Local gun experts weigh in on Obama’s proposals

Published 11:17am Thursday, January 17, 2013
Email This Post Email This Post Comments

President’s proposal spurs mixed feelings

A local gun shop owner and area police chiefs share mixed opinions about President Barack Obama’s $500 million sweeping gun proposals.

The proposals call for bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, requiring people to pass universal background checks before purchasing any gun and improving school safety, including putting 1,000 officers in schools.

Obama also enacted 23 measures that did not require approval of lawmakers, such as ordering federal agencies to make more data available for background checks, appointing a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and directing the Centers for Disease Control to research gun violence.

The proposals came one month after a gunman opened fire at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, killing 20 students and 6 adults.

Austin police Chief Brian Krueger believes some of the proposed changes aren’t going to solve the problem.

“I’m a firm believer that when someone really wants to get a gun, either from a family member, a neighbor or a friend, the opportunity to get guns is still going to be there,” he said. “It isn’t going to completely fix the problem.”

Still, he agrees with some of the proposals, such as requiring universal background checks when a person purchases any firearm. He noted how some people get around the background checks by purchasing firearms at gun shows.

 

He isn’t opposed to putting limits on high-capacity magazines, either.

“I’m not sure what people really need that for,” he said.

On the other hand, some people are staunchly opposed to any changes in current gun laws, especially one gun dealer from Albert Lea.

“I think this is a knee-jerk reaction,” said Hart Bros. Weaponry owner Milan Hart. “I think he’s absolutely on the wrong track.”

Hart, who is the highest volume independent gun dealer in the state, said there is evidence people still want to purchase military-style firearms as he has seen by his gun sales in the last few weeks.

He said sales of military-style firearms have “exploded,” noting that typically he has between 200 and 300 military firearms in stock but now has only two to three because people have been buying them quickly in fear they may be banned.

Hart said while he agrees with having better background checks, he thinks the focus needs to be on mental health.

Krueger won’t argue with that point, nor will Albert Lea Police Chief Dwaine Winkels.

“I think we’re still missing the boat on the problem, and it needs to go more toward mental illness and instability,” Winkels said. “We did away with a lot of the support systems that are out there for people.”

He referenced a threat Tuesday evening in which a man claimed there was a bomb under his car in Albert Lea. The man was taken for a mental evaluation at the Albert Lea hospital.

The police chief said he thinks it is “ridiculous” that automatic background checks aren’t required at gun shows now, and said a check would not prohibit a law-abiding person from obtaining a firearm. He noted, however, that many criminals are getting guns through other means and are thus bypassing the background check.

He also sees no problem with limiting high-capacity magazines, noting that unless people are sports shooting, they wouldn’t have a need for them.

Regarding a proposal to put 1,000 more police officers in schools, Winkels would like to see data about whether an officer in a school would prevent attacks. He added, an officer on the property can deter illegal activity, but it would not stop people who plan shootings because the shooters would likely shoot the officer first.

He also questioned how the 1,000 schools would be selected and how funding would.

—Matt Peterson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Email This Post Email This Post Comments

Sign in to Comment | Need help commenting? Click here

  • Matt Moritz

    Does Brian Krueger feel that his officers should also quit carrying “high capacity” magazines?

    Report comment

    • LEXXfan

      So, Mr. Moritz, you feel that private gun owners have just as much right to “high capacity” magazines as law enforcement and the military? You’re kidding, right?! Law enforcement and/or military personnel have an obvious need to use high capacity magazines to protect themselves and others in potentially very dangerous situations on a daily basis, so your argument is absurd. Having one, or even ten or more, “low capacity” 10-round magazines to protect your home or family isn’t enough for you? Let me guess, you’ve already got several thousand rounds laying around at home, and you feel that it’s not right that you should be inconvenienced in even the slightest way from unloading all that ammunition as quickly and easily as possible into whatever target you choose. Does that about sum it up? Sorry, but common sense needs to enter in to this argument at some point, and your comment doesn’t qualify as common sense. If you feel that it does, please explain why.

      Report comment

      • JC

        If it is legal for Mr. Moritz to own a firearm… assuming he’s not a felon, no prior assault charges or record of mental illness, it should be legal for him to own as large a magazine as he likes. I have no interest in acquiring an assault rifle…what is the definition of an “assault rifle” anyway?… nor large capacity clips. But common sense should tell everyone that laws effect only law abiding people. The new laws in New York are going to apply a tougher penalty for bringing firearms on school property. A tougher deterrent than the existing penalty for homicide!!…what would that be? Common sense or knee-jerk, politically popular waste of time and effort?

        Report comment

      • LEXXfan

        OK…so your opinion is that if Mr. Moritz is legally able to own a firearm then that right should be UNLIMITED, correct? Using your logic, why shouldn’t we all be able to own FULLY AUTOMATIC versions of any weapon we so choose?? I mean, a right is a right…right? Why stop there? If a person has the means, why shouldn’t they be able to go out and purchase a .50 caliber machine gun that could destroy your whole neighborhood? The problem with this logic is that the Second Amendment does not specify what types of “arms” it is talking about, nor does this logic use common sense. NO ONE is talking about taking away a person’s Second Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I own firearms myself. What is being discussed, and it is a LEGITIMATE discussion to have, is only the TYPES and FIREPOWER of these weapons. Just as the First Amendment does NOT protect you from the consequences if you decide to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, the Second Amendment does NOT automatically grant you unlimited authority to own whatever firearms that technology or your own mind can dream up. All it says is that your right to keep and bear “arms” shall not be infringed. By the way, the Newtown shooter’s mother obtained her weapons legally, which he then stole after he killed her with them. However, had she not been legally able to get the AR-15 style assault weapon, it is highly doubtful that the shooter would have had access to one unless he went out and was somehow able to buy one himself on the black market. Therefore, LEGAL ACCESS to this firearm by a family member enabled the murder of those innocent children to happen. End of story.

