Previous Post
Next Post


“An increase in permits indicates to me two things. One, many Minnesota gun owners are perfectly OK with undergoing a background check. A background check is required in order to get a pistol or pistol carry permit. Two, a significant number of Minnesotans believe that having a gun makes them safer, and unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances. It means we have a lot of work to do in educating the public about the hazards posed by guns.” – Heather Martens in State gun permits to carry soar, with 6,000 permit holders in a month [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Two, a significant number of Minnesotans believe that having an all powerful central government run by politicians bent on maintaining control makes them safer, and unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances. It means we have a lot of work to do in educating the public about the hazards posed by anti-gun politicians.”

    Fixed it

  2. Ha! This does not mean that gun owners are “pefrectly ok” with background checks. It means that these gun owners follow the laws, even when they are oppressive. It means that these gun owners are the least of your worries if you’re actually concerned with reducing violence.

      • This, I’d be much more comfortable with Constitutional carry.
        I only underwent the background check so as to not to lose my gun rights if I was caught carrying without a permit.

    • Spot on.

      In a similar case, if there were poll taxes, I would pay them so I could vote. However, because I pay, it does not mean that I believe it is right to have such a tax, or that it is legal constitutionally. I suffer injustice to as a means to get by, until that day that our rights are unfettered.

    • By her “logic”, Black people who obeyed the Jim Crow laws [rather than be imprisoned, beaten or murdered] were “just fine with de jure racial segregation”.

      You don’t HAVE to be stupid to be an anti-gun cultist… It’s just that I’ve never seen one who WASN’T.

    • Yeah I laughed at the “ok” part. What choi c e is given when they lock you up for carry with permission
      I get it that the super smart po-po need to know if a new armed person is allowed to be that way or not but I think it’s better to make that judgment if the person is actually doing something wrong. The way it is now merely possession of the tool means you are up to no good. Cops get credit for saving lives just because they pulled a gun off someone, someone who was “unlicensed ” and therefore up to no good.
      Maybe we need head tattoos on violent felons

  3. “It means we have a lot of work to do to get daddy Bloomberg to send us more money”, she likely tells her staff in closed door meetings.

  4. Listen to us,,, we are your leaders,,,, we know better than you,,,,, listen to the good government,,,,,, stop these individualistic thoughts,,,,,,, you are getting very sleepy……….

  5. One, many Minnesota gun owners are perfectly OK with undergoing a background check. A background check is required in order to get a pistol or pistol carry permit.

    Wrong. Just because law-abiding people willingly subject ourselves to unconstitutional and immoral infringement of our rights does not imply that we are “perfectly fine” with that infringement. It merely implies that we are long-suffering, and will go out of our way to remain law-abiding, out of a sense of general decency and a respect for the Rule of Law.

    I urge you to re-read the Declaration of Independence, and the long list of grievances articulated therein. Our founding fathers were not “perfectly fine” with the articulated abuses, prior to articulating them; rather, their willingness to endure them eventually eroded. At all times, the abuses were understood to be abuses, and were abhored as such.

    • “I urge you to re-read the Declaration of Independence”

      This do-gooder will neither read the DOI, nor understand it, nor will she ever engage in fair and honest debate and discussion of this document or the constitution.

      She is a true believer – all power rests in the collective and the rights of the individual are all but non existent.

      The problem here is that these people get elected, people vote for them.

      People do need to understand our founding principles and documents – and that is a difficult task because most people don’t want to understand such difficult things and furthermore don’t want to take the responsibility inherent in being a free people. Giving these rights over to the state is so much easier and also works – these people remain safe from being victims of crime “except in very narrow circumstances”.

      Ill informed people are much easier to control and the statist knows this and uses it well.

      This is similar to how tax withholding works, people don’t see the money and don’t have to think about it. Indeed most people think that at the end of the year they are getting free money from the state in the form of the tax refund. If people had to pay taxes out of their own bank accounts by writing a check then things would change literally overnight.

