# Minnesota becomes a Shall Issue state. Your comments? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 29, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166 "2003-05-29T01:52:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Zabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8baadc/32.png) [@Zabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/81 "2003-05-30T04:27:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Cite? \*\* Get off your own rear end and research it yourself if you are that worried about it. I do not feel the need to do it as I already know it happened. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/82 "2003-05-30T04:33:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zabal \* > \*\*Get off your own rear end and research it yourself if you are that worried about it. I do not feel the need to do it as I already know it happened. \*\* Let me explain how it works around here at SDMB. When _you_ make a factual assertion, _you_ are the one who is expected to support it. {i]You\* said that SCOTUS has ruled definitively that the 2nd amendment applies to private citizens. I call bullshit. The ball is now in your court. Put up or shut up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/83 "2003-05-30T04:37:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*Lots of things aren’t constitutional rights. But if the states nevertheless choose to give you that right that’s their prerogative. \*\* I agree. I just think that people overstate it sometimes when they claim that the right to bear arms for private citizans is as solidly established as freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/84 "2003-05-30T04:46:26Z")
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” or something like that. Just because militia is mentioned in part of the sentence preceding that statement doesn’t mean that only militias can have guns. It’s like saying, “I need sugar, so I think I’ll go to the store.” That doesn’t imply that sugar can only be gotten at a store, nor does it imply that you can only go to the store if you are getting sugar. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/85 "2003-05-30T04:52:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” or something like that. > > Just because militia is mentioned in part of the sentence preceding that statement doesn’t mean that only militias can have guns. > > It’s like saying, “I need sugar, so I think I’ll go to the store.” > > That doesn’t imply that sugar can only be gotten at a store, nor does it imply that you can only go to the store if you are getting sugar. \*\* That’s your interpretation but SCOTUS has never definitively ruled that way. This is an old debate, and you may be right, but it’s not a matter of rock solid law. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/86 "2003-05-30T05:06:24Z")
No, you are correct. SCOTUS has done everything possible to avoid ruling definitively on this issue. But federal appeals courts have always struck down total bans on guns in the hands of private individuals. Restrictions are usually allowed, but there must always be a way for law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain guns. If the SCOTUS does rule, I think it will be as big a decision as Roe v. Wade, and will probably have the same effects. Most restrictions on gun ownership will be struck down. And it will be hilarious, watching liberal and conservative groups each lobbying to have the other group’s individual rights revoked while theirs are upheld. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/87 "2003-05-30T05:15:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zabal \* > \*\*Sorry you are wrong, this was put to the supreame court last year and was proven to be a induvidules right to own a firearm, but thank you for passing on uninformed information as usual. \*\* **Zabal** , I think you are thinking of the court of appeals, not SCOTUS. I don’t recall of any recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the second. We’re here to fight ignorance, not spread it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/88 "2003-05-30T05:37:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*No, you are correct. SCOTUS has done everything possible to avoid ruling definitively on this issue. > > But federal appeals courts have always struck down total bans on guns in the hands of private individuals. Restrictions are usually allowed, but there must always be a way for law-abiding citizens to be able to obtain guns. > > If the SCOTUS does rule, I think it will be as big a decision as Roe v. Wade, and will probably have the same effects. Most restrictions on gun ownership will be struck down. > > And it will be hilarious, watching liberal and conservative groups each lobbying to have the other group’s individual rights revoked while theirs are upheld. \*\* Why would you assume that SCOTUS would rule in favor an individual interpretation? I don’t support a total ban, and my argument vis-a-vis the 2nd is somewhat academic here. As I said, the assertion that the 2nd allows private citizens to own guns is only one interpretation. It’s not dispositive. It’s not a useful argument to say that the state can’t pass restrictions because it hasn’t been established that they can’t. Until SCOTUS actually makes a definitive ruling on what the 2nd Amendment really means it’s hard to have a meaningful discussion about it. I think that issues like CCW can be debated on other merits, but throwing the 2nd around doesn’t really shed any light because we don’t have a definitive interpretation. Regardless of my somewhat satirical comments in this thread, i’m not tremendously anti-gun. I even go and fire them on my in-laws’ farm once in a while. The main thing I worry about with Minnesota’s new law is that idiots who don’t know how to use these weapons will start toting them around. I’m ok with responsible and knowledgeable gunowners carrying them around (although I don’t feel the need to do so myself). It’s the amateurs that scare me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/89 "2003-05-30T05:41:35Z")
