Most Minnesotans would like better gun control laws. Most.

A Minnesota Democrat, Linda Slocum, has proposed some sensible gun control regulations for the state.

Slocum’s bill would expand the definition of assault weapons and ban those weapons, prohibit many private gun sales, outline felony charges for possession of bump stocks, silencers and high-capacity magazines, restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers, and outlaw gun ownership for individuals who fail to pay court-ordered child support.

Those restrictions sound reasonable. Heck, they sound excellent, and I’d vote for Slocum if she were my representative. However, you can guess what happened next.

Thousands of angry emails have poured into the office of state Rep. Linda Slocum (D-Richfield) since she introduced the proposed restrictions, but one of those stood out, reported KMSP-TV.

“He threatened to kill me,” Slocum told the TV station. “(He said,) I have my gun, and I’m ready to come and get you — and it was very threatening.”

Other messages compared her to Hitler, called her a whale or included lewd comments and profanity, but Slocum said she would seek charges if that man called again.

One of Slocum’s aides received what he described as a threatening call while working late on Feb. 26, but state police investigated and decided not to press charges, reported the Pioneer Press.

“He said, ‘You better hide because I have my gun and I know where you are,’” said legislative assistant Adrian Benjamin, who reported the threat to capitol police — which then passed on the report to the Minnesota State Patrol.

And there you have it. That’s one of the reasons it’s so hard to get rational gun laws in this country — because so many of the gun-fondlers are irrational, violent lunatics, and they are armed.


  1. woozy says

    How dare you pass laws that inconvenience me because you think I’m dangerous. Just for that I’m going to kill you.

  2. drdale says

    Why would the state police decide not to press charges when the person had threatened representative Slocum?

  3. blf says

    Why would the state police decide not to press charges when the person had threatened representative Slocum?

    Death threat allegedly called in to office of MN lawmaker who sponsored gun-control bill (Pioneer Press edits in {curly braces}):

    The report noted the trooper had no way to verify the alleged threat, as it was not recorded.

    “I explained to (the man) that he was only talking to a legislative assistant and even though he felt strongly about the bill brought by Rep. Slocum that he should refrain from profanity and call his own State Representative,” concluded the report, which was closed.

    The Pioneer Press contacted the man at home; he said he left the voicemail message at Slocum’s office, but denied talking to [the legislative assistant to Linda Slocum, Adrian] Benjamin — or threatening him.

    Never once would I ever threaten anybody. Never in my life would I ever threaten anybody with a firearm. That’s what I told the officer, said the man, whom the Pioneer Press is not identifying because he has not been charged and is not a public figure. I never talked to anybody live. I only called once.

    But Benjamin said, “I’m absolutely sure it was him because the same number came up on my phone, both times. {…} The Trooper said he would basically scare the man to let him know he can’t do this. And if he (the man) ever did this again, to let him know.”

    A they-said vs. they-said situation, apparently. No conclusive evidence what was said in the first, unrecorded, call, which is when the threat was allegedly made.

  4. antigone10 says

    Most Minnesotans who live in the country do not support gun control laws. Most Minnesotans who live in the city do. The phrase “most Minnesotans” is correct, but only by dint of the fact that most Minnesotans live in the city.

    I often think that the best compromise we can do for right now would be to have different rules for the city, but the Republican-control House has passed the law saying we can’t have separate laws, so now it has to be no one or everyone.

    I’d like to add a rider that says if someone threatens suicide, they aren’t allowed to have firearms in their house. But that’s me.

  5. says

    Why would the state police decide not to press charges when the person had threatened representative Slocum?

    In a way I admire your innocence.

    She’s a woman.
    She’s a Democrat.
    They don’t like the policies she proposed.

    Take your pick.

    There is also the possibility the “I am ready to come and get you” is different enough from “I am going to come and get you” to make a difference. A lot of threats are made with careful enough language to terrify the victim but not be of a clear and present danger.

    Also, if the police acted on every death threat made by white people they wouldn’t have enough time to over police people of colour.

  6. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Antigone10, many people, like my step-father, who grew up on a farm and have a background in hunting and was even a NRA member for while, want nothing to do with present NRA attitude of any gun, any where, any time, and gun safety can go to hell. He definitely thinks attack rifles should be banned, as they have no legitimate purpose for actual hunting of non-people. He also believes anybody who doesn’t handle their guns safely, and with concern for those around them AT ALL TIMES, aren’t responsible gun owners and should have their weapons confiscated.

  7. davidnangle says

    It would be nice if we could pool our money, somehow, to set up and maintain some sort of force of people dedicated to enforcing the law and protecting the population. Such a group of people would have to be good, fair people, worthy of respect.

    We’ll probably have to get rid of all these cops first, though. Nothing but trouble.

  8. evilrooster says

    Law-abiding gun owners, the refrain goes.

    Until they don’t like the laws, I guess…

  9. Usernames! 🦑 says

    Need to add “making terroristic threats” and/or “making threats of bodily harm” to the criteria for losing gun totin’ privilege.

  10. says

    Forget about taking their guns away if they threaten to shoot you. Don’t bother with charging them. Just take a leaf out of their playbook and send a SWAT team to shoot them. Live by the AR15 then die by the AR15.

  11. says


    I have begun to wonder if the push for ideas like background checks, instead of something more immediate and direct, like a psych evaluation of anyone trying to buy a gun, and even allowing the argument to end up being, “Ban this specific gun/type.”, isn’t part of NRA strategy. Why? Because the former background checks are worthless as long as a) loopholes exist, and b) the person buying their first, or even more, guns has never *acted on* their crazy, but.. that they haven’t been violent doesn’t mean they are not capable of it, or unhinged in some way. Second, as long as “banning” is the go to option when dealing with any sort of large scale crime, they can legitimately scream, “2nd Amendment! They Are trying to take our guns!”

    Seems to me, applying the “well regulated” rule would also mean, “Not allowed if you are a section 8.”, right, so.. we need to do, universally, what California, or better yet Japan, does – at minimum find out if there is a legit reason, of any kind, for someone to be wandering around with a gun, and not allow it if there isn’t one. But, better yet, make sure the person can pass a bloody psych test (which I suspect would kill the hopes of half of the current NRA, and most of its leadership). Then, we hold everyone, including cops (who don’t seem to be required to even shoot straight) to Quantico standards – successful safety and fire tests, every three months, mandatory, else your permit and gun are taken, in which you also have to hit the target zone with every shot, not just a few of them, or occasionally (which given how my brother says some cops he has seen shoot at ranges do things, seems to be the rule for them. Do we even “have” one for gun owners, I mean, other than “when I apply for a permit”?)

    Maybe the narrative shouldn’t be “gun control”, but “gun owner control”?