Same ol' song

I've been saying for years that when Democrats engage in debate, they go full frontal on feelings and emotions since the facts are often not on their side. The way they partake in the gun debate is Exhibit A. 

St Paul Mayor Melvin Carter is up for reelection in under two weeks. Since he appears to be fighting for his political life, he decided to politicize the August mass shooting which occurred at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. Specifically, Carter is looking to have the St Paul City Council pass an ordinance banning certain types of firearms and accessories (i.e. "assault" weapons, large capacity magazines, binary triggers, etc.). Now, by the letter of the law this is flatly illegal, and it was spelled out clearly by Rob Doar, General Counsel with the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. 

The key excerpt: 

Minnesota law could not be more clear. Minn. Stat. § 471.633 states:

“The legislature hereby preempts all authority of local governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components…”

This is an express preemption statute. It wholly and unambiguously prohibits cities from legislating in this domain. The Supreme Court of Minnesota and the Court of Appeals have both consistently affirmed that preempted ordinances are void at inception—regardless of when or whether they are enforced. See, for example, In re Application of Hoffman, 430 N.W.2d 210 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988), where a municipality’s overreaching permit requirements were struck down under this same statute.

The City of Saint Paul lacks the authority to adopt any ordinance that regulates firearms or ammunition, whether directly or contingently. No legislative gimmick—such as an indefinite effective date—can circumvent a statutory bar.

Rob's letter concludes by stating his organization's intention to file a lawsuit if this ordinance is enacted. 

Mayor Carter's response was about as devoid of substance as one (sadly) has come to expect from today's Democrats. 

 

Feelings over facts. Symbolism over substance. 

Leave aside the fact such an ordinance is, again, a *legal* non-starter. The idea that restricting the rights of law abiding citizens somehow makes communities *more* safe is a proven fallacy. But whenever ironclad statistics are used to make that case, people are accused of valuing guns over kids. Kinda hard for there to be a civilized debate when one side impugns opponents' motives right off the bat. 

See ya in court, Mr. Mayor. 

-------------------------------------------------------