Minnesotans would find it easier to claim self-defense if they shot someone but harder to buy a pistol in the first place under dueling gun proposals before the Legislature.
While the bills have attracted little attention so far amid high-volume debates over transportation, taxes and health care, they demonstrate that long-running battles over gun control haven't ended.
Although state law already allows people to kill an intruder in their home, the self-defense bill would authorize deadly force against an intruder entering a porch, garage or occupied car.
And on a street or in a bar, there would be no duty to retreat before shooting someone believed to be threatening "substantial" harm.
The National Rifle Association is championing such changes around the country, saying they're needed to prevent innocent people from going to jail for defending themselves.
Critics assail the proposal as a solution in search of a problem.
The Minnesota version has been advanced by Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, and police chief of Lake Crystal, who said he is "sickened by the reports that I read and see on TV about homeowners beaten and shot and killed and students screaming and hiding behind desks while being shot, and their only defense being to run away."
Cornish cited no cases of people wrongly jailed in Minnesota for killing in self-defense but says it's happened elsewhere.
"People are jailed and held for days and then finally just released and not charged," he said. "We're encouraging police ... if there is any evidence at all that this person is defending himself, to not even take him in."
But Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom, president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association, says state law is adequate and he opposes the change.
"Under this proposal, a teenager who walked into an open, attached garage to steal beer out of a refrigerator could be shot and killed by the homeowner with impunity," Backstrom said.
He also criticized the provision that would allow deadly force when someone feels threatened with "substantial bodily harm," not "great bodily harm," as required under the law.
"That means if someone is threatening to punch you and you believe that punch might knock out your tooth, you can pull out a gun and shoot him," Backstrom said.
Bill will get a hearing
Cornish wanted to advance a similar measure near the end of last year's session but backed off after receiving assurances from DFLers who control the House that it would get a hearing this session.
He said the proposal has generated interest.
"Surprisingly, I think this is catching on," said Cornish, adding that some DFLers quietly support the proposal "because it's a popular constituent bill." There is a companion measure in the Senate.
Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis, confirmed that he will give the bill a hearing in the House Public Safety and Civil Justice Committee, which he chairs.
"I haven't counted votes at all, so I don't have any idea what's going to happen," he said.
Mullery opposes the bill, calling it extreme. The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association also opposes it.
"I never would have thought a DFL Legislature would give it a hearing," said Executive Director Bill Gillespie. "It's a red-hot divisive issue. ... I don't know why they want to raise it in an election year."
Current Minnesota law was sufficient to exonerate Eric Cegon, who fatally shot his girlfriend's former boyfriend in 2006 after he broke into the couple's Rockford apartment and tried to get through the barricaded bedroom door. The intruder had a loaded gun, handcuffs and leg irons with him. The shooting was ruled self-defense, and no charges were filed.
But Cornish cited a Wisconsin case involving Minneapolis firefighter Kyle Huggett, who was taken into custody after shooting an unarmed man who broke into the Danbury, Wis., house that Huggett shared with the man's ex-girlfriend. Huggett was released after being briefly jailed and has not been charged, but prosecutors are continuing their investigation.
Wisconsin is more restrictive in allowing self-defense than Minnesota.
Limiting gun shows
Other Minnesota legislators want more restrictions on guns.
They've proposed requiring people who buy pistols or assault weapons from individuals or gun shows to pass background checks, just as people must now do when buying the weapons from sporting goods stores or other federally licensed dealers. Proponents of the bipartisan legislation in the House and Senate estimate that 40 percent of sales involve buyers whose backgrounds are not checked.
The bill would ban private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. It would apply to sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet.
Pat Doyle • 651-222-1210
