Who's from Minnesota?

I got an email in response to this from the Northlands NewsCenter News Manager:

Hi David,

I am interested in your view point on this legislation. Can you let me know from a proponents stand-point, the value of the legislation. Will you also let me know if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts on a follow-up report on this pending legislation?

Well, why the heck not? My response:

Sure, Barbara,

The assertion by the representative of Project Minnesota is offensive on its face, assuming citizens are bloodthirsty and looking for excuses to commit murder. Her terminology "shoot first" is a press release invention of the Brady Campaign, and it is meant to scare, rather than inform. It's wrong, mean and arrogant to believe that the law abiding are champing at the bit to have the law changed so they can commit mayhem.

In fact, similar "Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground" laws have been enacted in many states to date, such as Florida in 2005, and now expanding, while others have had versions recognized either by prior statute or case law. When such reforms are proposed, as with states that have enacted laws providing for concealed carry, we have been confronted with dire predictions of "Dodge City" and blood in the streets over fender-benders.

These never seem to come to pass the way predicted, though, because good people don't turn suddenly bad in the presence of tools. And the side that never seems to be discussed is the observable and demonstrable fact that guns in private hands save lives. Most of the time without a shot ever being fired.

Reporter Wallace could have looked at the legislation in question and seen for herself the circumstances when deadly force is authorized. Look at Subd. 2, and you tell me if you think Deputy Chief Breyer's couch-sleeping drunk scenario seems like a qualified exemption.

This bill will not exempt anyone from criminal charges or civil liability unless the specific standards are met. By further eliminating a duty to retreat, we won't be second-guessing (and further victimizing) the person whose life is being threatened to make the best decision their judgment tells them is appropriate under the circumstances--especially considering the decision must be made in a split instant and under extreme stress. Fleeing or fighting is built into the species, but there is no one-size-fits-all correct decision for everyone under every situation. There are times when a physically superior assailant can outrun you, or you don't dare turn your back, or the safety of others may be involved.

I hope this helps clarify things. As for a follow-up report, sure, I've done interviews, but I'm not from Minnesota--I present things to a national audience, both in my monthly GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column, and via my blog, The War on Guns. If you need a local for TV face time, let me know if you'd like me to help find a knowledgeable contact in your area.

If you need to speak further, you can either reply here or give me a call (XXX)XXX-XXXX.

I appreciate your willingness to investigate further, and hope you make sure your viewers know another viewpoint exists.

David Codrea

Her reply:

Thanks for the information David. I had hoped you were from the area but I'm sure we can find like-minded citizens in our area. I hope we can follow this story later this week when the "Protect Minnesota" group lobbies at the state capital in St. Paul. If you know anyone from this area who can represent your viewpoint, or who plans to be in St. Paul on the other side of the issue, I would appreciate the information. Thanks for watching our web site, which is, I assume, where you got Ms Wallace's story.

So much for testing my face-made-for-radio theory. But here's the thing--they're gonna be back, and they're interested in hearing about this from someone who is knowledgeable.

Do we know anybody with credibility in that neck of the woods? Or should I just forward this to NRA and put their state lobbyist in touch with her?