      I believe you should vote and pay taxes the same day – in the same room in fact. It’s not an accident that tax day is as far away on the calendar as it can possibly be from voting day.

  6. Minnesota carry permit holder here, got mine in November and wife just got hers a couple weeks ago. I think the person that said people that are getting permits aren’t necessarily buying guns, every weekend I go to the range/gun shop and they’re flying off the shelves, same with the big boxers like cabelas and gander mountain. And just from my personal observations of say over two/thirds of all the new purchases are by women, and I can say that since my wife got her permit several of her friends have taken the class, bought a gun and are spending plenty of time sending lead towards paper targets while they wait for their permits.

  7. I’ll grant that a gun may not make anyone more safe, but it sure as hell does put the owner in a position to save themselves or others. So back off of our right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our freedoms.

  8. A firearm in the hands of a properly trained, educated and competent individual, absolutely makes them and everyone around them safer from those bent on doing harm, her notion otherwise is pure ignorance….

  9. Well, clearly there’s a checkbox on the permit app: “I’m fine, nay delighted with this permit process.”

    Otherwise, what-it-means person would have no basis for what she said. Then, there’s all those folks applying twice, or more, just for the fun of it.

    Yeah, maybe he numbers aren’t so good.

  10. “significant number of Minnesotans believe that having a gun makes them safer, and unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances.”

    The trouble women have is transitioning hope into a belief unsupported by facts. Wrinkle cream works. You can juice your way to weight loss. Microwave meals is as good as home cooking. Pant suits make professional women respectable. Wet wipes kill 99% of bacteria. Barfing or urinating on an attacker is a winning strategy. The list is endless and always false.

    Please help me oh learned legislator, under what NARROW circumstance, a gun works against an attacker? Seems majority a of citizens defending with a gun ends well.

    • “this is not true except in very narrow circumstances.”

      A seatbelt doesn’t make you any safer except in very narrow circumstances, like a wreck……

      The statistical probability of being attacked (or hit by a meteor) may in fact be low, but the consequences for the INDIVIDUAL in that situation can really SUCK if the statists leave them no options to defend themselves.

  11. Well a fire extinguisher only makes you safer in very narrow circumstances. Seat belts only make you safer in very narrow circumstances. But when you need a fire extinguisher it’s to late to run out and buy one and when your car is crashing it’s too late to fasten your seat belt. See how that works?

    • “Narrow circumstances” are exactly what guns were designed for. Does she expect every tool to have multiple uses? Do those rubber things in her secret drawer double as flotation devices?

  12. She says, “…a significant number of Minnesotans believe that having a gun makes them safer, and unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances.”

    These people ignore that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You could also say that “having a gun doesn’t make a LEO safer, except in very narrow circumstances.” Most LEOs go through their careers and never use their guns to defend themselves. Statistically, what more LEOs do than concealed carriers is commit murders. (No offense to the majority of great LEOs out there!) So why isn’t she calling for disarming the police? Oh, ’cause their agents of the state, so that’s OK.

  13. “this is not true except in very narrow circumstances”

    Isn’t that amazing? Actually accepting the facts which are right in front of them one minute, and then directly denying the truth the next minute? That is so difficult to believe, I’m tempted to think that it is a deliberate lie. Like, what would make you think that you know better than all those thousands in your own state, all those millions nationwide? You offer no evidence, just state it as a fact? What are your qualifications, whence does your expertise come from, a lifetime of shooting in the combat sports, hunting, etc? Didn’t think so. Yet you assume we should pay attention to your ignorant blather? And you probably think you are intelligent, as well. Just amazing.

  14. Sigh. So much not listening.

    So, *those people* are “perfectly ok” (In fact, not, but let’s go.with it. – ed) with this here thing *we* want to do. No mention of what *they* want. They are good because they are putting up with what we want to impose (Fixed it a bit, there. – ed)

    But we have more to inflict on them (Fixed it some more. – ed) because they still want wrong things.

