North Dakota Democrats Duck Questions About Gun Control

heidiheitkamp

Earlier in the legislative session North Dakota Democrats rushed to the floor of the state House to pull a couple of anti-gun control bills – a ban on “assault weapons” as well as high-capacity magazines. Basically, two laws that closely mirror the Democrat push for gun control nationally.

The move telegraphed to everyone paying attention just how little North Dakota Democrats want to emulate their national colleagues. In a legislative body that gives pretty much every bill a committee hearing and a vote – even the infamous “lady bug” bill – the Dems didn’t want to go on the record on gun control.

Nor did they want to be on the record when the Washington Post asked them, as part of an article about frequent SAB commenter Susan Beehler as a lone voice for gun control in the state, asked them why they aren’t pushing the Democrat gun control agenda in North Dakota.

Their answer? A thoroughly no committal “We’re, uh, busy and stuff.” Senator Heidi Heitkamp turned down a request for an interview on the subject:

The state Democratic Party has not taken a position on the bills, and a spokeswoman said they are not likely to champion the issue of gun control.

“From a party perspective, there is so much happening right now as far as funding milk for elementary-age kids, tax breaks for oil companies,” said Rania Batrice, a spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party. “To be completely honest, we’re very focused on that.” Heitkamp declined a request for an interview.

This response from Heitkamp and her state party is almost worse than coming out for gun control, which most North Dakotans oppose. If they were honest, and just said “yes we’re for gun control” that would at least be respectable. They’re taking a position, like it or not, and they’re being straight forward about it.

But to refuse to take a position at all, to dissemble and avoid when the subject comes up, is dishonest.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • zipity

    Why do you think she’s named “Hidey Heitkamp”….?

    She’s Redder than her hair color. But she cannot let that show.

    • two_amber_lamps

      In the course of a 6 year senatorial term I’m sure her red (ie BOLSHEVIK) roots will show. Hell, six years… give her six months.

  • camsaure

    Sounds like Hidey has absolutly no interest in defending any of our freedoms also. Her silence on all this is deafening.

  • Roy_Bean

    Haven’t you heard? If you like your insurance you can keep it, there won’t be any death panels, and they don’t want to take away any guns. Just keep voting democrat and they will pass laws so that we can see what’s in them.

  • OTA Mom

    I am confused as to why the Washington Post thought it relevant to interview Susan Beehler about anything, exactly to what position has she been elected?

    • grandma

      If fits in the liberal grand scheme of things! Obama wants to take away guns and people like Susan want 15 minutes of fame,and if it will help Obama the Post will do a story on it. Wouldn’t surprise it the turncoat Ed S. doesn’t have her on his show. It is called lets get people to drink our kool-aid

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      She’s like, the one anti-gun activist in North Dakota. So of course they were going to interview her.

    • SusanBeehler

      They called me. 1st ammendment

      • Thresherman

        Oh, I guess we didn’t realize that you are one of the select few that the 1st Amendment applies to and thus worthy of being interviewed by the Washington Post.

        • two_amber_lamps

          Yes, they wanted her to exercise her 1st Amendment Right about violating EVERYONE’S 2nd Amendment Right.

          Stupendous.

          But as mentioned, I’m sure she presented herself as the addle-brained incoherent busy-body from Mandan that she is… it’s a shame that’s the impression people will have of ND’ers around the nation.

    • Hal414

      The good news: The Washington Compost must be reading SAB.
      The bad news: Even after reading the SB ramblings, she was found fit for a Washington Compost interview. And they wonder so few people read newspapers anymore, print or online.

  • grandma

    Why do the people that vote for someone like Heidi and Obama just keep believing the crap that is shoved in our faces? Can’t people see what is happening to the United States? Heidi gets away with lying,Obama gets away with lying, Susan Rice gets away with lying, Dorgan got away with lying, Has this become the normal? God help us.

    • yy4u2

      Progressives don’t know truth. They only know feelings.

    • SusanBeehler

      What has Heidi lied about?

      • two_amber_lamps

        Being a “centrist?”

        Mitigating her Democratic Party affiliations throughout her campaign?

        Time and votes shall further bear this out.

  • whowon

    one activist pushes for gun control…poor Susie, must not get enough attention at home.

    • SusanBeehler

      I thought you knew who I was.

      • whowon

        I know who you are, constantly seeking your 15 minutes of fame, must be some reason.

