Joe Thompson: "Minnesota deserves peace"

Joe Thompson, the Acting U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, nailed it when he said "They deserved better. We all deserve better. I am weary of this endless violence. Minnesota deserves peace. We will keep fighting to restore it." Lots of Minnesotans are weary of this endless violence. Most importantly, I'm tired of the DFL putting together activist campaigns based on BS. I can't dispute that the Annunciation shooting involved a gun. That isn't the heart of the problem, though. The problem was that a) the Red Flag Laws that the DFL passed in 2023 didn't work, b) the shooter said in his manifesto that he had mental health issues that were illegal to treat and c) the shooter's mental health issue was that he struggled with being trans. The shooter admitted it in his manifesto.

The biggest problem that the DFL has is that the DFL's 'solution' is that it's unconstitutional.Banning 'assault weapons' has been illegal ever since the Heller v. DC ruling. Republicans won't vote for anti-constitutional bills.

I wrote this article so I could quote from Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller v. DC. This is the heart of what Justice Scalia wrote:

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Minnesota could pass a bill that banned assault weapons but it wouldn't last long enough for the ink to dry. Anyone with an AR-15 or AK-47 in Minnesota would have standing if the legislature banned assault rifles. The first appeal would be based on DC v. Heller's majority opinion. Justice Scalia read his opinion from the Bench. It's worth taking the time to listen to this audiotape:

Reading Justice Scalia's majority opinion is worthwhile reading, too, especially this part:

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one’s person or house"—what he called the law of "self preservation."

This isn't rocket science. There's more than ample proof that the Second Amendment was seen as a natural right to protect yourself, your home and your family. Banning a weapon that'a often used to protect property or one's family is clearly unconstitutional.

I get these mothers' grief. That's to be expected. That doesn't mean they get to ignore landmark legal opinions, though. It just means to give them a little extra grace while they grieve.