant the story will take and legitimizes the slant as the writer is a representative of the company for whom she works, Forum Communications.
I have seen the quote that “law enforcement opposes the bill” several times. What poll or vote is there to make this assumption fact? A few metro chiefs express one opinion and suddenly all peace officers automatically absorb the same opinion? Do they have one collective conscience?
I think the “responsibility to retreat” part of the current law puts too much responsibility on the homeowner to make sure that whatever intruder comes to his house has a nice experience. When you break into another’s castle, it is on you.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
13
Like they say, “when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away”…..
The best thing this bill can do is to protect the person in his/her own home when an intruder breaks in.
At this point, you do not have the time or luxury to dial a phone.
Once the gun is pointed, the criminal now has the option to either call the cops himself or meet his maker.
So technicaly this doesnt mean that every intruder will be killed but it definately puts some protection in the pocket of the victim.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
This is no big deal, just an extension of the ‘castle doctrine’ law. Numerous states have passed this enhancement, the majority will. Just like when concealed-carry passed, we’d all become Wyatt Earps and Billy-the-kids….has not happened.
The only ones in danger here are the bad guys.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
12
Exactly. It seems that all the commentators above thinks this is a “shoot first, ask questions later” bill. That is far from the truth. AND, it’s not just about guns. Someone above claimed they have a steel club and a fast knife. This law governs their use as well as firearms.
I really wish people would read the story and not just the headline. The story is not slanted, the Herald just sucks at writing headlines.
Current law does allow people to defend themselves, and this law would allow people who kill unjustly or recklessly to be prosecuted. This is much ado about nothing. I do support the bill because I would like MN to honor other states’ carry permits.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
Thanks……Your words did encourage me to read the article again…but at a slower pace so I didn’t just interpret buzz phrases…..And hey…It’s my steel club and knives you’re talking about so you got my interest……It really doesn’t seem as nasty as the first read through much earlier in the day. I can see the logic in the bill, but it does seem like it could use some tweaking……Anyway thanks for a level headed response……These issues have a tendency to go right for the emotional zone……
Like or Dislike:
19 
5
Hi Kyle,
I quote you “it seems all of the commentators above think this is a shoot first ask questions later bill.” I said absolutely nothing that would indicate I should be included in that group.
I agree with most of what you say, but if you are going to label me, please do so correctly.
I use my full name when I post and will not tolerate any mischaracterizations of what I’ve said to be attached to my name.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
Similar laws have been passed in many states. It did not result in mass shooting in the park, on the streets or in their homes…… are Minnesotans some how rabid mad dog killers that will suddenly start shooting people all over the place?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
9
I agree with you Glen. North Dakota has a shoot first ask questions later bill and you haven’t seen people dying by the bucket loads over here..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
12
No, North Dakota doesn’t have a “shoot first ask questions later” law. It has a law that does not require people to retreat from their property when threatened with harm.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
41
Re: fairandballenced99 – “Once a Jehovah’s Witness or a girl scout gets capped trying to go door to door in a neighborhood they’ll figure out this is a bad mistake. It’s also worth noting many MN police departments oppose this bill. How are those JOBS bills coming along GOP?”
Holy smokes, I’ve never seen a more nonsensical argument in my life! People have been able to own guns and carry them in their homes for years. How many girl scouts and Witnesses’ are you shooting on doorsteps over there in MN on a yearly basis? And is it really worth noting that people who have a monopoly on legal force don’t happen to like this law? Of course they’re not going to like a law that gives the people more control over their own safety. They like nice, unarmed, docile citizens. People that can conceal carry, even when aren’t, are far more likely to challenge authority, and we can’t have that happening.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
12
Really? Thats what you got from the article?
I must have missed the part where someone knocking at your door was automatically approval to start shooting.
Or do you have a problem in your town with over ambitious girl scouts breaking through your front door to sell you cookies?
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
This conversation brings to mind the oil region in North Dakota. Although sad as it is firearms are necessary for protection. People should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves. There will be no increase in spousal murders because of this bill. If someone wants to kill a person they will figure out a way to do it…gun or no gun.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
8
If only the GOP was as keen on packing condoms for protection….
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
24
You can have all the condoms you want. You are free to go to the store and purchase thousands if you like. Just dont expect me to pay for them for you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
12
If only it was that simple glen.
For example, Santorum wants to make contraception illegal.
For example, the GOP strongly backed the catholic church recently over the hospitals the church administrates. Those church affiliated hospitals (some 600) took $46 billion in taxpayer money in 2002 — so it’s likely much more now. In other words, they are telling us to pay for their discrimination with our money.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
19
They do not want to make it illegal.
They want to make the US TAXPAYER paying for them ILLEGAL.
If your religion was against contraceptives then thats your right to not use them. However, when the govt starts making you pay for them for other people then that too goes against your belief structure.
Its really not a big deal, and its an easy premise to follow…
“You Play, You Pay”
If you cant afford a condom, you should abstain from sex because you sure as to heck cant afford a kid.
Its that simple.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
fyi….
Here’s what Santorum told the Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger on January 6 about this very subject:
“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
29
You should check the specifics, cuz it doesn’t allow you to whack someone without justification.
Look, even though most Republicans act crazy these days to get campaign funds, this is a good bill that should be supported by both sides of the isle.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
6
I would agree that there would need to be some serious specifics put forth to anything happening outside of the home.
Carjacking? Heres the keys have a nice day.
Witnessing a violent crime? Guns out and the crime ends. (not always in death either, the fact that you have a gun may be enough to stop the crime)
For me, the home is where this would make me feel better, i dont carry a gun and dont plan on it.