\*\*Why would you assume that SCOTUS would rule in favor an individual interpretation? \*\* Because six out of the nine justices are either conservative or fairly libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/90 "2003-05-30T05:54:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*\*\*Why would you assume that SCOTUS would rule in favor an individual interpretation? > \*\* > > Because six out of the nine justices are either conservative or fairly libertarian. \*\* You would have thought that that composition would have upheld the virtual child porn ban as well. This court is not entirely predictable along party lines. O’Connor, for one, has not been as conservative as she was expected to be when Reagan appointed her. Also, there’s no guarantee that this will be the court to rule on it. GWB will be out of office in Jan. '04 and who knows what the composition will be after Hillary’s been in there for a couple of terms? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/91 "2003-05-30T05:54:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*"…that was _known_ to be armed" is not the same as _might_ be armed. > > It says they “found evidence” that criminals “worried more” in the shoot 'em up states but it didn’t say what that “evidence” was, or that those “worries” prevented criminals from committing crimes. \*\* Show me one instance in which anyone “prove[d] causation” (as your original response put it) as to any human action being definitively “caused” by any particular policy or impetus, and I’ll admit that your quibble vitiates all the force of the cite I was able to find in 2 minutes. However, given that your (original, original) comment was that [quote] I _really_ **[ed.: your emphasis]** don’t think that there’s _any empirical evidence to suggest_ \*\*[ed.: my emphasis]\*\*that would be criminals take conceald carry laws into account before they commit a crime [quote] , I don’t know that my cite was that far off base as “some” (i.e., “any”) “empirical evidence” **“suggesting”** just that. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/92 "2003-05-30T05:58:15Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Huerta88 \* \*\*Show me one instance in which anyone “prove[d] causation” (as your original response put it) as to any human action being definitively “caused” by any particular policy or impetus, and I’ll admit that your quibble vitiates all the force of the cite I was able to find in 2 minutes. However, given that your (original, original) comment was that [quote] I _really_ **[ed.: your emphasis]** don’t think that there’s _any empirical evidence to suggest_ \*\*[ed.: my emphasis]\*\*that would be criminals take conceald carry laws into account before they commit a crime > [@](#): > > , > > I don’t know that my cite was that far off base as “some” (i.e., “any”) “empirical evidence” **“suggesting”** just that. YMMV. \*\* I agree that your cite is suggestive, just not dispositive. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/93 "2003-05-30T05:59:36Z")
And yes, playing off of my own original phrasing, you got me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/94 "2003-05-30T06:01:24Z")
\*\*You would have thought that that composition would have upheld the virtual child porn ban as well. This court is not entirely predictable along party lines. O’Connor, for one, has not been as conservative as she was expected to be when Reagan appointed her. \*\* Actually, I predicted that one, believe it or not. Thomas tends to be libertarian, and he’s a crucial swing vote when conservative and libertarian principles collide. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/95 "2003-05-30T06:03:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*\*\*You would have thought that that composition would have upheld the virtual child porn ban as well. This court is not entirely predictable along party lines. O’Connor, for one, has not been as conservative as she was expected to be when Reagan appointed her. > \*\* > > Actually, I predicted that one, believe it or not. Thomas tends to be libertarian, and he’s a crucial swing vote when conservative and libertarian principles collide. \*\* He also likes the porn, from what I hear 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/96 "2003-05-30T11:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* The main thing I worry about with Minnesota’s new law is that idiots who don’t know how to use these weapons will start toting them around. I’m ok with responsible and knowledgeable gunowners carrying them around (although I don’t feel the need to do so myself). It’s the amateurs that scare me. \*\* You dont have to be anti-gun to be scared of amateurs with guns. I’m scared of them too. ---
**Author:** ![Zabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8baadc/32.png) [@Zabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/97 "2003-05-30T11:41:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*_Let me explain how it works around here at SDMB. When you make a factual assertion, you are the one who is expected to support it. {i]You_ said that SCOTUS has ruled definitively that the 2nd amendment applies to private citizens. I call bullshit. The ball is now in your court. Put up or shut up. \*\* Let me explain how it works in my world, you get off your own lazy ass and do your own research. ---
**Author:** ![Zabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/8baadc/32.png) [@Zabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabal)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/98 "2003-05-30T11:46:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pkbites \* > \*\ ***Zabal** , I think you are thinking of the court of appeals, not SCOTUS. I don’t recall of any recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the second. We’re here to fight ignorance, not spread it. \*\* Maybe that is what I ws thinking of. Sorry if I came off a bit rash on this but it irks me when I people trash talking about carry laws like everyone that has a permit is some gung-ho Dirty Harry wanna-be. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/99 "2003-05-30T11:48:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\* > How many people just sit around every night, fondling their nine millimeters, fantasizing that one day they’ll get to be a hero and shoot somebody. Now they get to tote their little substitute penises around with them every where they go. > > \*\* I personally dont know any gun owner who thinks that way, and I have known a lot of gun owners and ccw holders. Everyone I know who owns, or carries, hopes they will never ever have to use it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166/100 "2003-05-30T18:43:27Z")
Well, I already know that, **Susanann** -I’m talking about people who think background checks and the Brady Law are this massive infringment. To me, it’s just common sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minnesota-becomes-a-shall-issue-state-your-comments/178166.md?page=6)