        • SusanBeehler

          You call it “fame”. I call it promoting a cause, seeking change! The reason is because I believe in the First Amendment, the power of our voice, our vote. You obviously do not know me as well as you think!

          • whowon

            one person campaign without any facts, go for it Susie.

          • zipity

            Change!

            Like Guantanamo being closed now. Or Americans being blown to bits via drone with absolutely no oversight. Or millions more Americans out of jobs and on unemployment. Or staggering increases in the number of Americans on Food Stamps. Or an Administration who’s head of the EPA used a secret private email account to hide communications from the American people. Or an Ambassador left to die in Libya with no protection on the anniversary of 9/11. And then lying to the American people about the cause….

            CHANGE!

            Much more change like this and it will be the end of the country.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Don’t forget the untracked “assault rifles” sales to Mexican Nationals as dictated by a certain “ERIC HOLDER” (aka Attny General) which resulted in the death of Agent Brian Terry. An attorney general who’s a known anti-gun loon who furthered a program specifically designed to sell guns to foreign nationals (despite Mexican Anti-gun law) with the intent to foment anti-gun sentiments here in the US.

            And lets not forget the 100’s of Mexican Nationals that died as a result of Holder’s illicit gun sales…

            All in furtherance of the left’s anti-gun agenda.

            The ends justify the means… RIGHT SUZY?

            http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Brian-Terry-500×281.jpg

          • camsaure

            FOOL, How long do you think the public will have 1st ammendment rights without the second? You are not even astute enough to realize that your 1st amend rights are not stifled because you are speaking in favor of those whom wish to nullify the Constitution.

          • SusanBeehler

            How would a background check on all sales be eliminating our second amendment right? Why are requiring some background checks on some sales but not all sales? This is not about eliminating the second amendment it is about common gun sense! If you have to comply to a law why shouldn’t everyone have to follow the same law?

          • two_amber_lamps

            In a review of the 2nd Amendment, I see nothing regarding the formation of databases of gun owners or the necessity of background checks.

            If this is what you wish to have… get an Amendment to the Constitution instead of violating the document. Good luck with that.

            Thank you Comrade Suzy (useful idiot) Beehler.

          • SusanBeehler

            There is nothing not allowing it! If you don’t want a background check now just buy a gun from your momma or your neighbor.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ms. SuzyBS’er… look up the term “negative rights.” The Amendments generally state what the government CAN’T do to you. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is an alien concept to you.

            The Constitution… have you ever taken the time to read it? Especially in light of your predilection for trying to use government coercion to restrict the document mentioned?

          • camsaure

            Why not a background check then before you try to exercise your first ammendment rights??? Are you then afraid that the party in control could stifle your free speech if they might think that they might not like what you may say??? Kind of a slippery slope.

          • SusanBeehler

            We already have background checks in place for the Second Amendment we just need to be inclusive and stop excluding those 40% or more of the sales that are we have been bypassing. Would it make sense for a background check for our first amendment right? No. I am not afraid of of freedom of speech being stifled anymore than it is already. Alot of people don’t like what I say, SO! I am not afraid of a “slippery slope”. Each action is a separate action and will have a separate reaction or consequence, there is no “slipping”.

          • camsaure

            Wow! I really think you missed your calling. Maybe you should be spouting off about the failures of the ND education system. You could fit right in as their “poster child” for that failure as proven by 99% of your posts.

          • JoeMN

            You call it “fame”. I call it promoting a cause, seeking change!
            Susan

            Then why not seek change where it can be most effective ?

            When you run around, pestering private citizens over whether they can be entrusted to own firearms, did you feel scared, threatened, intimidated when those citizens informed you that in fact yes, they do own firearms ?

            How would you feel had one of those same people said no, he cant have a firearm because he got an early release for a conviction on a a class 3 felony conviction ?

            Would you feel confident this felon would follow your arbitrary gun laws to the extent the law abiding citizen would?

            The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously
            law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had
            criminal records as adults.

            And most all of the remaining ten percent are most likely cutting school, already toting an illegally obtained gun, and contemplating which gang to join

            We already know who these violent felons are.
            And the government cannot by nature regulate the illegal guns they carry.

            And we also know where they should still be.
            Or are you in the free Mumia camp ?

          • SusanBeehler

            Where?

            NO

            Nothing, except for why did they get an early release?

            Depends on how much he/she did not want to get caught or locked up again, funny thing about law-abiding you are until you are not. Those 90% state have they been convicted of a felony? Probably 90% of those killers are male too.