        Report comment

      • JC

        A person can legally purchase fully automatic weapons with a “Class III” permit and a ton o’ money. I don’t think explosive ordinance is allowed to be owned by private citizens. It is a stretch for you to assume that, because I don’t have a problem with sane, law-abiding citizens owning high capacity magazines, I think bazookas and Claymore mines are alright. Yes, the Newtown shooter got his hands on legally purchased assault rifle. He killed his mother with a .22 and could have easily taken as many lives with the shotgun found in his vehicle. The Germans petitioned the Geneva Convention during WWI to outlaw the trench shotguns used by the Allies because of their horrendous killing power. Guess we’ll just have to get rid of all guns.
        Personally, I would be happy if there wasn’t a single firearm on the planet. But that’s not reality. And to think the government with 10,000 laws can prevent anomalies like Columbine or Sandy Hook isn’t reality. There are so many layers of cause, blame, bad luck as to why these things happen. … empty the asylums, release repeat offenders, numb our senses with movie/video gore. Maybe we need to face the reality that allowing our government more control over our lives can’t protect us cradle to grave. Time to take responsibility for our own safety and become proficient with a Taser, ninja stars, or a concealable firearm.

        Report comment

      • Guest

        Lex, your mother needs to take away your computer. You are a left wing idiot

        Report comment

      • Matt Moritz

        Minnesota statute 97A.015, Subdivision 19
        defines “Firearm” as: “Firearm” means a gun that discharges shot or a
        projectile by means of an explosive, a gas, or compressed air.

        Theoretically, if a High Capacity Magazine ban was passed, under this
        definition, a BB gun that holds more than 10 BBs would be considered
        “High Capacity…” thus rendering the manufacture, sale, or transfer of
        these heinous weapons illegal.

        A wise person would think twice about uncasing that Red Ryder on the gun range.

        Report comment

      • JC

        LEXXfan wrote,”Therefore, LEGAL ACCESS to this firearm by a family member enabled the murder of those innocent children to happen.” Makes it clear LXf , along with a lot of other folks, doesn’t want anyone to own an assault rifle no matter who they are. So what does that solution look like? Law enforcement or National Guard doing door to door search and seizure? And what are they searching for…what defines an “assault rifle”? If I paint an AR-15 Robin’s egg blue and slam a 7 round clip in it, will I be allowed to keep it?
        What bothers me very much about all this anti-gun talk is that it is just “anti-gun” talk and has no effect when it comes to saving lives. There are many of us who have no interest in mean looking black rifles with 30 round clips. But there are many law abiding people that do enjoy and safely own these arms for sport and security.
        Come on people… if we really want to save innocent lives, require every mobile communication device be sold with an app disabling texting ability when the device exceeds 10mph. All cellphones are gps monitored, it’s clear ‘they’ can add apps we can’t uninstall, and I think this “disabled while driving” app already exists. Let Biden throw $500mil at this problem and get’r done by Spring.

        Report comment

      • LEXXfan

        Wow. And Obama is ready to call in the U.N. forces any day now to take our guns away too, right?

        Report comment

      • LEXXfan

        Wrong again Guest, as you are in almost all cases. Was a Republican my whole life until good ol’ G.W. Bush’s second term. It was then that I realized that the party had lost it. With the likes of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Norquist running the show, how could a sane person reach any other conclusion? The party has done nothing since then to convince me that I was wrong to abandon them. Keep drinkin’ that Rush and Hannity witch’s brew, and it’ll rot your brain away. I’m guessing you probably don’t need to worry about that at this point though.

        Report comment

      • Guest

        Lex you wouldn’t know common sense if your superhero slapped you in the face with it. Get a grip on reality. Yes I do believe private gun owners have the “right” to high capacity magazines. Until you change the second amendment.

        Report comment

      • LEXXfan

        Sorry chief, but tell me where in the Second Amendment the “right” to high capacity magazines is mentioned? I must have overlooked that part of it. Must be those voices in your head telling filling you with all sorts of nonsense?

        Report comment

      • Matt Moritz

        …where does it talk about fully automatic weapons…or semi auto weapons for that matter, maybe we SHOULD just allow muzzle loaders…give me a break. .2% of ALL murders last year came from so called military style weapons…regardless of high capacity mags or not. During the Assault Weapons ban that expired in 2005 was it…a description of “assault weapon” was named to prevent sale, manufacture, etc. of these rifles. Soon after, manufacturers came out with designs of firearms that conformed to this new description, one of those being a Highpoint 995. I say again…this firearm was a legal firearm produced during the assault weapons ban. Who is known for carrying one of these? Columbine murderer Eric Harris. His model was chambered for the 9mm pistol round, the same round that most police departments use in their service pistol. He didn’t have any high capacity magazines, all of his only held 10 rounds…though he DID have 13 of them. All in all he fired that weapon 96 times. One of the firearms his buddy Dylan was carrying was a TEC 9, 9mm semi auto pistol. Though he DID have “high capacity” magazines: 1-52 rd., 1-32 rd., and 1-28 rd., he only fired this weapons 56 times. So it’s now arguable that Eric Harris was more lethal with non high cap. mags than Dylan was WITH high cap. mags. They still murdered a LOT of people…yet they did not possess even ONE assault style weapon.

        Report comment

Editor's Picks