The Unseen Battle for Peaceable Gun Owners

Responsible advocacy includes preventing collateral damage.

In my role as the Senior Vice President of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, I've been thrust into the heart of the contentious debate over proposed firearms legislation for over a decade. My life experiences at the intersection of public safety, legal advocacy, and gun rights in Minnesota have offered me a unique perspective on the complex interplay between the theoretical constitutionality of laws and their practical implications on the lives of individuals. This perspective is shaped by my deep involvement in challenging laws that, while ostensibly designed to enhance public safety, often carry the potential for unintended consequences that can ensnare peaceable citizens in legal troubles.

Recently, my comments before the House Public Safety Committee have come under attack from purported advocates for the right to keep and bear arms. (video below)

Some believe, shortsightedly, that the only acceptable form of debate before the Minnesota legislature is to pound the table and scream "Constitution!".

This view is dangerously naive, and relies on the premise that the architects of gun control laws prioritize their alignment with constitutional principles. After thirteen legislative sessions on the front lines, I can state unequivocally:

Constitutional considerations are disregarded, if not outright ignored, by anti-gun legislators.

On safe storage, the essence of my argument, both in the legislature and in public discourse, is not a simple rejection of the proposed legislation on constitutional grounds—though I firmly believe, based on Supreme Court precedents, that it lacks a historical analogue and is therefore unconstitutional under Bruen.

Rather, my testimony has focused on highlighting the numerous pitfalls and scenarios in which individuals, with no intent or desire to harm others, could find themselves facing criminal charges.

However, my efforts to bring these concerns to the committee have been met with resistance, not just from proponents of the law but, surprisingly, from within the ranks of staunch gun rights advocates. The latter group sees anything less than a total objection to the law as a form of compromise. This resistance underscores a broader challenge within advocacy: the need to present balanced principled stances with pragmatic strategies that account for the political realities and address the immediate impacts of laws on the lives of peaceable gun owners.

Minnesota's current political climate, with both legislative chambers and the governor's office controlled by politicians who are openly adverse to the right to keep and bear arms, compounds the challenge. Despite this, I have chosen to strategically engage with the legislative process to advocate for changes that could mitigate the law's potential harm. This approach is driven by a moral and ethical obligation to protect individuals from the foreseeable consequences of government authoritarianism.

The slow pace of judicial review, exemplified by the Caucus' ongoing legal challenge to Minnesota's law restricting the rights of 18 to 20-year-olds to carry, further inspires my dual-track strategy. Initiated in 2020, this challenge, still pending in the legal system, illustrates the protracted nature of constitutional battles and the interim harm that can oppress individuals under the weight of contested laws.

In court, I have the privilege and responsibility of representing indigent clients. I have witnessed the profound challenges faced by those without the means to defend themselves against the government's accusations. The government, with its vast resources, can pursue enforcement of laws to their fullest extent, even when those laws are mired in constitutional controversy. This creates a disproportionate burden on individuals who are least equipped to challenge or navigate the complexities of our legal framework.

My experiences in the courtroom, advocating on behalf of those who are most vulnerable, have deeply informed my stance on legislative advocacy. It's become clear that the fight against ill-conceived legislation is not just a matter of principle but a necessary defense of the fundamental rights of individuals who could otherwise be unjustly penalized.

This insight drives my commitment to ensure that laws are not only constitutionally valid but also fair and just in their practical application.

My advocacy is thus two-fold: While I continue to challenge the constitutionality of restrictive gun laws in court, I also work within the legislative process to shape these laws in ways that minimize their impact on peaceable citizens. This pragmatic approach does not dilute my commitment to the Second Amendment, but reflects a nuanced understanding of the immediate need to safeguard individual liberties against impractical and poorly drafted legislation.

In reflecting on my actions and the resistance they've encountered, I am reminded of the broader responsibility that comes with advocacy.

It's not just about championing rights in the abstract but also about engaging in the messy, complex process of governance to ensure that the laws we live under do not unjustly penalize those we aim to protect. Through my work, I strive to embody a form of advocacy that is both principled and attuned to the realities of the individuals whose lives are directly affected by the laws we debate.

This, I believe, is the essence of responsible advocacy: fighting not only for our rights but also to prevent the collateral damage that can occur when laws are crafted without regard to their broader implications.