Minnesota appears to be on the verge of adopting new gun-safety laws.

Some of the common talking points have come up in debate, but groups demanding action say the proposals have evidence on their side. The proposals cleared their final legislative hurdles Monday as part of a larger public safety bill.

One provision would establish extreme no-risk protection orders, where someone deemed a threat to themselves or others would be temporarily blocked from having access to firearms. Another expands background checks for gun shows and private gun sales.

Molly Leutz, Minnesota chapter lead for the group Moms Demand Action, said the proposals are not "knee-jerk" reaction laws.

"There is evidence from these laws being in place in other states that they have efficacy in reducing gun violence," Leutz pointed out.

University of Michigan researchers say protection order laws appear to be an effective tool in preventing firearm incidents, such as mass shootings. And Johns Hopkins University said states without universal background checks have 30% higher levels of seeing guns eventually getting into the hands of criminals.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus contends the provisions would burden lawful gun owners without reducing firearm crimes or suicide rates.

Maggiy Emery, interim executive director of Protect Minnesota, echoes sentiments from others, saying these are worthwhile strategies based on how they've been applied elsewhere. She said there's no "one-size-fits-all" approach to reducing gun violence, but added these would be important solutions to build on.

"These bills represent the bottom-line, common-sense, should-have-been-done-years-ago things that Minnesota is behind on," Emery contended. "And once we get these over the finish line, that's really going to open up an opportunity for us to think about what else can we be doing here that's going to be really effective in saving lives."

Federal data show suicides make up a majority of firearm deaths in Minnesota, and Emery feels the protection order provision could be very effective in preventing those situations. Gov. Tim Walz has indicated he would sign such laws into place.


get more stories like this via email

Connecticut is one state not affected by a recent Supreme Court ruling.

In Garland v. Cargill, the Court overturned a federal bump-stock ban the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives implemented after a 2017 mass shooting. Authorities found most of the shooter's weapons had a bump stock, which enables someone to fire multiple rounds at a rapid pace.

Melissa Kane, board chair and interim executive director of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said federal action must follow the ruling.

"Legislation to ban bump stocks has already been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate," Kane pointed out. "Congress has the power to change the law and ban bump stocks now to keep these kinds of weapons off of our streets and out of our communities but it has to happen."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has signaled he'll call for a vote on legislation banning bump stocks. The big challenge Kane sees for implementing such a ban is political gridlock. Senate Democrats support Schumer's proposal but GOP senators said they will block the legislation.

Polls from just before the ban was implemented show most Americans support it and attorneys general from numerous states say a federal bump-stock ban is necessary. Although federal gun safety bills often face an uphill battle, some states have not had the same issue.

Kane argued Connecticut can be a model for other states and the federal government.

"Connecticut's is ironclad and I'd like other states to look at the wording of our legislation and know that if your state doesn't have a ban on bump stocks, you can ban bump stocks," Kane contended. "That's important for people to see. They will be able to uphold those in case there are cases that come against them."

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have bump-stock bans which remain in effect since the ruling covers the ATF rule, not the constitutionality of state bans.

If two Michigan lawmakers have their way, there will be fewer locations in the state where people are allowed to carry firearms.

State Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, and state Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, have introduced bills that would expand gun-free zones within the State Capitol complex.

Both have advocated for stricter gun laws in Michigan.

Senate Bills 857 and 858 would make it illegal to carry a firearm in the State Capitol building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building - with an exception for legislators.

Ryan Bates, executive director of the group End Gun Violence Michigan, said he believes these proposals are much needed.

"We cannot have a functioning democracy at the barrel of a gun," said Bates. "So, it's incredibly important that we protect our legislators and protect our democracy from people who want to do it harm by bringing guns into the places where our laws are made."

If the gun-free zone bills become law, violators could face up to 90 days in jail, and or be fined.

During the highly publicized Oxford High School shooter trial, Polehanki took to social media to warn parents that if their child discharges a firearm and causes harm to themselves or others, the parent is going to jail.

Longtime firearms instructor and gun-rights advocate Rick Ector said he's all for responsible gun ownership - but not gun-free zones.

He argued that having law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in more places would inherently make these areas safer.

"People who have a concealed pistol license, who are primarily the people we're talking about," said Ector, "they are statistically more law-abiding than the law enforcement community, and they've gone through all the required, statutorily specified training."

Both bills have been assigned to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.




get more stories like this via email

Two years ago today, a teenager killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde. The families of those shot and killed have agreed to a $2 million settlement with the city, which equals the entire amount of the town's insurance policy.

Attorneys for the group say they worked with city officials for more than a year after leaders reached out and asked what could be done to ease the families' pain.

Javier Cazares, who lost his daughter in the shooting, said justice and accountability are his main concerns.

"It's been an unbearable two years," he said. "We all know who took our children's lives, but there was an obvious failure out there on May 24. The whole world saw that. We've been let down so many times. The time has come to do the right thing."

The mass shooting garnered international attention and questions after 376 law-enforcement officers waited 77 minutes before going into the classroom to stop the shooter. Family members are disappointed that no disciplinary action has been taken against any of the officers involved, although Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez resigned amid questions over how the incident was handled.

In addition to the $2 million settlement, the city of Uvalde has agreed to "restorative justice" policy changes that include establishing an annual day of remembrance on May 24, mental-health services for all families in the community, and addressing public safety risks and the burden of gun violence on police officers.

Although families have settled with the city, said attorney Josh Koskoff, they are filing additional lawsuits including one against the state of Texas, "which has done nothing but burden this town before the shooting by not giving them the resources they need, preventing these families from getting the information they need, and then blaming the city, as if they didn't have how many police officers there? 98? As if they didn't know how to shoot somebody."


get more stories like this via email