cuchulainn
Member
http://www.startribune.com/stories/465/3852748.html
Just who supports this gun craziness?
Doug Grow, Star Tribune
Published April 29, 2003
They knew they were outgunned. But one last time Monday, foes of looser gun laws walked into the Minnesota Senate chamber.
"You packing?" I asked Sen. Wes Skoglund, DFL-Minneapolis, long an ardent foe of liberalizing conceal-and-carry laws.
"Yep," he said. "I've got my pen, my reading glasses and the list."
Skoglund's list included the names of more than 300 church, school, business and law-enforcement organizations that opposed a bill that would make it possible for most Minnesotans 21 and older to get a permit to carry a loaded pistol.
Sen. Steve Dille, R-Dassel, was impressed by Skoglund's list. He rose from his seat and asked the two point people on conceal-and-carry, Sen. Gen Olson, R-Minnetrista, and Sen. Pat Pariseau, R-Farmington, if they had a list showing groups supporting expanded permitting.
Pariseau shuffled some papers on her desk.
"None [of the law-enforcement organizations] have come to, ahh, a position of neutrality on this," she said. "We have, ummm, loose organizations of people who are civil-rights types who support it. This has citizen kind of support. Street cops support it. But they don't have an organization."
Dille repeated his question: "Does anyone have a list showing who supports this?"
No answer.
Apparently, conceal-and-carry proponents didn't want to say that the National Rifle Association liked the bill. (Some, such as Skoglund, believe the NRA wrote the bill.)
Although there were a number of people -- mostly men -- at the Capitol wearing yellow stickers reading "Have Gun, Will Vote," polls have shown that most Minnesotans don't want more people carrying handguns.
But no matter. On Monday, everyone seemed to know that this debate was an exercise in futility. Even the large crowd that came to the Capitol to urge the Senate to turn down conceal-and-carry seemed resigned.
"It's so hard for a group of volunteers to keep coming back year after year against a powerful special-interest group with paid staff," said Becky Wardell-Gaertner, who was among those cheering for senators to keep fighting conceal-and-carry.
The conceal-and-carry crowd prevailed after six years of failure -- and seven hours of new debate.
So what happens next?
"It probably isn't Armageddon," said Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, with a sigh.
She's right. It's not the end of the world. But it is another sign of the end of Minnesota as we've known it.
For all its passion and length, Monday's debate was really a fight over fine print. The conceal-and-carry foes wanted only to form a conference committee of House and Senate members to tinker with the bill that the Minnesota House passed last week.
DFLers were smarting over the fact that the Republican-controlled House now has twice managed to get major social legislation onto the Senate floor without having to go through DFL-led Senate committees. Two weeks ago, restriction on abortions came attached as an amendment to a circus bill. Now, this gun bill came attached as an amendment to a Department of Natural Resources bill.
DFLers tried to show how the gun bill needed a conference committee just to eliminate some of the absurdities.
For example, to keep someone with a permit from entering a private business or a church, it appears there will need to be a sign saying "No guns" and a personally delivered verbal message.
Sen. Steve Kelley, DFL-Hopkins, was shaking his head over the warnings that will have to be issued to get people with permits to disarm. Church greeters, he suggested sarcastically, could be among the first victims of the new law. Hoarseness will be their big problem.
Said Kelley to Olson: "If my church wants to keep guns out of the sanctuary, we'd have to post signs and the greeters will have to say to everyone who comes in, 'Welcome to church. Welcome, but we don't want you to bring your gun in here.' Is that a fair interpretation?"
"I don't read it like that, but you do," said Olson.
Kelley, a lawyer, kept pressing.
Olson, exasperated, blurted, "I will not argue with a lawyer on the fine points of law."
For all of his sarcasm and pleading during the debate, Kelley had admitted defeat before the debate even started.
"When people elect certain people to the Senate, this is what happens," he said. "It's supposed to work that way."
-- Doug Grow is at
>[email protected].
© Copyright 2003 Star Tribune.
They actually call themselves that? in public?