The hapless mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, says it’s time to act. From The Hill newspaper,
Minneapolis ‘united in grief,’ will be ‘united in action,’ mayor says.
The grief, of course, is a reference to yesterday’s horrific Catholic school/church shooting in Minneapolis. But the action?
Frey said early Thursday that people with “severe” mental health issues should not be able to have access to guns.
Let’s back up. The perpetrator of yesterday’s attack has been identified as 23-year-old Robin Westman (formerly Robert), a man identifying as a female.
The Hill writes,
FBI Director Kash Patel said Wednesday that Westman identified as transgender and that the bureau is probing the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics.
Presumably, Mayor Frey is referring to Westman’s murderous rage and not Westman’s gender identity.
But Minnesota is already recognized as having “red flag” laws on the books for this very purpose.
Is the Mayor suggesting that the law should have been used in this instance? What does the Mayor want?
This is about guns. We do need to take action, there are other countries around the world, where horrific acts have taken place like this; and then they step up to make a change, so in fact it does not happen again,” the mayor said.
I’m treading carefully here. Ban all guns? Ban all guns for the “severely” mentally ill? Ban all guns for the transgendered?
Minnesota prides itself on being a transgender sanctuary state. Minnesota also prides itself on the ever-increasing use of its red flag anti-gun law.
What happens when one conflicts with the other? Say, purely hypothetically, a red flag action was filed in court against a dangerous, severely mentally ill individual who just happened to be, unrelated and coincidentally, a person who identified as transgendered.
What happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object?