    It seems like they’re gonna fix *those people* whatever it takes. To which, more-work-person says: “Well, yeah. Why do you think I got into government?”

  15. Ms. Martens “It means we have a lot of work to do in educating” you “about the hazards posed by” not being able to defend oneself.

  16. We have a lot of work to do in educating the public about dangerous politicians who and pandering to the emotions of a few people only to stay in power.

  17. Because she’s going to protect each one of these concealed carriers her self so they don’t have to carry, and she’s going to also do it without any sort of weapons as well.

  18. “…It means we have a lot of work to do in educating the public about the hazards posed by guns..”

    I’m so glad this pompous Heather Martens is volunteering to save us from ourselves.

  19. Ah yes, Miss Martens again. This is the same woman who has caused people to laugh out loud during hearings at the Capitol because of her insane statements. This is the woman who claimed that we wanted silencers legalized so that we could kill black people without the shot spotters detecting it. She has actually been the best thing to happen to gun owners here because when she speaks, she is so batshit crazy that she makes our arguments for us…unintended consequences. Seriously, her ramblings were instrumental in getting gun mufflers legal here.
    This woman is a deranged hoplophobe.

  20. unfortunately, this is not true except in very narrow circumstances.

    Complete speculation and unsubstantiated assertions by Ms. Martens. The individual seeking a firearm knows their own personal situation and their environment more than Ms. Martens. I know it is disappointing to her that so many people are seeking firearms and likely support the second amendment – but she can get over it.

    • That face has the look of “I don’t like your attitude, citizen”. Very cold, very sinister. Kind of East German.

      She’s only passing along the gospel of Obama:

      “Turn in your guns and learn to trust the Muslims.”

  21. Ah, yes…Heather Martens, true believer. For those of you not from MN, she is the leader of the very ironically named civil disarmament group “Protect Minnesota”.
    Cut her some slack, poor thing is losing the battle and wants so badly for us all to be safe from the blood running in the streets ever since our shall issue law passed. Wait…

  22. Many of those new permits are going to nonresidents. It seems kind of silly to disarm every time I crossed the Mississippi so I took the class and paid the Winona County Sheriff $100 (cash only) for the privilege of carrying. I do have to say the once you pay the bribe to the Sheriff Minnesota is a carry friendly state.

  23. When you get right down to it, these anti-gun types are anti-individual rights. In their world, individual rights must be suborned to the collective good. The truth may be, that individuals frighten them. Individuals cannot be easily controlled, or cowed. Individuals may get together at the ballot box, and have them removed from power. Yikes!

  24. Heather Martens loses on both her comments. 1. Many gun owners are “perfectly ok” with undergoing background checks. No. A small subset of total gun owners, Permit to Carry holders, are required to submit to a background check. 2. Yes, a significant number of Minnesotans believe that having a gun makes them safer. A significant number of people believe a fire extinguisher makes them safer as well. Both are true “in very narrow circumstances.”

  25. More than one in 19 eligible Minnesota adults has a Minnesota Permit to Carry(approximately 3% of Minnesota permits are held by residents of other states). Still no blood in the street.

  26. As a Minnesotan, this gun rights battle is about the power of the cities too control the County Hicks, Sad to say, it is mostly Democrats beholding too the Democratic Party machine that are the biggest problem, they have no spine but a backbone like a dog and as straight as a dogs hind leg! Mostly City Democrats & cronies near by that push this silly shit! the county Democrats hide until vote time then they vote against the people by secret ballot! Same for the DNR leadership as they are Political appointee!s, typical party Hacks where you have unqualified people running stuff they know not what but push agenda’s to satisfy their Politico party bosses
    Also this is a war on men by the Femi Nazi’s, who who feel inadequate! so all boy things have to be Eradicated so the boys become more compliant , Just like all government units! make them dependent on us then we own them
    Molan Labe, Semper Fortes, Semper Paratus


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here