.

Obama in Minneapolis: Gun Control is About Saving Lives

President called on voters to pressure their legislators to pass gun control measures.

Speaking to a crowd of local dignitaries and law enforcement officers on Monday, President Barack Obama called on voters to pressure Congress to act on curbing gun violence.

"We've suffered too much pain to stand by and do nothing," he said. 

"We don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something," he added.

What did the Twin Cities think about Obama's visit on social media?

Adopting universal background checks, banning military-style assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, and putting more police officers on the street are "common sense," bipartisan measures to reduce gun violence, the President said. He also repeated other proposals to expand access to mental health care for young people.

Several gun control measures echoing Obama's proposals are currently before the Minnesota Legislature.

Want to see the whole thing? Catch a replay of Obama's speech.

Obama made clear why he picked Minneapolis as a backdrop to his speech, and why he picked politicians, community leaders, and law enforcement officers from the Twin Cities for a private round table discussion before his speech.

"This city came together" after a particularly violent period that earned the city the nickname "Murderapolis," he said. "You launched a series of youth initiatives that reduced the number of young people injured by guns by 40 percent. You've shown progress is possible."

That drop, he said, meant more "parents whose hearts aren't broken, communities that aren't terrorized."

The success of the city's Youth Violence Prevention initiative has come under fire from Minneapolis City Council member and mayoral candidate Gary Schiff for being overstated.

The President pushed voters to put pressure on their legislators to pass his package of gun control proposals.

"Weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers," Obama said.

"There is no government plot to take away guns," he added later in his speech.

Following the president's speech, Hennepin County Sherrif Richard Stanek issued a press release supporting Obama's proposals and urging more stringent background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

"Gun ownership isn’t a privilege, it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution,” said Stanek. “We have an access problem; people already prohibited by law from owning or buying a gun should never have access to firearms.” 

St. Louis Park gun control advocate Sami Rahamim, son of slain Accent Signage owner Reuven Rahamim, praised the president's speech in an interview with Patch following the event. Since late 2012, Rahamim has lobbied Minnesota's state legislators to pass a package of gun control measures. 

"It still takes a lot of effort, and there are lots of important conversations ahead," he said. "We do have common ground: we all have the right to be safe in our communities."