But you break through my front door, your either leaving in cuffs or a body bag. Your choice.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
Re: tundrabeast – “You’ve managed to take the issue way off track and I only fault myself for following that path with you.” I responded to a hypothetical in a previous post, not to the story. You responded to me, I responded to your comment. As far as this line from you “Now Nd….Someone who considers anyone who isn’t well armed as you are….I’d be more concerned about you under the same roof than a stranger in public….” I specifically stated that my first line of defence was avoiding bad situations, and the second was to retreat before taking any violent actions to defend myself. I never even said if I owned a firearm. trying to put words in my mouth to support a straw dog argument won’t work.
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
Although my position on the article has changed some you are right that I did take issue with you personally. The reason I did was because you keep indicating that you’re above it all and most everyone else who might handle things in any other manner are “Sheep.” My point was that comes across like a self rightous attitude that just might have a very itchy trigger finger…….In the future…If you don’t want confrontation…Then don’t be confrontational…..I apologize for being over agressive on this myself…
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
Fair enough tundrabeast, we can quible over semantics or just move on. . . .
Like or Dislike:
9 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
20
Or I beat him with a stick, or I stuck him with a pencil, or I stabbed him with a knife, or I poked him with a pitchfork, or I burned him with a torch, or I pushed him in front of a moving train, or I tripped him and he fell off a roof, or I choked him, or I hit him in the chest, or I just found him that way.
The possibilities are endless. In the meantime people that aren’t able to defend themselves in this crazy world get murdered. No bill is perfect. There may be accidental killings but I feel the crimes prevented will be much greater.
I spend most of my time at my dad’s resort in Northern Ontario. Because of the wolves and the bears I have to carry a pistol to take out the trash. We also get some pretty crazy men up here sometimes. I have had to pull my gun out from behind the bar at night a time or two because they left all their manners back in the states.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
Damn Yankees….Always screwing up in Canada…
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
Harper is doing a damn fine job of screwing up his country.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Oh come on….. Stephen Harpers approval rating is 37%! In his benefit, it is double the approval rating of the United States Congress.
Like or Dislike:
9 
6
Are you arguing with yourself? Even if you’re not…My comment was completely tounge in cheek so I have no idea how you went from that to Harper…
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
I enjoy arguing with myself. Am I winning?
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
In Aces
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Shoot first should be extended to every convenience store employee. Maybe then these punks would get a job rather than strong arming a convenience store. The armed robberies are out of control in the FM area.
Like or Dislike:
19 
6
Armed robbery in those stores is a very tricky situation because on one hand there’s nut jobs who would shoot even if you hand over the money, but on the other hand just having a gun at a moment of panic could also end up taking lives….And generally for what? A couple hundred bucks or less? It amazes me when I watch video from shows like America’s Dumbest Criminals where clerks making minimum wage risk their lives taking on robbers instead of just handing over the few bucks in the till.
Some of this stuff does seem to remind me of a philosophy Archie Bunker (All In The Family…sitcom from the 70′s) had to discourage anyone from hijacking planes….”They should give everyone a gun when they board the plane so that if someone was thinking about hijacking they’d have a plane full of guns to deal with” It might seem to make some sense….If you’re willing to disregard logic. Anyway….I’m pretty sure that the laws during a hold up are basically covered both in the laws we have now and those proposed
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Having talked with a relative, who has experienced being held up as a convenience store clerk, the best action is to give up the money. But, later, one has the misgivings of being responsible for fulfilling your job duties, you get the feeling you have personally been violated and feel as if they personally stole your money. The feeling of “it” happening on your watch never ever goes away as you question yourself what could I have done.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
I know you’re right, but I just can’t understand that mindset….Especially when working at a low wage and the money taken is generally minimal….Personally if it were me I’d be more than happy to clean out the till and never think twice about it…Because I’d be too busy thinking over and over how lucky I was that the money was good enough.
Hey! Here’s one of my favorite Dumb Crooks tales of all time….I think it was in NM….A guy comes into a convience stor and lays down $20 opn the counter and asks for change. Once the clerk opened the till the guy pulls a knife and tells him to give him all the money in the till…So the clerk quickly hands over all the money and the robber runs out of the store leaving his original $20 on the counter……..It was discovered that the guy hit the till before the manager came back with more cash to put in it and got away with $17……I don’t know if he ever got caught, but if he did he’d end up doing serious time for an armed robbery that the store made money on……I wonder if he finally decided the crooked life wasn’t for him?
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
And i bet they would think twice about reclining the seat all the way back into your lap.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
For everyone’s reading, here is a link to the House version of the bill.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1467.2.html&session=ls87
The Senate version is the same.
For speed readers, just look at the lines crossed out and the new underlined sentences added gives you the changes without having to read the entire bill.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Guess if I was in that position, I’d hand over the cash, then ask if he wanted a bunch of lottery tickets. (those can be traced)
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
They’re really not all that much for changes, are they, bobk?
Thanks for posting that link.
While I didn’t see all that many changes, I was surprised at just how the law already read. Made me feel much better about keeping a clip in the old Winchester! (under lock and key)
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
This is a bad bill and law enforcement dosen’t support it. Only politicians who take campaign contributions from the gun lobbies support the bill. It’s very self serving issue for politicians. Let’s get some jobs legislation going you sorry GOP goobs. Do you really want to give people more latitude in with killing with guns when at the same time you’re trying to bust the unions, lower wages, lower benefits, do away with retirement benefits and raise unemployment? You might want to rethink this before you pass it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
John, If you think that the GOP is moving in the direction you indicate, then don’t you also think that the GOP would be really interested in making sure that they have the tools in place to maintain their brave new world?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
John, this enhancement to the existing castle doctrine law is not giving “people more latitude” to kill, it’s giving more people latitude to protect.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2