            Good argument for requiring background checks on all gun sales and gun sellers. We have two classes of CCW in North Dakota, because many would not qualify for the most strict, they have too many offenses to qualify, alcohol offenses. Not my words BCI’s words. Alcohol has been determined to be a good predictor of escalating to violence. Hmmm

            Give your stat on this, sounds like your opinion

            If we knew who they were than we would know when they have an illegal weapon. They are not identified with a big “F” on their forehead and in North Dakota will allow felons to get their guns again. We also allow them to get hunting licences in North Dakota. OPPS, that takes a weapon.

            Once someone commits a crime and have done their time where should they be?

            What is a free Mumia camp?

          • JoeMN

            North Dakota will allow felons to get their guns again.
            Susan

            Federal law prohibits this

            http://www.justice.gov/usao/nd/news/2012/12-03-12-Norris%20Sentenced.html

            http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/n-d-man-sentenced-for-felon-in-possession-of-gun/article_abe30296-0a67-11e2-a38e-0019bb2963f4.html

            ______

            We also allow them to get hunting licences in North Dakota.

            So you want teenage store clerks to perform criminal background checks ?

            Or the state to hold up hunters for weeks so they can arbitrarily run them through the system ?

            Can a felon use a hunting license to legally purchase or carry a gun ?

            North Dakota is a “shall issue” state for concealed carry.[1]
            The North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) shall issue a
            concealed weapon permit to a qualified applicant. The applicant must
            pass a written exam and submit an application to the local law
            enforcement agency, which conducts a local background check before
            forwarding the application to the BCI. The permit is valid for five
            years. A concealed weapon permit is required when transporting a loaded
            firearm in a vehicle. Concealed carry is not allowed in an establishment
            that sells alcoholic beverages or in a gaming site

            Once someone commits a crime and have done their time where should they be?
            Maybe we should spend less time and money harassing legal gun owners, and more keeping those violent ones behind bars that really should be there, and keeping tabs on those released.

          • SusanBeehler

            North Dakota can and does grant felons guns by petitioning the court

            http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/63-2013/documents/13-8214-01000.pdf?20130223203739

          • JoeMN

            It’s hard for me to envision a case with a hardcore gangbanger with a mile long rap sheet petitioning a court to restore his gun rights when there is most assuredly a quick and easy gun outside the legal process waiting for him somewhere.

            MN does this as well.

            The NY Slimes got their Fruit of the Looms in a bundle over this issue as well, being their usual selves…. long on conjecture, short on fact.
            http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/answers-on-felons-and-gun-rights/
            Seems to me a felon in front of a judge pleading to gain his second amendment rights back the legal way is a positive development.,
            Is there a problem here ?

          • SusanBeehler

            I have no idea what you are talking about teenagers performing back ground checks. The background check is performed through a phone call as far as I know. A felon who cannot carry a gun should not be issued a hunting licence, this is a loophole our state needs to fix. So what law enforcement is spending time “harassing” legal gun owners now. “Keeping tabs” on those released, now that would be “harassing”. Admit it, you just don’t want laws you might have to comply with because you just don’t want to. There is nothing wrong with having a background check, we do this already.

          • JoeMN

            A felon who cannot carry a gun should not be issued a hunting licence, this is a loophole our state needs to fix

            A “loophole” in the law allowing violent felons to obtain firearms ?

            Or a quirk in an already byzantine maze of local, state, and federal firearms law

            Keeping tabs” on those released, now that would be “harassing”

            Funny, you weren’t so concerned with the violent felon’s liberty a minute ago
            And you certainly have no problem harassing the legal gun owner.

            There is nothing wrong with having a background check, we do this already.
            That’s the point.
            And Chicago basically has an all out ban.

            Yet the gang bangers persist.

          • SusanBeehler

            You are not very concerned with anyone else’s liberty but your own. Bans and background checks are two different things. We do not have background checks on over 40% of the guns sold. We need to get that percentage up. A ban in one geographic spot does not work when you have all those willing to sell or bring guns into the area of ban http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html

          • JoeMN

            You are not very concerned with anyone else’s liberty but your own.

            Yet you have no qualm denying a violent felon his right to keep and bear arms.

            Which is it ?

            _____
            We do not have background checks on over 40% of the guns sold.

            While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal”background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

            According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of
            Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal
            background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

            ____

            Your map of Chicago truly demonstrates the folly gun control .