Susan February 11, 2013 at 10:30 PM
Ok, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, Al. You simply cannot judge a person, or who they are as a person, by what they type on one subject. To do so is an unfair and most likely inaccurate judgement. BTW, I've admitted and acknowledged that I have been naive on certain subjects. It's not an insult, it means that I may not understand all the factors involved because of a lack of actual experience. It doesn't however, make me a naive person. It is dangerous and an insult to our First Amendment rights to judge people simply by what they say or write. People can say some really stupid things, this does not mean that they are stupid people, it might just mean that they weren't thinking before they spoke, or that they were uninfomed about what they spoke about.
Susan February 11, 2013 at 10:34 PM
One other thing, I really don't mind that you call me out, just know that I usually mirror the attitude and insults that I get. I have been working to tone down some of the rhetoric, but I won't sit idly by as someone slams me for something that they themselves do. Call me out or don't, it really makes no difference, but I will call a hypocrite a hypocrite.
Lance Johnson February 11, 2013 at 10:37 PM
None of that between the two of you and other comments commenting on the comment serves any useful purpose and seems pointless. That loses sight of gun control---either you are pregnant or you are not. To allow type of gun control is to compromise; when the burglar comes into your house and steals, there is no compromise as he lacks any right to be there and take anything as it is your right to be free of that intrusion and theft. The same applies to our right to bear arms. Don't be caught up with the comments of others; keep our eye on the ball and do not yield or compromise on our constitutional right to bear arms. Tell Obama to clean up Chicago first.
Susan February 11, 2013 at 11:03 PM
Lance, if you were referring to me, you're making a good point and it is a point taken. I've already stated my position on guns and what I see as our leader's overreach at the federal and state levels. I'm sure it is somehow wrong in some people's eyes, but that's okay. This should be about discussion, perssuasion, and debate regarding the issues, not about telling everyone what they are doing is wrong - I simply hoped that Ken would get a better understanding of how Patch might be a little different from some of the other online debates that he has participated in. My other "debate" is a little differnt as I have been a target for a while and I'm tired of it. Thanks for pointing out the obvious...this is meant to be sincere, not sarcastic.
Jim Flaherty February 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM
I have gone through the 2011 Gun Digest Book of Guns & Prices. And have discovered that in the first 100 pages of the 1200 page book, 435 firearms or the factory configuration of the firearm will be banned in the State of Minnesota. If the numbers were to remain consistent throughout that would mean that 5220 firearm models would be banned as assault weapons. Nearly all Semi Auto shotguns have a pistol grip stock. 99 out of 100 semi auto shotguns will be considered assault weapon if a standard pistol grip is included in the law as it is now written. Here are a few guns that will be considered Assault Weapons in Minnesota. All Benelli semi auto shotguns, all Beretta Semi auto shotguns, all Browning semi auto shotguns, all Remington semi auto shotguns, all Winchester semi auto shotguns. The purposed law does not state what a pistol grip is so all shotguns that have a pistol grip and are semi autos will be assault weapons in Minnesota. The purposed law reads that if you have a magazine that hold over 7 rounds you can keep the magazine if you alter the magazine so that it can one hold 7 rounds. In most cases this is not possible and 7 round magazines are not made for most of the pistols on the assault weapon list so the firearm will not function anymore.
Jim Flaherty February 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM
What these purposed laws come down to is that in the future (August or September 1st of 2013) you will only be allowed one assault weapon and that assault weapon will need to be registered with the police or sheriff. If you have a semi auto 20 gauge shotgun for upland bird hunting and a semi auto 12 gauge for waterfowl along with a pistol that holds more than 7 rounds you will need to turn two of the firearms into the authorities and register the one you want to keep (as you are only allowed 1 in your life time). You will also need to let the authorities into your home when the authorities want to inspect your firearm storage. You must register the firearm every year and pay a fee for the privilege of keeping your firearm. These purposed laws are not well thought out and the writers have a lack of firearm knowledge. How can someone purpose a law when they haven’t the first clue what they’re purposing?
Susan February 12, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Wow! Good information, Jim, thanks.
Rick February 13, 2013 at 05:26 AM
Excellent synopsis of the bill Jim. Thank You! My belief is this. Liberals have found that they can ask for Mars and get the moon. The real intent in the first place was the moon. Hence, real intent here is restrictive gun legislation. If the current H.R. is only partially adopted, they win. This Resolution must be 100% totally defeated.
Marc Olivier February 14, 2013 at 07:24 PM
Last week, a local newspaper ran a story exemplifying the case of a mentally ill murderer who "slipped through the cracks" of existing laws and regulations to purchase a stockpile of firearms and ammunition, and appears to have only been detected due to concerned citizens raising alarm with local law enforcement officials. It turns out the State agency in charge of maintaining a clearinghouse database of convictions was never notified by the arresting agency or the courts. Enacting and imposing the Feinstein bill, and HF0241, HF242 and HF0243 doesn't address this kind of negligence. The gun control bills above do nothing to address the flaws in the criminal justice system, which far too often leaves violent offenders (who may or may not use firearms) moving freely in society, often inflicting more, sometimes fatal violence on unassuming victims. The gun control bills violate "bill of attainder" provisions in the State and national Constitutions, making an entirely new class of criminal, those acting to protect themselves as they see fit. (For more, see my blog entry at: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7884181299287799998#editor/target=post;postID=6418443399932282057
Nick February 14, 2013 at 07:47 PM
