By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (DFL) has declared he will sign legislation mandating so-called “safe storage” which was passed 68-64 by the Minnesota state House of Representatives, and subsequently moved to the state Senate, according to KNSI News.
HF 4300 prohibits people from storing, keeping or leaving a firearm “in any place unless the firearm is: (1) unloaded and equipped with a locking device; or, (2) loaded or unloaded in a locked firearm storage unit or a locked gun room. A firearm is not considered stored, kept, or left under this subdivision during the period that it is under the direct physical control or reach of the person.”
According to KMSP/Fox9 News, Minnesota’s DFL majority is hoping tougher penalties “will help get them out of the hands of kids, and those who otherwise shouldn’t have them.” The bill passed after more than 11 hours of debate.
While KNSI noted most Minnesota gun owners already “safely secure their firearms,” the gun control lobby and bill supporters assert “too many gun owners do not.” It has never been clear how they know this, regardless which state is being discussed.
The station also cited as 2022 study which says 569 people in Minnesota died that year from gunshot wounds, and that 407 were suicides. KNSI then referred to a 2021 study showing many suicides are spur-of-the-moment decisions and suggested “even the slightest impediment to accessing a firearm – such as a trigger lock or gun safe – could provide a person struggling with suicidal ideation enough time to reconsider their decision.”
However, that study also stated, “Nevertheless, taking all findings into account, a high percentage of suicide attempts seems to become realized within a short time span. However, this does not seem to mean that the respective persons have not dealt with a suicide in detail before. On this background, rapidly realized suicide attempts should not be described and understood as impulsive suicide attempts.”
Also, recalling the 2008 Supreme Court Heller ruling in which the majority opinion noted that the District of Columbia’s “requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times…makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense” makes such requirements unconstitutional, it is not clear where Minnesota’s bill might fall within, or outside, of that definition.