            Drugs have been made illegal everywhere in the country as well.

            Tell me Chicago has no illicit drug problem
            (Actually, Chicago loves it’s heroine)

          • camsaure

            Right, and I bet she is against drug testing welfare recipients. What a hypocrite.

  • Thresherman

    Well Democrats do the shuck and jive on this instead of being upfront and honest because it works for them and the media never calls them on it.

    Fun Fact. The person wondering how this law that they don’t like got passed, usually supported the Democrat that voted for it.

  • Dallas

    I’m not anti-gun. I have fired more rounds than anyone on this site with an M-16, M-60 and AK-47. I also hunt. But it’s embarassing to me that anyone wants to hunt with an AR-15 or needs a clip with more than 10 rounds. Background checks are a must. There’s no need for large capacity clips or assault rifles. Frankly, half the people I';ve seen at Tea Bagger events couldn’t pass a background check. Most have not served. They’re ‘Chicken Hawks’ like Dick Cheney and “W”. Love war but dont’ want do get involved…..

    • two_amber_lamps

      Thank you for your service, but what right does that give you to judge who among your fellow citizens shall exercise their 2nd Amendment right? Obviously you don’t understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with rabbit season or duck season, and everything to do with being the final check/balance against a despotic government.

      It’s a shame you claim to have spent so much time defending this nation and know so little about it’s founding principles.

      I’d also think for someone with prior service should know the difference between a clip and a magazine. And as for your comment re: the need for “assault rifles” then you must also want ALL semi-automatic rifles banned since there is NO operative difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 except for a collapsible stock, a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, rails and perhaps a bayonet lug (you know, to facilitate those drive-by bayonetings). I’d think someone of your “claimed” expertise would see cosmetics for what they are.

      What makes you think I can’t hunt deer with an AR-15? I have one chambered in a .300 Blackout, which has more knockdown and flatter trajectory than an AK-47 round in many comparable loads. It’s like hunting with a .30/30. Assuming one uses expanding tips, and use a magazine that conforms to law (I have 5 round AR mags) there is NO difference between hunting with my AR platform and a wood-stock rifle most people carry. It’s great when used in the environment it was designed for and the ergonomics are superior to most any “hunting rifle” out there… especially considering I’ve trained for 20+ years with AR platforms.

      What about an AR-10? I’d put a well built/scoped AR-10 against most any semi-auto hunting rifle and against many bolt-actions. A .308 is a .308 is a .308.

      Sorry Charlie… if you can’t see past the parkerized finish and accessory furniture on a rifle, you’ve impeached your own credibility…

      • Matthew Hawkins

        There is no standing Army authorized in the US Constitution.

        The only purpose of the second amendment is the ability to raise an army. Whether it is against an invading army or our own government is immaterial.

        The founding fathers did not want a standing army but the saw the necessity of raising one.

        We have come a long way from when we felt a standing army was not useful.

        • two_amber_lamps

          The only purpose of the second amendment is the ability to raise an army.

          Oh, I see… you’re one of those “inflection, pauses, and commas” interpreters of the the Constitution.

          Glad the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            If by “inflection, pauses, and commas” interpreters of the Constitution you mean I actually pay attention to what it says, than i am fine with it.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh, before you were happy to use the SCOTUS as a foundation for your argument but now they’re just a bunch of illiterate morons as compared to thee who “pays attention to what it (the Constitution) says?”

            Do try to be consistent Comrade Matthew, do try!

        • camsaure

          Once again, we have now been informed by a child, what the children thin. Still pretending to be a lawyer, huh Matty?

        • JoeMN

          If this is truly your interpretation of the second amendment, and you are still in possession of a firearm, you would do well to act now and rush in to exchange it at your local government gun buyback program for that bean burrito and .35 cents off coupon for a car wash before your future totalitarian masters start confiscating

    • JoeMN

      There’s no need for large capacity clips or assault rifles.

      Dallas

      Today’s tactics of mainstream leftists, all the way up to, and including the office of the presidency is to work feverishly to denigrate and dehumanize their political opponents using “familiar” tactics of race, and class war

      But then again the Second amendment is not about the right to hunt

      We need those things in the event of plan “B”

      http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

    • Hal801

      I’m surprised that with all your experience with M-16’s, M-60’s and AK-47’s, you don’t even know that none of them use “clips”. I’m not buying it.

Top