Jim, it doesn't matter to them whether they have firearms knowledge or not. Last week during the hearings at the capitol, when pro-freedom people flooded the building, a few weapons were brought in and a presentation was done for the purpose of educating the legislators. Many of the DFL legislators walked out shortly after the presentation began, with no interest in gaining any knowledge. For the DFL, this is all that matters to them: Guns are bad, so people who have guns are bad, so any knowledge of guns is useless to anyone who is good. It goes no further than that. It's classic base-level thinking. The DFL legislators should study the founding of this country. Confiscation of guns and taxes sparked a revolt that overthrew the greatest military power in the world. They should also study the meaning of the phrase, "shall not be infringed". If that law you describe, Jim, is not infringement, then nothing is.
Nick February 14, 2013 at 07:49 PM
This is America. Since when do we solve problems by taking away rights?
Susan February 15, 2013 at 12:43 AM
I've been doing a little more reading on the subject and today came across The Militia Act of 1792. Being as this was written only five months after the second amendment, I think it gives a pretty clear idea as to what was defined as a militia and how its duties were ordered. I'm interested in the ideas and opinions of those with more knowledge on the subject that I have, as to how you see it applying to the second amendment, for or against the often cited idea that it was written for the purpose of keeping the public armed to rise against a tyrannical government if deemed necessary. Keeping in mind that we know that "well regulated" meant "well trained" in 1791. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Marc Olivier February 15, 2013 at 02:35 AM
I would like to venture an opinion on this. The Act you cite is just that: An Act. Given the date of the Act, it should be noted that it was undertaken and signed into effect *AFTER* the Revolutionary War, those that signed the Act (whose names are curiously missing on the reproduction website you cited) presumably had intimate knowledge of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and, if attitudes and beliefs were of sufficient number and intensity, an effort would have been successfully made to call a Constitutional Convention to modify the 2nd Amendment. It would appear that this did not happen. Acts are effected, modified, superseded, dropped and outlawed frequently. The Act you cite goes so far as to specify the type of arms to be used; no one seriously expects anyone else to march into battle with these same arms today. This particular Act had a built-in expiration: "Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer." The overall impression I have of this Act is as a consolidation of power under the Executive Office. The problem with citing an Act which would appear to clarify a Constitutional Amendment lies in exactly this impression. It says nothing of the Chief Executive's duty to keep and abide the Oath of Office; to uphold the Constitution.
Marc Olivier February 15, 2013 at 02:57 AM
As an addendum to my earlier response to your post, I would also like to raise the issue of what the Constitution, in its entirety, was originally designed to do, and does. It codifies individual human rights, as the framers of that day understood them. Self-defense was recognized as a part of the inalienable rights bestowed by the Creator. It sets parameters for how government was to operate, making sure to yield to the right of the individual in the individual's home, personal effects, political speech (and by extension, associations), and more. The 9th and 10th Amendments are, in my opinion, attempts to make this clear to those seeking to expand government's power and reach into daily affairs. The bills being heard in the Minnesota House and Senate, with one exception, far exceed the power granted them by the Minnesota State Constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution, and not only seek to withhold a viable means of self-protection from the law-abiding, but further seek to criminalize them, subject them to unreasonable searches without due process, subject them to confiscation without remuneration, impose fines and sanctions for enjoying the human right to self-defense. I'm not sure, but that makes for what's called a "bill of attainder" which clearly violates the law of the land, and a violation of the Oath of Office for those who seek to implement it.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:20 AM
I purpose that the state of Minnesota create its own database for background checks. The Minnesota BCA would be the department in charge of the database and would report information to the FBI. Information would be gathered through several levels. Each local Police department will create a database with the name, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply)of every person arrested for a crime that would prohibit that person from presently owning or future firearm ownership. Each local police department will forward this information to the County Sherriff’s department on a daily bases. Each County Sherriff’s department will create a database with the name, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply)of every person arrested for a crime that would prohibit that person from presently owning or future firearm ownership. Each County Sherriff’s department will combine municipality and county arrests on a daily bases. The Sherriff’s department will forward all arrest information to the County attorney’s office on a daily bases for all persons arrested for a crime that would prohibit that person from presently owning or future firearm ownership if found guilty.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:21 AM
Each County attorney’s office will review all arrest records for the day and forward all information to the BCA for each charged crime where if found guilty the person would be prohibited from presently owning or future firearm ownership. Each County attorney’s office will cross reference all arrest that are firearm related. If the person arrested is prohibited from owning firearms the County Attorney’s Office will immediate issue a search warrant for probable cause in the belief that the person has additional firearms. The person’s place of residence and vehicles will be searched. If any additional firearms are located additional charges will be filed. The DNR will forward all persons issued a firearms hunting license, to the BCA by name, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) for cross reference against any persons not allowed to have firearms.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:21 AM
