DECISION 2022
In an effort to keep you, our readers, well-informed and abreast of relevant issues, today is the 15th in a series of questions we are asking all of Steele County’s candidates for state office.
We want voters to know where each candidate stands on the issues in order to make their best decision at the ballot box.
Each week, we’ll ask the candidates a new question. They will all receive the same question, be given a word limit and a deadline of four days to answer. We’ll publish their answers the following Wednesday; responses may be edited for length.
The series will continue through Nov. 2, the last Wednesday before the Nov. 8 general election.
If a candidate doesn’t respond, we’ll note that.
This week, we’re asking about gun laws:
It’s time to talk about guns. The federal Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed in June, gives states $750 million over five years to implement or improve a range of crisis intervention programs. It’s broad: Funds could cover mental health courts, veterans courts and drug courts – but many states are considering it for red flag laws, which allow courts to temporarily seize firearms from people who pose an immediate danger to themselves or others.
The Minnesota state legislature has considered red flag laws several times in recent years – including in 2020 – but has not passed any.
Should state government accept the new aid as an incentive to enact red flag laws? What laws would you support, if any? The limit was 300 words.
We advise you to ignore the R or DFL behind each name and reflect only on the answers. You might be surprised to find more common ground than you expected. An (i) indicates the incumbent candidate, though with this spring’s redistricting, the district numbers may not align with the seat they’re seeking.
Question of the Week:
Should state government accept new federal aid as an incentive to enact red flag laws? What laws would you support, if any?
Minnesota House District 19B
Abdulahi Ali Osman – DFL, of Owatonna:
No response.
John Petersburg – R (i-24A), of Waseca:
The interesting thing about incentives is the strings that are attached to them. The possession of firearms is a guaranteed right afforded us in the U.S. Constitution and a right that should not be dismissed easily. Most red flag laws in other states that I am aware of do not have a very high threshold for removing the firearms and infringing on those rights, but then in reverse have a very stringent and overwhelming threshold when trying to get the firearms back. This seems backwards to me. I am concerned that these incentives are designed to entice state legislatures to usurp the constitution for the sake of perceived safety and expediency.
If we were to use the money/aid for this issue I believe we should use it to enforce and enhance what laws we already have. Not only to make sure restraining orders are enforced, but also to help educate about mental health warning signs.
The bottom line is that we should always protect our constitutional rights and be aware of what hidden costs/consequences incentives might hold.
Minnesota House District 23A
Peggy Bennett – R (i-27A), of Albert Lea:
Red flag laws will not solve the violence problem and they are unconstitutional. I want real fixes that will work, and that’s what I’ve been working on.
We are dealing with a broken culture where human life has little value, children are being raised many times in fatherless homes, mental illness is at an all-time high, there is a spiritual void, and violence is celebrated as entertainment. We have a multifaceted problem requiring multifaceted fixes.
First, we don’t need more gun laws. We need to start enforcing the ones we have. Our current gun laws are frequently not enforced or pled down to a lesser crime. If someone commits a crime with a gun, the penalty should be significant. Just like we’re tough on drunk driving, we should be tough on gun crime.
Second, we need to get to the source of the problem and get to it early. I have been doing some in-depth study of violence data and prevention strategies through a Minnesota research center called “The Violence Project.” This group has identified data driven strategies that work to target gun violence, violent extremism, cyber violence, trauma and mental illness, street gangs and youth violence.
I would like to see some of these data driven strategies brought before the legislature and implemented in our schools. This includes staff training in suicide prevention, crises intervention and de-escalation. It also means resourcing schools to set up Crises Intervention Teams to respond to students in crises, refer students to support and resources, and revisit to continually check in with that student.
This is going to mean targeting more state funding toward proven mental health care and substance abuse programs, but I believe these are the kinds of strategies and funding that both sides of the aisle can get behind and support.
Mary Hinnenkamp – DFL, of Albert Lea:
My husband grew up in a hunting family: geese, ducks, pheasants, deer with his dad, brother, cousins, and uncles. It was a family tradition. I grew up on a dairy farm and neither my dad nor eight older brothers were hunters. Why hunt when there was meat in the barn? Fishing at Uhlenkoltz Lake was our family tradition.
To me, outlawing a hunting rifle would be like outlawing a fishing pole; it makes no sense and I wouldn’t do it.
I am in favor of common-sense gun safety provisions. I favor red flag laws in which families can contact the police to temporarily remove guns from a person who appears to be a danger to themselves or others. In 2021, nearly 400 people committed suicide using a gun in Minnesota. This happened to my nephew several years ago, leaving a trail of sadness and loss for my family. I am also in favor of closing the gun show loophole, and enacting safe storage laws so guns are kept out of the hands of kids. We also need to raise the age requirement to buy assault rifles to 21. In the past few years, many deadly mass shootings were perpetrated by young men under 21, who lawfully purchased the assault rifles they used.
I favor accepting the Bipartisan Community Safety Act money, and I would work to fund mental health and treatment facilities for adults and youth. I spent five years teaching at the Fountain Centers Treatment Program, and I saw how staff helped teens headed for trouble turn things around. I also worked at the CAP Work Program and Hayward Group Home, programs to help struggling youth. They are all closed now, leaving our area with fewer resources. Let’s use that money and proactively help folks in this district.
Minnesota House District 23B
Patricia Mueller – R (i-27B), of Austin:
We have a constitutional right to own and carry a gun through the Second Amendment. Owning a gun is a great responsibility and no one understands that more than trained gun owners. Those who go through “permit to carry” classes are taught that owning a gun comes with responsibility and respect for human life. Individuals with this mentality are exactly who you want carrying a gun because they can offer protection during unthinkable situations as it may take time for law enforcement to arrive. Many gun control laws, like the red-flag law, simply restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens. Many people believe these gun control laws would restrict gun availability for criminals or people at risk. But criminals don’t follow laws. And legislation that labels people as “at risk” include vague definitions or undefined terms that would violate the rights of individuals who are simply trying to get help.
