EXCLUSIVE: Data Practices Request reveals MPD administration lied in attempt to infringe 2nd Amendment rights

posted Nov 16, 2013, 11:07 AM by Ronnie V   [ updated Nov 16, 2013, 7:03 PM ]
The purpose of this post is twofold:

1. (Most importantly) Expose lies told by the Minneapolis Police Dept. administration in an attempt to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of the people of Minnesota

2. Put an end to the wives’ tale that permit holders who open carry will have their firearm taken from them


EXCLUSIVE: The results of our Data Practices Request has revealed that the Minneapolis Police Dept. administration lied in order to support the anti-rights gun-grab agenda of the Minneapolis City Council and the anti-rights gun-grab agenda of the Progressive faction of Democrats in the MN legislature
(This is not directed at rank and file officers, this is directed at MPD administration)

.
BACKSTORY

This past January, in the midst of the post Sandy Hook hysteria which was used to fuel wild and specious, emotion-filled gun-grab attempts across the country, assistant Minneapolis police chief Matt Clark – at the direction of Minneapolis police chief Janee Harteau – testified before the Minneapolis City Council in support of the city council’s 2013 Legislative Agenda on Firearms (LAF). Specifically, Clark testified in support of the city council's LAF agenda item to repeal the state pre-emption provision currently included in Minnesota’s right-to-carry law (MN 624.714).

(This paragraph has been edited for clarity and to show the relationship and the likelihood of collusion between a member(s) of the legislature and city staff in promoting this gun control agenda):
The (post Sandy Hook) Minneapolis City Council Legislative Agenda on Firearms recommendations were prepared by Melissa Lesch, Intergovernmental Relations Specialist, and WIFE OF REP. JOHN LESCH (66B DFL), who was one of the MN legislators leading the gun control charge in the Minnesota legislature post Sandy Hook. 
Asst. chief Clark testified before the city council at the request of Melissa Lesch/IGR. Included in the recommendations from Melissa Lesch/IGR was full support for Obama’s extremist federal gun-grab agenda. The Legislative Agenda ultimately approved by the city council included:

--A plan to use the city’s weight to lobby the state legislature for the repeal of the state pre-emption provision currently included in Minnesota’s right-to-carry law (MN 624.714).

Meaning, the city of Minneapolis wants to be able to override state law and set its own ordinances in regard to permit holders and gun owners who live in, travel through or visit the city of Minneapolis by implementing ordinances to:

----Require concealed carry and outlaw open carry by lawful permit holders within the city limits of Minneapolis;
----Ban lawful carry from parks and public buildings within Minneapolis;
----Ban common use semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines within city limits;
----Require that permit-to-carry applications be approved by local police chiefs (returning to arbitrary “may issue” standards);
----Deny the 2nd Amendment rights of any person who has experienced a “mental health incident that required the intervention of law enforcement” or anyone who has ever been placed on a 72 hour hold;
----Add additional regulations to the transfer of firearms;
----And a number of other vaguely worded recommendations designed to allow infringement of 2nd Amendment rights

.
THE TESTIMONY

During his testimony before the committee of the whole on Jan. 24, 2013, asst. chief Clark stated that "open carry" is a "public safety risk," and specifically made statements in support of repealing pre-emption in order to implement the proposed requirement for lawful permit holders to conceal their firearms (ban open carry), by implying that permit holders get their guns taken from them all of the time.

Here are the verbatim statements made by asst. chief Matt Clark during the testimony:

----“We’ve had incidents where handgun owners have had handguns taken away from them. Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals.”

----“What we’re looking for… is that if you have a permit to carry a firearm that it [be] concealed in public. We have a lot of calls from constituents, individuals, residents, visitors that are very ‘shocked and surprised’ to see a handgun on somebody out in the open…”

.
GETTING THE FACTS

Following those statements by asst. chief Clark in January, I immediately made several attempts to contact asst. chief Clark and chief Harteau, as well as the MPD public information officer, to request the data upon which Clark’s testimony was based. In other words, I wanted the FACTS he was using to support his assertions that permit holders get their guns taken from them. After multiple attempts over several months to get the information, I NEVER received a response from Clark or Harteau, and finally filed a Data Practices Request with the city of Minneapolis to get the information on which his testimony was based.

What I requested:
Please provide me with your informational and statistical citations specific to Minnesota and/or Minneapolis (Twin Cities metro) which support [asst. chief Clark’s testimony] including dates, locations and case numbers of the incidents. And please clarify whether the “targeted” people referred to in [asst. chief Clark’s testimony] were legal permit holders and whether they were openly carrying the firearm at the time of the incident, and whether they were in public at the time it was taken.

After waiting several months, my Data Practices Request was finally fulfilled.

.
WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

The Data Practices Request revealed that NOT ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY LAWFUL PERMIT HOLDER WHO WAS LAWFULLY OPEN CARRYING A FIREARM IN PUBLIC IN MINNEAPOLIS HISTORY dating to the year 2000 HAS EVER HAD THEIR FIREARM TAKEN FROM THEM BY A CRIMINAL.

In total, the response to my Data Practices Request for the cases used as the basis for Clark’s testimony to the city council includes 15 incidents between 2000 – 2012 where a firearm was taken during a crime incident, NONE OF WHICH INCLUDE an incident where a firearm was taken from a lawful permit holder while open carrying in a public place. The 15 incidents they tried to palm off as citations for Clark’s testimony include:

--Six (6) Robbery of dwelling (that’s NOT a permit holder lawfully open carrying in public “Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals”)

--Four (4) Car-jackings (that’s NOT a permit holder lawfully open carrying in public “Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals”)

--Two (2) Business robberies where a store gun was taken (that’s NOT a permit holder lawfully open carrying in public “Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals”)

--Two (2) Random street robberies where one female had a gun in her purse, and the other, which made the news last spring, was a guy randomly attacked who had a permit but his gun was concealed in his pocket (that’s NOT a permit holder lawfully open carrying in public “Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals”)

--One (1) incident where a holstered firearm was taken from a victim IN HIS OWN YARD BY SOMEONE HE KNEW (that’s NOT a permit holder lawfully open carrying in public “Where they have lost those firearms because somebody knew they had them on their person, and they specifically took it away from those individuals”)


WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT NOW?
1. Facts matter.

2. Minneapolis will continue to be on the warpath against law abiding gun owners and permit holders and will no doubt continue to lobby the legislature for the above outlined infringements in the upcoming session.

3. I’m putting an end to unsubstantiated claims that lawful open carriers will be targeted for their guns.

.
Am I actually saying that the MPD administration willfully and knowingly lied in order to infringe on the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Minnesota? Yes.
 
The gadget spec URL could not be found
 


 

Comments