The BCA will cross reference all arrest records and DNR license records on a daily bases to establish if any person arrested or purchasing a firearms hunting license is prohibited from owning a firearm. If the person was arrested for a gun related crime or purchasing a firearms hunting license and is prohibited from owning firearms the BCA will contact the County Attorney’s Office in the county where the person has a residence. The County Attorney’s Office will immediate issue a search warrant for probable cause in the belief that the person has a firearm. The person’s place of residence and vehicles will be searched. If any firearms are located additional charges will be filed. Each County Attorney’s office will forward the name, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) for all convictions of crimes that would prohibit present and future ownership of firearms to the BCA on a daily bases.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:21 AM
The BCA will remove all persons found not guilty of crimes submitted from the County Attorney’s arrest list and the BCA list of persons prohibited to own firearms database only If the person would have been on the prohibited list if found guilty as charged. If the person was already on the list of prohibited from owning firearms the person will remain on the list. Any person involuntary committed to a drug treatment facility will have their, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) forwarded to the BCA and will remain on the prohibited to purchase and own firearms list until cleared by a licensed doctor as safe to own a firearm. Any person voluntarily committed to a drug treatment facility will have their, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) forwarded to the BCA and will remain on the prohibited to purchase and own firearms list until cleared by a licensed doctor as safe to own a firearm.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:22 AM
Any person involuntary committed to a alcohol treatment facility will have their, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) forwarded to the BCA and will remain on the prohibited to purchase and own firearms list until cleared by a licensed doctor as safe to own a firearm. Any person voluntarily committed to an alcohol treatment facility will have their, social security number, MN state identification number, DNR identification number and driver’s license number (all that apply) forwarded to the BCA and will remain on the prohibited to purchase and own firearms list until cleared by a licensed doctor as safe to own a firearm. The BCA will report all names and pertinent information to the FBI on a daily bases.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 04:23 AM
Kind of long winded here but punish criminals not me.
lbfixer February 15, 2013 at 07:10 AM
Sounds like if you get arrested for any percieved violation of any law you can;t own a gun. Mmmm didn't hitler enact that and then a lot of new laws.
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM
On the 4473 form question B b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor. It is already the law. This would be a way to cross reference between agencies nothing more. I thought Hitler took guns away from people that opposed him.
Nick February 15, 2013 at 09:39 PM
Hitler did take away guns from people that opposed him. Obama is trying to do the same thing now. The only problem is that those pesky representatives of the people, know as Congress, are getting in his way again. That is why, during his State of the Union Address he said that if Congress won't act, he would through executive action. Mr. Obama believes that he knows what's best for all of us, so if we're refusing to go along with him, it's because we're either stupid or bad, so it's just better for everyone if we give him the reigns and let him dictate from the White House through executive action. His speech was a disgusting assault on freedom. He is undoing the American Revolution.
rob_h78 February 15, 2013 at 11:26 PM
Obama is trying to take away ALL of the guns? Every single gun? Where can I find details on this proposal?
Jim Flaherty February 15, 2013 at 11:35 PM
Go to the 18 post and click . Jim
Susan February 15, 2013 at 11:54 PM
Nick, you are making some unjustified claims. As I mentioned above, I think the president and our state leaders have overreached on this entire issue, but all of our presidents have used executive orders and President Obama is not even close to being on the list of the top ten of those presidents who used it most. Of-course Congress is there to balance the executive branch, but they weren't "balancing it" they were blocking it. They have done it over and over, ad nauseum, and in ways that have not been done before. Why do you think that their approval rating is so darn low?...even with Republicans! Sometimes (most often) when one faces constant obstruction, one will find a way around the obstruction. It has happened since George Washington, and just because you don't like this particular agenda does not mean that we will soon be under the rule of a king and/or that the man thinks you are bad or stupid. Believe me, I think it would be wrong to ban these guns, but just to be clear, the second amendment does not say "whatever arms you want", it says "keep and bear arm, shall not be infringed". If you have any argument at all, it's with the background check, and most of the country will fight you on that one...according to polls anyway. For your review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Susan February 16, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Jim, I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean the 18th post from the top? That's a Facebook link that doesn't work.
Susan February 16, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, Marc. Just to be clear, I read about this when reading some other articles in reference to gun laws and the second amendment. I Googled it and this was the first link that came up. After searching for about one more second, I found the Wiki article which does give a little more background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Jim Flaherty February 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Lets try this, H.F. No. 237, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 238, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 239, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 240, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 241, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 242, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 243, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013 H.F. No. 244, as introduced - 88th Legislative Session (2013-2014) Posted on Jan 31, 2013
Gerald Mortenson February 18, 2013 at 12:41 AM
The Minnesota Model for background checks works: there is no need to change it. The "assualt weapon" terminology is third riech propoganda: sadly it worked in the 1930's and is thrown before us again. A lie is a lie is a lie. Pompous political asses can prop it, spice it, speak it loudly, speak it often but it is neo-fascist mind contol. I would remind readers and officials our constitution is more than a piece of paper. It must stand.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »