Readers Write: Supreme Court gun cases, Lino Lakes development, underage drinking, police contract

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I hesitate to write this letter because I firmly believe that domestic abusers should not be allowed to have firearms. However, I think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was right in his dissent of the court’s decision upholding the law disarming respondents in domestic abuse restraining order cases (”Gun law to disarm abusers is upheld,” June 22).

In his dissent, Thomas states, “The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime.”

Domestic abuse restraining orders are heard in civil court, not criminal court. As such, the level of proof in this civil proceeding is “a fair preponderance of the evidence.” This means that, if the case goes to trial, for the court to issue the restraining order, it must find that the allegations are more likely true than untrue. In criminal court, the level of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It seems to me that a “preponderance of the evidence” is a very low threshold to take away a person’s constitutional right.

Not only that, sometimes the respondent in a restraining order hearing denies the allegations but agrees that the order can issue. In this case, the court simply issues the order without making any findings as to whether the allegations are true. This is an extremely low bar to take away a constitutional right.

It should be a big deal to take away someone’s constitutional right. When someone is found guilty of domestic abuse in criminal court, take away his guns. Not in civil court.

•••

I read the editorial reprinted from the Chicago Tribune on bump stocks and found two inaccuracies in the first seven lines (”Bump stocks: A favor, please, Mr. Trump,” June 22). Bump stocks do not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun, as the editorial suggests. Granted, they allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire more quickly. But that does not describe a machine gun according to the National Firearms Act of 1934. It is also not illegal for citizens to own machine guns. The same National Firearms Act lays out the procedure for any citizen who passes the qualification requirements and pays the fee to own a machine gun.

Steven Dummer, Chaska

I truly believe Lino Lakes citizens are not saying “no” to anything (”Muslim-friendly land plans draw fierce local debate,” June 25). The planned mosque and its future citizens are not the problem. We are saying that before building anything, we need a better plan for the development. Move the mosque to an appropriate place on the plan for easier access without anyone having to have so many cars driving or parking in front of their homes. Put in many more parking spaces for the mosque and event center. Lot sizes should be at least up to the city code, and add some larger lots for people to enjoy their homes, even if it means two lots together without having to pay for two lots.

We moved here because of the room for our family.

I am for the moratorium so this development is done correctly this time. Is this too much to ask?

I would also like people who don’t live in Lino Lakes to stop commenting on what our city is or why the citizens are asking questions. If they do not have this in their backyard, they shouldn’t have a say in what Lino Lakes does.

Lori Jungbauer, Lino Lakes

The article in the June 24 Star Tribune, “It’s Mpls. vs. frats in AstroTurf war” referenced “outdoor drinking games,” “beer-soaked sod,” an “orphaned beer can” and an “unattended keg.” Yet the article was about hand-wringing over fake grass?

The last I looked, it is still illegal to sell, furnish or give alcohol to a person under age 21 in the state of Minnesota (Minnesota Statute 340A.503). Most students don’t hit that mark until they are in their junior year of college, but I suspect younger students live in the frats as well. The University of Minnesota requires all new students to take an online workshop about alcohol use. They offer a one-credit class called “Alcohol & College Life” (PUBH 1003). They continually support physical and mental well-being and spend a great deal of time and money on those initiatives. Yet they apparently turn a completely blind eye to illegal activities surrounding alcohol. Do we really need a tragedy to occur for the U to step up and address this transparently?

As soon as June 27, the Minneapolis City Council may be asked to approve a collective bargaining agreement with the Police Officers’ Federation for the period from January 2023 through December 2025. There are very good reasons for the council to approve this agreement even though it is not perfect.

The changes proposed in this new agreement focus on accountability and increased transparency. The contract would: give the police chief greater flexibility to assign staff, allow the department to hire civilian investigators and raise pay to encourage retention and recruiting. It would also keep discipline apart from the contract and make it possible for the public to remain anonymous when requesting personnel data in public records.

Some may feel that the pay raise is unwarranted and a “reward” for past poor performance, but instead it should be viewed as a way to hire, retain and promote the best, as well as to position the city for future improvements. Changing any organization’s culture is difficult and takes time. While this contract is far from fully comprehensive of the changes that are needed, it is a big step in the right direction and allows the city, the Police Department and their leaders to begin to implement appropriate policies and practices.

Respected community organizations have studied and tracked the issues addressed in the contract over several years have announced their support for its approval. I hope the City Council will join them.

Patricia Kovel-Jarboe, Minneapolis