Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: New Hope City Council meeting cops shot, gunman killed. VIDEO

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    New Hope City Council meeting cops shot, gunman killed. VIDEO

    John Elder, a Minnesota city councilman who also works as a public information officer at the local police department, is being hailed as a hero for having the wherewithal to pull his gun on an armed attacker who had stormed the government meeting and opened fire on two officers. he police officers were wounded; the shooter was shot and killed shortly after by police, ....

    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/289870171.html

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...pulls-gun-on-/

    VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLQczVqljlM
    Last edited by Nightmare; 01-27-2015 at 12:19 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Are citizen's permitted to go armed in the chamber?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I guess in the next meeting they'll have "public comments" in the agenda.

    Who knows why the guy was there. More info needed.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    "A 68-year-old New Hope man was identified by his family Tuesday as the man who shot and slightly wounded two newly sworn-in police officers at City Hall before other officers killed him on the spot.


    Nathan Kmetz said it was his father, Raymond K. Kmetz, who was killed. The son said he would have more to say Tuesday afternoon about what may have led to his father’s actions. Officials have yet to formally identify the gunman."
    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/289934681.html
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member robdoar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Are citizen's permitted to go armed in the chamber?
    Yes, when we wrote the carry law in 2003, we specifically denied government the ability to restrict lawful carry.

    Exclusivity. This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.
    Last edited by robdoar; 01-28-2015 at 10:21 AM.
    Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
    NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Shotshell + Metallic Reloading, RSO)
    Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/289934681.html

    New info? A good read. I will not comment now. Just a FYI

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/289934681.html

    New info? A good read. I will not comment now. Just a FYI
    He must have been a frequent flier on here.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    The new PC prior restraint. Yes, you have the right, but exercise it and we will rescind the right.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Exclamation This problem won't go away on its own

    It's events like this that strengthen the Anti-2A crowd. This guy apparently already owned gun(s), and was officially adjudicated mentally incompetent. Add the history of terroristic threats and restraining orders, and he's clearly someone who should not have gun(s). They will use this as an argument for registration, mental evaluations to qualify for permits, and whatever else they think they can get away with regardless of whether it will actually have any effect. Every mass shooting or nut-job-with-a-gun incident just gives their arguments more weight.

    I'll probably take fire for this, but we in the gun-owning community need to propose reasonable solutions to prevent situations like this, in order to head off unreasonable "solutions" being imposed thanks to Bloomberg/VPC/BCPGV. Wayne LaPierre's "good guy with a gun" won't wash as a comprehensive solution, if for no other reason than it's reactive instead of preventive. I think states need to set up a clear, due-process mechanism for someone to be evaluated when they send out danger signals. If they're adjudicated to be a danger, they should be committed or at least a court order issued for their weapons to be held or otherwise made inaccessible until they are determined to be non-dangerous.

    That addresses after-the-purchase situations. To prevent acquisition, people adjudicated mentally unstable need to be consistently listed in NICS or some other pre-purchase screening system. All the recent mass-shooters were known to be bat-guano crazy yet were able to legally purchase firearms (except for Adam Lanza). If that isn't fixed, the Antis will eventually find ways to make it harder for the rest of us to purchase/transfer firearms.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Please note the quote attributed to William Blackstone. There must not be a "test" to exercise a right. The state must react to criminals, not think there might be a criminal and act on a hunch. Those who are "mentally incompetent" have every right to a gun, just as you or I do. If the use a gun unlawfully they must then be held to account.

    Think of it this way, if you will, I have committed no crime yet my guns can/could be seized by the state based on a unsubstantiated complaint. I am guilty, yet no crime have I committed, I must then prove that the complaint is false. Very anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Please note the quote attributed to William Blackstone. There must not be a "test" to exercise a right. The state must react to criminals, not think there might be a criminal and act on a hunch. Those who are "mentally incompetent" have every right to a gun, just as you or I do. If the use a gun unlawfully they must then be held to account.

    Think of it this way, if you will, I have committed no crime yet my guns can/could be seized by the state based on a unsubstantiated complaint. I am guilty, yet no crime have I committed, I must then prove that the complaint is false. Very anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    The guy was a mentally unstable CRIMINAL who committed a CRIMINAL act. You can't prevent criminals from committing criminal acts with "reasonable solutions" because they are criminals who are committing criminal acts in violation of all of the "reasonable solutions" already in place. That is the very definition of criminal - one who willfully violates "reasonable solutions" known as laws. You want a truly reasonable solution? Enable the law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves against the criminals and actually punish the criminals instead of creating more "reasonable solutions" that are going to do nothing but provide further hindrances to the law abiding victims being able to defend themselves..
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Think of it this way, if you will, I have committed no crime yet my guns can/could be seized by the state based on a unsubstantiated complaint. I am guilty, yet no crime have I committed, I must then prove that the complaint is false. Very anti-liberty and anti-citizen.
    I agree that this is more unwieldy than we'd like. Besides, who's doing anything based on an "unsubstantiated complaint?" I repeatedly used the terms "due process" and "adjudicated." I would envision something like this:

    Psychiatrist: Mr Seung-hui Cho, I have examined you and determined that you are nucking futs and a danger to yourself and others. By law, I must now refer your case to the Hypothetical Firearm Adjudication Panel, composed of mental health professionals and chaired by a judge. They will set a date to review your case. You may present evidence/arguments to contest my findings. If the board determines you are, in fact, dangerous, then you will be flagged in NICS, and a court order may be issued to bar you from possessing weapons. These actions can be appealed at a later date, if your situation changes. Do you understand?

    Seung-hui Cho: Redrum! Redrum!
    Last edited by Eeyore; 02-12-2015 at 12:11 PM.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I agree that this is more unwieldy than we'd like. Besides, who's doing anything based on an "unsubstantiated complaint?" I repeatedly used the terms "due process" and "adjudicated." I would envision something like this:

    Psychiatrist: Mr Seung-hui Cho, I have examined you and determined that you are nucking futs and a danger to yourself and others. By law, I must now refer your case to the Hypothetical Firearm Adjudication Panel, composed of mental health professionals and chaired by a judge. They will set a date to review your case. You may present evidence/arguments to contest my findings. If the board determines you are, in fact, dangerous, then you will be flagged in NICS, and a court order may be issued to bar you from possessing weapons. These actions can be appealed at a later date, if your situation changes. Do you understand?

    Seung-hui Cho: Redrum! Redrum!
    All nice and tidy, but does nothing to protect the victims.......they are on their own.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Eeyore View Post
    I agree that this is more unwieldy than we'd like. Besides, who's doing anything based on an "unsubstantiated complaint?" I repeatedly used the terms "due process" and "adjudicated." I would envision something like this:

    Psychiatrist: Mr Seung-hui Cho, I have examined you and determined that you are nucking futs and a danger to yourself and others. By law, I must now refer your case to the Hypothetical Firearm Adjudication Panel, composed of mental health professionals and chaired by a judge. They will set a date to review your case. You may present evidence/arguments to contest my findings. If the board determines you are, in fact, dangerous, then you will be flagged in NICS, and a court order may be issued to bar you from possessing weapons. These actions can be appealed at a later date, if your situation changes. Do you understand?

    Seung-hui Cho: Redrum! Redrum!
    I understand your position. Yet, voodoo science must not default to a suspension of rights based on a allegation. Another shrink may "diagnose" differently. The burden must be on the state (the shrinks) to prove disability, not the citizen to prove otherwise.

    Your soon to be ex-spouse could file a unsubstantiated complaint. Your soon to be ex-friend could file a claim that you are nucking futs. Misuse is readily available for any who would misuse the system for nefarious purposes.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •