Dear "Chunkstyle",

Thank you for contacting me regarding HF 498/SF 446, which would modify
the laws governing self-defense. I appreciate your sharing your
perspective.

As I understand it, this proposal is an attempt to clarify the
circumstances under which a person may use deadly-force as a means of
self-defense. Apparently, there is a concern that law-abiding people
could be prosecuted for defending themselves against criminals. One of
the bill's authors has stated, "a person could be charged with a felony
just for defending themselves or their children in their own home."

At the same time, however, there have been several cases where
homeowners have killed or seriously injured intruders without having to
face legal consequences. For example, in 2006 a 73-year-old man --
Gerry Whaley-- shot and killed a burglar who had broken into his home.
That same year Eric Cegon shot and killed a person who broke into his
apartment. In neither case did Mr. Whaley or Mr. Cegon face criminal
prosecution for the killings because their actions were deemed to be
justifiable uses of force.

Given that current law already gives homeowners like Mr.Whaley and Mr.
Cegon the right to use deadly-force in self-defense, it will be
important to hear from the bill's author the complete rationale for the
legislation.

HF 498 is currently in the Public Safety and Civil Law Committee where
the merits and drawbacks of the legislation can be fully assessed.

I am particularly glad you contacted me to share your thoughts. Your
input is helpful to me in understanding the potential impact of this
legislation. Rest assured, if the bill does come up for
consideration,
I will listen to the debate carefully and consider all viewpoints
before
I cast my vote. I will be honest with you, at this time, I am not in
favor of the bill.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to advise
me on the issues that are of interest to you. I rely upon the calls,
letters, and e-mails I receive to help me understand the views of our
community on the matters that face our state.

Sincerely,


Frank Hornstein
State Representative (60B)

Apparently, the politicians are more worried about the welfare of the criminals than their victims.

Got a reply from Rep. Frank Hornstein:

Dear "Chunkstyle",
... At the same time, however, there have been several cases where
homeowners have killed or seriously injured intruders without having to
face legal consequences. For example, in 2006 a 73-year-old man --
Gerry Whaley-- shot and killed a burglar who had broken into his home...

Thank you so much for contacting me to share your views of SF 446, the
“shoot first” bill.

Although I respect your position, I believe that Minnesota already has
comprehensive policies that protect individuals and their families. Our
state faces significant public safety challenges and I don't believe
that this is the way to address them. I strongly oppose this
legislation.

Thanks again for taking the time to connect with me personally about
this issue.

Sincerely,

Patricia Torres Ray

ETA: You know what's funny? I just realized I didn't write to her about "castle doctrine" or "shoot first"- I wrote her about the gun transfer/registration bill. Unfnbelievable.

Thank you for responding, even though I wrote you regarding SF 2989, a bill regarding private gun sales transfers, which would result in an expensive and unnecessary gun registration scheme, not SF 446.

But, as long as you responded, I thought I might as well add my support to SF 446, a bill that protects the rights of law abiding citizens simply trying to protect themselves and their families against the criminals it seems you worry much more about.

Patricia, I also respect your position, though I believe it is wrong. I really would prefer you focus your energy on the criminals out there, instead of trying to make criminals out of those of us who have already proven otherwise.

Kindest Possible Regards,