With its chairman bearing a Glock handgun on his hip and crowds peering through the windows of its “overflow” observation room, a Minnesota House committee on Wednesday debated and heard testimony on a pair of gun rights bills that have garnered dozens of sponsors.

Rep. Raymond Dehn, DFL-Minneapolis, asked, “What problem is this bill trying to solve?”

“It’s a constitutional right. A law-abiding citizen … should have that right,” replied the chief sponsor of both bills, Rep. Jim Nash, R-Red Wing.

While legislators heard public testimony from both sides of the issue, the large majority spoke against the bills — including residents, gun owners and a series of law enforcement officials.

The first bill, known as the “constitutional carry” bill, eliminates the need for a gun permit on public property entirely in most cases, except for people who cannot legally carry guns, such as felons. For them, it increases criminal penalties for gun possession to a felony.

Despite talk of “carnage” on the national stage, gun rights proponents touted the fact that homicide rates are at a near all-time low, including in states where similar legislation had been passed.

Protect Minnesota, citing information from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, noted that of the 364,000 people who had applied for gun permits from 2006 to 2016, just over 4,300 people had been denied.

“I don’t think we can argue this is onerous,” said Rev. Nancy Bence, the organization’s head.

Still, Bence argued that that’s still 4,300 people that shouldn’t have a gun, as they handed a list to each representative of those denied in their communities.

Rep. Eric Lucero, one of the bill’s sponsors, noted that his list had 915 names — an impossibility since the district is question only had 800 people.

“I think this is just made up,” Lucero said.

Protect Minnesota later clarified that the list of 915 names they gave Lucero was for all of Hennepin County, not just Lucero’s small section, over a 10-year period.

Maplewood Police Chief Paul Schnell, representing the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, said chiefs oppose the bill because it would eliminate basic safety training requirements mandated by the permit process, “allowing even people who have never carried a gun to carry.”

“To take away the background checks and training … is the height of irresponsibility,” added Bill Kraus, who said he’s been a gun owner for 40 years.

The overflow room is overflowing for hearing on gun rights bills in mn house today pic.twitter.com/b78z5F0jVm — Tad Vezner (@SPnoir) March 8, 2017

Ranking DFL committee member Debra Hilstrom of Brooklyn Center wondered how a police officer would be able to tell if a person they pulled over could legally carry a gun. Under current law, they could expect to see a permit.

“So is that your intention, that anytime law enforcement sees a firearm in a vehicle, that they would have to do a full and complete immediate background check of anyone, prior to letting them leave the scene?” she asked.

Related Articles Gov. Walz, Minnesota’s pointman on COVID-19, looks back with some regret

Senate Republicans oust second Walz cabinet member as governor extends pandemic emergency

The pandemic changes how candidates run for the Legislature

MN Gov. Tim Walz calls Friday special session; plans to extend powers

In new report, Minnesota state auditor highlights harms of asset forfeiture “I don’t know enough about the information, about the computers on the patrol cars, about whether it’s available … I simply can’t answer that,” said Joseph Olson, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law who helped draft the bill.

“We’ve been down this road before and the sky hasn’t fallen,” said Rob Doar, political director for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

STAND YOUR GROUND

The second bill, known as the “defense of dwelling and person act” — commonly referred to as the “stand your ground” bill — expands the types of incidents in which it is legal to take another person’s life.

Under current law, a Minnesotan can intentionally take another person’s life only if they reasonably believe it will prevent “great bodily harm” (the highest standard of harm), death or a felony in their own home.”

The new law would allow lethal force to stop a variety of felonies, whether a person is in their home or not. Those crimes include a variety of assaults, arson, burglary, robbery and kidnapping. It also lowers the feared “harm” threshold to substantial, rather than great.

And as for the defense of a person’s own home, “An individual taking defensive action … may use all force and means, including deadly force, that the individual in good faith believes is required to succeed in defense …

“The individual is not required to retreat,” the law states.

Someone entering a home “by stealth” can be met with deadly force, the law says, unless the resident knows the person being stealthy has a legal right to be there. The bill also defines “dwelling” to include things that are “temporary,” including tents, motor vehicles and watercraft.

Dakota County attorney James Backstrom objected to the bill, saying, “Do we really want the law to presume that a homeowner has the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who sneaks into a garage to steal a bicycle, as would be the case under this proposal?”

Chief Schnell noted that nationally, there has been a call for police to increase training in de-escalation techniques — a trend he said the bill would contradict in the case of private citizens.

Others worried race would become a factor in what people perceived as a threat.

“I’m a 43-year-old educator, and when I put this hood up, I’m feared,” said Shauntyll Allen, representing Black Lives Matter St. Paul.

THE TALKED-ABOUT SIDESHOW

One speaker, identifying himself as Ross Koon of West St. Paul, caused perhaps the greatest disturbance of the hearing when he went on a tirade in ostensible support of the “stand your ground” bill.

After talking about the need of frontiersmen to bear arms against “marauding savages” or defend against “a lawless uprising of our valuable workforce,” he added, “It was not lightly that we took to weapons and rope to ensure the purity of our nation.”

The tirade caused those in the audience to wonder aloud whether Koon was a plant or trying to be ironic, with others saying it was hard to tell these days.

Chairman Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, and Rep. John Considine, DFL-Mankato, took the man seriously.

“Mr. Chair … this testimony is offensive,” Considine cut in over the speaker.

“Maybe to you but not to a lot of people in the room. We never shut down any of the opposition, we’re certainly not going to shut down … ” Cornish said.

“Marauding savages and talking about lynching black people?” Considine asked.

The speaker then took his tirade up a notch, saying “As we face hordes of illegals and so-called refugees, it is of the utmost importance that we be granted broad liberties to kill with impunity. … It’s time to kill the scary people. It’s time to make Minnesota lynch again.”

“All right … yeah that was rather offensive, but last time we had these hearings if we shut anybody down on either side we’d get booed and hissed, so I thought I’d just let him rave on,” Cornish said.

The man quickly left the hearing room after his speech.

Almost as quickly, Nash told the committee that he had not invited him.