We need to take a close examination of mental health and drug use. After the pandemic, those who struggle with mental health have dramatically increased. We don’t need new agencies or more bureaucracy. We need legislators to target funds locally so communities can offer services for those who are struggling in a way that uniquely meets their needs. Helping those who are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol get into rehabilitation programs is vital. Currently, people who struggle with addiction and mental health are ending up in jail. What they really need is treatment. We need more flexibility for hospital bed usage and the ability to recruit more mental health workers. There are overbearing state and federal restrictions on what mental health facilities can look like and how they can operate. We need to focus efforts and funding on rehabilitation rather than create policies that restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Tom Stiehm – DFL, of Austin:
Many of the shootings of the last decade could have been prevented by red flag laws. How many times have we seen on the news that these shootings could have been stopped by police if someone had notified them of the danger?
This goes to the larger issue of mental health. If a person is talking about committing acts of violence, they should not have access to guns, and we need a way of keeping them away from guns. Radical laws such as banning certain guns will only create a class of criminals, who are otherwise good citizens. Many gun owners have told me they would not turn in their guns. These are otherwise good citizens. In the 1980s President Reagan had a war on drugs. We tripled our prison capacity but did not put a dent in drug usage.
We cannot make the same mistake with gun owners. We need tougher, enforceable gun legislation, and red flag laws are an obvious positive step, they would help protect us and our children.
Minnesota Senate District 19
Kate Falvey – DFL, of Faribault:
I am not a gun owner, nor have I ever fired one. However, I have been taught how to empty/disarm one and I know many people who have guns and are very responsible, well-trained gun owners.
I believe that the laws in Minnesota about guns are appropriate, save a couple that are missing. There is no background check requirement for private sales or gifts. I believe that this should be in place. I also believe that should a seller ignore any background check warnings, sell the gun anyway, and the user commits a crime, the penalties for the seller should be steeper.
There is also no registration requirement. I believe that all firearms should be registered with the local/municipal government or police department, and that registration should be passed on to a statewide database.
We must register our vehicles, which can also be a deadly weapon when in the wrong hands or when someone is impaired. We must take courses, hold licenses, and maintain insurance on our vehicles as well. I believe that the privilege of owning a firearm should come with the same requirements. People must know how to use and store them properly, be required to have a license to carry (which they are), and carry additional insurance for accidents or mishandling of their firearms. This may sound like a naive or simple solution, but if we were to treat ownership of these products as we treat our other “dangerous” purchases (our vehicles), maybe we will reduce accidents.
I do not understand the need to own an assault-style, fast/many-round-shooting weapon. To me, these are military-grade weapons that only the military should have possession of and use.
However, with proper training, licensure, registration, and storage, I DO understand owning a gun for hunting and protection purposes.
John Jasinksi – R (i-24), of Faribault: Did not respond.
Minnesota Senate District 23
Gene Dornink – R (i-27), of Brownsdale:
We must ensure that our rights are respected and any confiscation of an individual’s firearms is the result of due process. Red flag laws fly in the face of not only the 2nd Amendment, but our entire judicial procedure. They allow for the confiscation of firearms without due process.
Right now, 40% of felony gun crimes that mandate prison time receive none. An additional 10% receive below the mandatory minimum. Further, we already have a mechanism to remove guns from some people suffering from mental illness. The county sheriff can void an individual's permit to carry if the sheriff deems their behavior as a substantial risk to themselves or others. In cases of domestic assaults or threats of violence, they will respond and start an investigation. If the investigation deems the threat is credible, the suspect will be charged and his/her firearms will be confiscated. Instead of passing new laws, why don’t we enforce what’s on the books?
I would strongly support using the federal funds to advance alternative court systems. Expanding drug and veteran courts would alleviate the tax burden of locking up non-violent offenders while dramatically improving recidivism rates. Let’s do some good for our communities.
An additional use for the funds would be early mental health intervention. The breakdown of family units has left many youths lacking proper support, love, and parental intervention. This commonly puts them in the higher risk category of being problematic adults or of having ongoing mental health issues. These issues can be addressed in schools if they have the funding. I would support further funding school resources with these federal funds. If we can provide help in the younger years, we can prevent some of the issues we are facing with crime and violence.
Brandon Lawhead – DFL, of Austin:
Yes, Minnesota should accept the aid as incentive.
I have represented people for over 25 years in criminal, family law, and civil commitment cases. While I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, I think it’s reasonable to empower the judiciary to preserve public safety, including law enforcement. The judiciary is going to consider the statements of law enforcement officers in its decision-making process. I want our police officers, many of whom I have represented over the years as a result of work injuries in the line of duty, to come home safely.
I don’t have any problems with law-abiding Americans owning guns. And, I’m cognizant of and respect the rehabilitative effects of hunting for people. There is nothing in this question that limits the foregoing factors in making a determination for temporary seizure of firearms.
Next week’s question
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, employers in every region of the state are struggling to recruit and retain direct support professionals. DSPs are workers who provide critical support to older adults, people with disabilities, and people with mental health care needs. Although their services are essential to the health and well-being of many Minnesotans, several positions remain unfilled – and shortages are predicted to get worse over the next 10 years. The timing is especially bad: The aging of the Baby Boomer generation could fuel a 75% increase in the number of Americans aged 65 and older requiring nursing home care.
What are ways the legislature can help with this staffing shortage? There is a 250-word limit.